Report to the Secretary of State for Transport by Andrew Pykett BSc(Hons) PhD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport

Date: 30 January 2013

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPLICATION FOR:

THE ORDER 201[]

AND

A DIRECTION FOR DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION

Date of Inquiry: 9-11 and 16-18 October 2012

Ref: TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CASE DETAILS ...... 1

1 PREAMBLE...... 1

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS ...... 3

3 THE CASE FOR COUNTY COUNCIL...... 5

4 THE CASES OF THE SUPPORTERS ...... 17

5 THE CASES OF THE OBJECTORS...... 18

6 THE CASES OF THE REPRESENTORS ...... 29

7 REBUTTAL BY HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ...... 30

8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 36

9 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57

APPENDIX A APPEARANCES

APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

APPENDIX C CORE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX D ALL REPRESENTORS

APPENDIX E WITHDRAWN REPRESENTORS

APPENDIX F DRAFT CONDITIONS

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

CASE DETAILS

 The Order would be made under Sections 1, 3 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, and is known as The Croxley Rail Link Order 201[X] (the Order).  The direction for deemed planning permission would be granted under Section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and would be treated as specific planning permission for the purposes of Section 264(3)(a) of that Act.  The draft Order was published on 22 December 2011, and there were 55 objections outstanding to it at the commencement of the local inquiry.  The Order would authorise Hertfordshire County Council (the Council) to construct and operate a rail link extending the Limited (LUL) from Croxley to Junction via Watford High Street Station. The Order would authorise the acquisition and use of land for the purposes of the works and confers powers in connection with the construction and operation of the railway. The application is jointly promoted by the Council and LUL (the promoters), and it includes a direction as to deemed planning permission for the development.

Summary of Recommendations: That the Order is made with modifications, and that deemed planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

1 PREAMBLE

1.1 I have been appointed under Section 11 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 to hold a public inquiry into the draft Order and to report to the Secretary of State for Transport. A pre-inquiry meeting was held on 11 July 2012 (INSP/1), and the inquiry was held at Watford Football Club, , Watford on 9-11 and 16-18 October 2012.

1.2 I made a formal site visit to the principal sites which would be affected by the proposals on 18 October 2012 accompanied by representatives of both the promoters and the objectors to the scheme. I made a number of other unaccompanied visits to relevant sites during the inquiry.

1.3 There are 12 supporters of the scheme, and 9 who are classified as having made representations. They are recorded on the list of all representations received (Appendix D).

1.4 In response to the application for the draft Order there were 55 objections made, together with 11 letters of support, and a further 8 making representations. Further representations were received before and during the inquiry. By the time the inquiry closed the number of objectors was 64,

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

with a total of 10 having been withdrawn (Appendices D and E).

1.5 The main grounds of the outstanding objections are focussed on the proposed closure to passengers of Watford station1 and its effect on pedestrians and traffic; the appearance and impact of the proposed viaduct at the western end of the link; the environmental effect of the scheme especially in relation to noise; and the effects on businesses and residential amenity of the compulsory acquisition of land for the construction and operation of the proposed viaduct.

1.6 On 6 June 2012 the Secretary of State issued a Statement of Matters recording those issues about which she particularly wished to be informed for the purposes of her consideration of the Order. A copy of the Statement is attached as APP 35 in the Core Documents (Appendix C).

1.7 The inquiry was conducted under the Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004. No objection was made in relation to any legal or procedural requirements in respect of either the above Rules or the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) ( and Wales) Rules 2006.

1.8 The application for the Order was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). It comprises Volume 1: Written Statement; Volume 2: Figures; and Volume 3: 18 Appendices. A Non-Technical Summary formed part of the ES (APP 4-10 in Appendix C).

1.9 Before the closure of the inquiry the promoters submitted a filled up version of the Order (Document APP 2 2.2.2 in Appendix C). It is in this form that the promoters request the Order should be made. The changes proposed to the Order have been made to respond to points made by the parties. They include changes resulting from an agreement between the promoters and Council, concerning the acquisition of compulsory purchase powers over the public open space at Watford Road, Croxley and proposed exchange land at Croxley Hall Wood, Lavrock Lane, Croxley. As a result, the application for an exchange land certificate in relation to the latter land is no longer required and has been withdrawn.

1.10 The remaining sections of the report contain a brief description of the area, the gist of the cases presented, and my conclusions and recommendations. Appendices to the report list those who appeared at the inquiry, the documents submitted before and during the inquiry, a list of those who have made representations, those objections which have been withdrawn, and a list of conditions which I would recommend should be imposed on any deemed planning permission.

1 The station is popularly known as Watford Met station, in order to distinguish it from Watford Junction and Watford High Street stations. In the interests of clarity I refer to Watford Met station in the rest of the report.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 To the north-west of the station at Moor Park the Metropolitan Line extends to Amersham, Chesham and Watford. The Watford branch includes two stations – Croxley and Watford Met, where the line terminates. The central area of Watford lies to the east of Watford Met station. It is also served by Watford High Street station (on the existing overground Euston to Watford Junction DC (direct current) line), and by Watford Junction station itself. Watford Junction also lies on the between Euston, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. It also accommodates the branch linking Watford to (St Albans Abbey station).

2.2 Until 1996 there had been a branch line ( Branch) linking Watford Junction and Watford High Street to the south-western parts of Watford, via a station at Tolpits Lane, to the former Croxley Green station where the line terminated.

2.3 The scheme proposes the creation of a link between the existing Metropolitan Line and the disused rail corridor of the former Croxley Green Branch around the south side of south-west Watford. Metropolitan Line trains would then run via Croxley station to Watford High Street and Watford Junction stations. Two new stations would be built along the route – Ascot Road station and Watford Hospital station (on Vicarage Road). The scheme involves the closure of Watford Met station to passengers, but the line itself would be retained for the stabling of trains. The platforms at Watford High Street and Watford Junction stations would need to be extended to cater for longer underground trains. The total length of the new link from the existing Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction station would be 4.8 km.

2.4 The route of the proposed link passes through a heavily developed and intensively used part of Watford. In the west the line would depart from the existing route to the north-west of the Watford Road/Baldwins Lane roundabout. The existing line is on a high embankment and the area is characterised by mixed commercial and residential uses. The line would then pass over a substantial new viaduct bridging Baldwins Lane, Watford Road (part of the A412), the , the , the new Ascot Road and the old Ascot Road. Land in the vicinity of the canal and river lies within the area of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The new Ascot Road provides access to the extensive Croxley and Watford Business Parks, while the old Ascot Road provides access to a hotel and residential uses together with a number of warehouses. The proposed Ascot Road station and car park would be built on land between the new and old Ascot Roads, with the platforms extending to the east.

2.5 The route of the line would thereafter follow that of the disused Croxley Green Branch until it would join the existing overground line to the south- west of Watford High Street station. Between the old Ascot Road and Vicarage Road the route passes through largely residential areas to the north and mixed residential and playing fields to the south. Close to Vicarage Road there are more playing fields (Harwoods Recreation Ground)

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

to the north and allotments (Holywell Allotments) to the south. Watford Hospital station would be built along the route of the former line with access onto Vicarage Road. The Watford General Hospital occupies an extensive site to the north-east of the proposed station site, with Vicarage Road Stadium (the home of Watford Football Club) on an adjoining site further along Vicarage Road.

2.6 To the east of Vicarage Road the route passes Laurance Haines Primary School to the north and relatively recent residential development to the south. Thereafter the route passes on an embankment through an unkempt area in the valley of the River Colne. To the north lies the Cardiff Road Industrial Estate, although much of the land appears to be unused or under-used and subject to flooding. These uses subsequently give way to residential development along the south-east side of Cardiff Road. The route of the line then passes under Wiggenhall Road before it joins the overground line to the rear of Neal Street. Watford High Street station lies in a relatively deep cutting just outside the south-eastern extent of the central area – as defined by the ring road. The route thereafter bends round to the north-west passing behind residential development in Gladstone Road with Waterfields Recreation Ground to the east. This open space subsequently gives way to residential development in Shaftesbury Road as the line gets closer to the West Coast Main Line and Watford Junction station.

2.7 The area bounded by the town centre to the north-east, Road (A412) to the north-west, and the route of the former Croxley Green Branch line to the south-east and south-west effectively defines West Watford. The area is characterised by a high concentration of nineteenth century terraced housing served by a comprehensive network of narrow residential streets. The area to the south-west (Holywell) also falls within Watford, but it is characterised by rather lower density twentieth century housing.

2.8 Figure 12.1 in Volume 2 of the ES provides a useful plan of the townscape character of the route through which the link would pass. The Local Character Zones (LCZs) referred to in the plan are described at Chapter 12 of Volume 1. The area of the proposed viaduct falls within LCZ 3 (Watford Gateway West); the nineteenth century residential area of West Watford falls within LCZ 6 – including the locations at Cardiff Road and Neal Street; Holywell is defined as LCZ 5; while the hospital and football stadium both fall within LCZ 8 (The River Colne). The area surrounding the existing Watford Met station is LCZ 7. Individual photographs which record the character and appearance of the various zones are included in Appendix 12B in Volume 3 of the ES.

2.9 The scheme would entail the use of a number of temporary compounds and work sites. These are shown on Figure 6.6F of Volume 2 (with larger scale plans at Figures 6.6A-E). Most of the sites would be concentrated around the area of the proposed viaduct.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

3 THE CASE FOR HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

The material points are:

Background

3.1 The proposed Croxley Rail Link (CRL) has been under consideration for many years, including a number of different alignments and alternative options. South West Hertfordshire is a large urbanised area comprising Watford, and Rickmansworth with a total population of just over 150,000 in 2001. It is considered that the population will have grown by just over 13% in the last decade. The former engineering and printing industries which characterised Watford have now been replaced by commercial and retail development, and, as a regional shopping centre, it now competes with Brent Cross and Milton Keynes, amongst others.

3.2 It is considered there are two aspects of the regeneration benefits of the proposal. First, the link would provide increased opportunities for journeys into and out of the relatively deprived parts of Watford which would be served by the line. These areas are characterised by relatively high rates of deprivation and low rates of car ownership. Secondly, there are a number of sites along the route of the line which would benefit from the establishment of the link. Attention is drawn in particular in this context to Watford General Hospital and to the Watford Health Campus. This area adjoins the hospital to the south-east and outline planning permission has been granted for further development seeking to make the most of proximity to the hospital. The plans include residential, business, office, research and leisure uses.

3.3 In addition to its regeneration benefits, the link would assist in addressing the impact of vehicular traffic on Watford’s roads. The town is skirted by the M25, the A41 and the M1, and residential streets are often over capacity. In addition, the line would provide a link between the residential communities in the western part of the town and the principal core business, leisure and employment opportunities focussed towards its more central and eastern parts.

3.4 The scheme therefore has three primary aims: to enhance sustainable links both within Watford and across Hertfordshire, including links to London, by reinforcing Watford’s role as a key transport hub; to improve local connectivity; and to provide a sustainable and value-for-money alternative to car travel with inherently lower environmental impacts per trip.

Transport Case

3.5 The current Metropolitan Line terminus is some distance from the town centre. The scheme would involve the closure of this station to passengers, but two new stations would be constructed – Ascot Road and Watford Hospital. Taking account of Watford High Street and Watford Junction stations there would thus be a net increase of over 14,000 in the numbers

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

of people within 800m of a Metropolitan Line station.

3.6 It is forecast that there would be a net increase in Metropolitan Line annual trips of 730,000 by 2016, of which around 20% would have previously been made by car; 30% would have previously been made by bus, and 50% from passengers previously using other rail services. It is recognised that the implementation of the scheme would result in changes to highway traffic flows. Increases would be experienced at Gade Avenue and Tolpits Lane, with more modest increases on 20 other sections. There would be decreases however on 76 sections with modest reductions in queuing at the Rickmansworth Road/Ascot Road and the Ascot Road/Whippendell Road roundabouts. The overall net impact on the highway network is assessed as a modest benefit.

3.7 The Council recognises the extent of walking in the current use of Watford Met station. It is anticipated this would continue, and the Council is committed to funding reasonable measures so that routes to the new stations would be safe and secure. Overall, the scheme is assessed as having a net beneficial impact on pedestrian users.

3.8 An analysis has been undertaken of the impact of the scheme in relation to those passengers who currently use Watford Met station. The work included significant revisions to the extent to which the station was used by pupils attending Watford Boys Grammar School. The school is located close to the station and the numbers affected had initially been under-estimated. The exercise indicates that a little over half the existing total passenger numbers would experience some disbenefit, with an average increase in their journey time of 5.6 minutes. Rather fewer passengers would benefit from the scheme with an average time saving of 7.5 minutes. Taking both into account, the average impact per existing Watford resident passenger would be a gain of around 50 seconds. There would in addition be a much larger number of people who do not currently use Watford Met station, but who would benefit from the link and its new stations.

3.9 The combined effects of the construction of the link and the closure of Watford Met station on passengers currently using this station for key destinations would be as follows:

Watford Boys Grammar School (22% of trips) 6 minute increase

Watford Town Centre (14% of trips) 19 minute saving

Around Park (10% of trips) 14 minute increase

Watford General Hospital (5% of trips) 10 minute saving

West Hertfordshire College (2% of trips) 4 minute saving

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Watford Girls Grammar School (1% of trips) 17 minute saving

All other destinations (46% of trips) 5 minute average saving

3.10 The scheme has been subjected to an economic appraisal in accordance with advice issued by the Department for Transport (DfT). It has a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 2.61, and the project therefore falls within the range specified as being of high value-for-money (above a BCR of 2). It meets the terms and conditions specified in the DfT’s funding approval letter dated 22 December 2011.

3.11 The possibility of both completing the link and leaving the existing Watford Met station open has been considered. This would entail a split between the two lines. On the basis of an even split (of 3 trains per hour (tph) per line) the BCR for the scheme would be 1.43 – below the level which would be considered for funding by the DfT. An unequal split has also been considered (with 4 tph going to Watford Junction and 2 tph going to Watford Met). The BCR on this option would be 1.68. For operational reasons further down the Metropolitan Line, trains would have to leave Watford Junction at uneven intervals of 10 and 20 minutes. This would make the service less attractive than the preferred scheme.

Operational Matters

3.12 LUL has long supported the principle of the CRL and it is jointly promoting the scheme with the Council. There is a low level of demand outside the peaks at the existing Watford Met station. The retention of the service for passengers here could only be achieved at the expense of the proposed service from Watford Junction, and the case for purchasing more than one new train as part of the CRL proposal is weak. It would not offer good value-for-money. The planned service is for 6 tph – it is the best service which could be provided and it means that passengers would never have to wait more than 10 minutes for a train.

3.13 With a 6 tph service at Watford Junction it would be necessary that 4 tph would have to reverse elsewhere on the line at a closer location to its trunk section. This would be in order both to maintain the capacity on the busiest sections of the line, and avoid the need for a further additional train. The reversing location is currently under consideration, and Rickmansworth is the favoured option. The possibility of reversing at Watford Met has been considered, but this would have to be achieved in only 6 to 6½ minutes. This could result in around 30% of trains leaving Watford Junction and Watford Met stations being late. In such circumstances there would be a ‘knock-on’ effect on the Hammersmith & City Line, the Circle Line, the and the , and on Chiltern Railways services. With the closure of Watford Met station, reversing at Watford Junction and Rickmansworth could be achieved in approximately 8-9 minutes, so reducing the risk of late southbound departures.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

3.14 As part of its consideration of the proposed closure of Watford Met station, London TravelWatch has suggested that consideration should be given to a split service with Watford Junction using the new link. However, this would be no more than a token service with increased passenger waiting times. Its benefits for the peak time users of Watford Met would be outweighed by the disbenefits to existing and potentially new passengers who live nearer to a CRL station.

3.15 The possibility of a shuttle between Watford Met station and Croxley station has been considered, but it would necessitate the construction of a bay platform involving land acquisition and reducing the size of the car park. It would not be attractive to users.

3.16 The prospect of a service between Amersham/Chesham and Watford Met station has also been considered. This would save 9-10 minutes in comparison with the need to change at Moor Park. However, fewer than 500 passengers per weekday would benefit from such a change and this would be insufficient to make a business case strong enough to justify the option. This option has therefore also been discounted.

Details of the proposed Croxley Rail Link

3.17 The western end of the proposed CRL would be achieved by widening the south-east embankment slope of the existing Metropolitan Line to the west of Baldwins Lane. Thereafter, the dual track line would require the construction of a 9 span curving viaduct crossing Baldwins Lane, an industrial storage compound at Cinnamond House, the A412 Watford Road (dual carriageway), the Watford Road Playground, the Grand Union Canal, Beggars Bush Lane and the River Gade.

3.18 The alignment of the planned viaduct is determined by: the minimum allowable radius to comply with LUL standards; the need to tie in with both the existing line to the west and the disused route of the former Croxley Green Branch line; the need to locate piers at appropriate locations, especially taking account of the road carriageways, the canal and the river; the need to maintain minimum clearances over the A412; and the desire to avoid the demolition of any buildings.

3.19 The viaduct would be a continuous structure with a steel/concrete composite deck and steel/concrete composite cantilevers. The straight steel sections comprising the individual spans would be concealed behind the smooth, curved alignment of the concrete casing. The viaduct would terminate on the eastern bank of the River Gade, leading to a 3 span bridge crossing the new Ascot Road (dual carriageway) and the old Ascot Road. The old lattice bridge over Ascot Road would need to be demolished to make way for the new structure.

3.20 The proposed Ascot Road station would be sited between the dual carriageway and the old Ascot Road. It would be a steel and concrete construction incorporating stairs and lifts, with the platforms extending to

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

the east. The alignment of the reinstated railway thereafter follows the route of the disused Croxley Green Branch. At some locations existing cutting slopes would need to be re-profiled and sheet piling retaining walls would need to be introduced. Minor works of repair or widening would be necessary to existing bridges, and the existing railway infrastructure (including ballast) would need removal and replacement. The platforms at the existing Watford West station and at Watford Stadium Halt would be demolished. A new electricity sub-station would be built at Tolpits Lane.

3.21 A new station – Watford Hospital – would be built at Vicarage Road. Here, the railway is in a cutting and stairs and lifts would be required to convey passengers down from road level to the platforms. The platforms would extend to the west from Vicarage Road. Alternative emergency means of escape would be provided via Holm Oak Park Estate to the north and Pioneer Way to the south.

3.22 To the east of Wiggenhall Road the new lines would merge with the existing Euston–Watford Junction DC lines. A fourth rail traction power system would need to be installed, together with the upgrading of the signalling system and modifications to the power supply. The platforms at Watford High Street and Watford Junction would need to be extended.

3.23 It is anticipated the works for and associated with the construction of the viaduct would last about 52 weeks. The piles for the proposed piers would be bored and lined. The steel spans would be transported to the site in maximum lengths of 27m requiring some temporary road closures. The construction period for the new bridge and station at Ascot Road would be some 54 weeks. The electricity sub-station at Tolpits Lane would take some 30 weeks, and the new Watford Hospital station some 52 weeks. The necessary repairs and widening of existing bridges would take between 4 and 20 weeks, and the alterations to platforms at Watford Junction and Watford High Street some 20 weeks and 10 weeks respectively.

3.24 The proposed works would necessitate some temporary rail closures. These would comprise a 54 hour closure of the Metropolitan Line between Moor Park and Watford Met station to install the new junction; a 54 hour weekend closure of the DC lines between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford Junction to install the new junction and the fourth rail; a 72 hour bank holiday closure of the DC lines between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford Junction to make minor changes to the track at Watford Junction; and a 54 hour weekend closure of the Metropolitan Line between Croxley and Watford Met, and between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford Junction on the DC lines to commission signalling alterations. The latter commissioning could also require an 8 hour closure of the West Coast Main Line.

Environmental impact

3.25 The ES includes a series of landscape design and environmental mitigation measures which have been developed in the light of the findings and assessments made. Contractors would be required to adopt appropriate measures to reduce the impact of their activities in accordance with a Code

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

of Construction Practice.

3.26 Watford Met station is a Grade II listed building, and concern has been expressed that, after the planned discontinuation of passenger services, the fabric could deteriorate. The future of the building is contingent on the outcome of the Order application, but LUL has confirmed that the buildings and fabric of the station would be maintained.

3.27 It is anticipated that the construction of the viaduct and the retention of the existing structures over the River Colne would involve some loss of marginal or aquatic habitat. The ES refers to specific measures designed to minimise any threat to the watercourses. These include the establishment of a 20 m buffer zone for the location of soil stockpiles, and the bunding of fuel storage areas.

3.28 The route of the former Croxley Green Branch has become a tree-lined corridor. The works would necessarily involve felling where embankment and cutting slopes would be re-graded. However, the proposals provide for replanting with native tree and shrub species. As far as fauna are concerned, a number of species has been identified along the route of the line. The ES includes provisions which seek to ensure that identified species are safeguarded in keeping with their nature conservation value and statutory requirements. These include: pre-construction surveys for breeding birds, badgers and bats; the appropriate timing of tree and shrub clearance; the introduction of badger-proof fencing; the clearance of habitats and the trapping of reptiles to exclude them from working areas; and, the introduction of bat boxes.

3.29 The proposed viaduct would inevitably be a significant new component in the local townscape. However, the structure would have relatively open spans which would avoid significant severance of the townscape. Its design would also require less removal of established tree planting than alternative schemes. Even taking its height into account, the structure would still be below the canopy level of established trees – which vary between 15 and 20m in height.

3.30 The trains would be visible to residents along the route between Ascot Road and Stripling Way. At Holm Oak Park for example the existing trees along the corridor would have to be felled, but the dense evergreen hedge would remain. From upper floor windows views would be focussed on the land beyond the railway. At two locations – behind 42 and 44 Stripling Way, and south of Laurance Haines School – it has been agreed that a barrier should be installed, in the interests of privacy in the first case, and to avoid the possibility of distraction in the second.

3.31 The impact of noise and vibration has been considered, especially in relation to construction and train noise close to the proposed viaduct, between Ascot Road and Wiggenhall Road, and between Wiggenhall Road and Watford Junction resulting from the increased frequency of trains. It is recognised that noise is inevitably associated with built development, and there is a need to strike a balance between this and the adoption of

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

practical measures to alleviate it. Much would fall to the appointed contractor and to the need for appropriate liaison with the relevant Environmental Health Officers. Measures would be formalised as part of the Code of Construction Practice for the project. Activities such as piling would not be undertaken outside the normal working day (07:00 to 18:00 hrs).

3.32 The ES recognises that operational train noise would increase along the route. Levels would be limited however by the use of modern rolling stock and continuously welded track, and it is predicted that the levels defined in the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 which would trigger insulation would not be exceeded. Nevertheless, taking account of the latest predicted frequency of trains and the contents of LUL’s design guidance (which refers to a target of less than a 5 dB(A) increase to residential and other sensitive receptors), the promoters have resolved to install noise barriers at locations where the trains would be close to existing dwellings. These would be adjacent to The Gateway to the east of the proposed Ascot Road station, and to the rear of the Cardiff Road houses to the south-west of Wiggenhall Road. On the basis of 110 trains per day the increase in noise at the two locations would be confined to an increase of about 1.5 dB(A).

3.33 The noise environment along the existing Euston-Watford Junction DC lines is already affected by the existing trains. It is anticipated that the additional frequency of trains would result in increases of no greater than 2- 2.5 dB(A). The promoters do not consider any mitigation would be necessary along this length.

3.34 Although it would be intended to install a barrier between the railway and the Laurance Haines School to reduce the visibility of trains, this would also have a beneficial effect in relation to the propagation of noise from the trains.

3.35 At Cassio Wharf, residential narrow boats are moored on the canal directly below the site of the proposed viaduct. The current monitored level at this location is 53 dB(A), and it is considered this would increase to 54-56 dB(A) – below the 5 dB(A) increase where mitigation would be thought to be necessary.

3.36 The possibility of damage to buildings resulting from potential ground-borne vibration has been considered. Based on the relevant British Standards however, the promoters have concluded the risk of complaint or cosmetic damage is low, both during the construction and the operational periods.

3.37 The scheme envisages the construction of open span structures over the Grand Union Canal and the River Gade, and the existing structure in the valley of the River Colne would involve only minimal disruption. It is considered the impact of the scheme on surface water quality would therefore be minimal. As far as ground water is concerned, the construction related risk associated with the use of piles for the viaduct piers has been recognised. To minimise the risk it is proposed that bored piles should be used together with the lining of the borehole. The risk of

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

infiltration would be addressed by the use of sealed piped drainage systems with oil interceptors, silt traps and the geo-synthetic lining of ballast and drainage trenches.

Compulsory acquisition of land and interests

3.38 The draft Order makes provision for: unrestricted powers to acquire or use land; powers limited to the temporary use of land, the acquisition of rights or the imposition of restrictive covenants; and, powers limited to the acquisition of rights. The power to enter and take possession of the relevant land would be used where it has not been possible to acquire the necessary land and rights by agreement. Compensation would be payable to qualifying parties, owners and tenants affected by the scheme under the statutory compensation code.

3.39 As far as the proposed viaduct is concerned, the Order envisages the acquisition of a strip equivalent to the width of the infrastructure plus 3m on either side. This would allow for slight variations in the alignment plus a maintenance strip. It is proposed that leaseholds and/or much of the land for the new viaduct should be granted to the current owners in order both to ameliorate the impact and enable the retained adjoining land to be accessed and used. Moving from west to east the scheme would specifically affect the following landowners and businesses.

3.40 At plots 7 and 8 on the Deposited Plans and Sections (APP 3 in Appendix C), Mrs L A Field would have some land permanently taken (plot 7) for the western end of the new viaduct, with other land (plot 8) being temporarily occupied as working land. The land is let by Mrs Field to The Croxley Car Centre and used as a yard space for the display and sale of cars. The existing building to the south-east of plot 8 which is occupied as an office would not be affected. The temporary landtake would be returned to Mrs Field at the end of construction, and the greater part of the permanent landtake would be offered back under a lease.

3.41 At plots 15 and 16, Mr K P Cinnamond would have some land permanently taken for the new viaduct (plot 15), with other land (plot 16) being temporarily occupied as working land. The existing building – Cinnamond House – would not be affected. The temporary landtake would be returned after construction, with the greater part of the permanent landtake being offered back under a lease together with a right of access to the A412. Three viaduct piers would be built along the route of plot 15, with one directly on the site of the existing means of access. At the inquiry the promoters submitted a plan (CRL/INQ/2: Drawing No: M/1019324/CH/11 Rev P1) showing proposed alterations both to the access to the land concerned, and to the geometry of the roundabout itself.

3.42 The Watford Road Playground (in the ownership of Three Rivers District Council) lies on the opposite side of Watford Road, between the westbound carriageway and the disused Croxley Green Station. This land also provides access to the TS Renown – the base for the Rickmansworth, Watford and District Unit of the Sea Cadet Corps. The building, which is on land leased

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

from the district council, is also used by the Morris Minors Pre-school as a sub-tenant.

3.43 As far as the playground is concerned, the promoters have now arranged to acquire the necessary open space land and rights over it from the district council. The compulsory purchase powers over the land included in the original draft Order have therefore been removed, and the associated application for an exchange land certificate at Croxleyhall Wood, Lavrock Lane, Croxley has been withdrawn. The request for compulsory powers is therefore confined to plots 21, 21a, 22a and 23. The land would be returned to the district council after construction and the playground reinstated. There is a small triangle of land (plot 24) in the north-east corner of the land leased to the Sea Cadets which would be required for the purposes of access to the viaduct. Discussions continue between the parties concerning the potential layout of the playground, the means of access, the location of the parking area, and the prospect of incorporating unused railway land to the south.

3.44 The Canal & River Trust (formerly the British Waterways Board) owns the Grand Union Canal over which the viaduct would pass. It has been agreed between the parties that, in view of the Trust’s need to retain ownership of their infrastructure, the canal would remain in the ownership of the Trust. The acquisition of permanent rights would therefore be confined to the airspace above the canal (plots 26, 29 and 32). However, the land on the eastern bank of the canal (plots 31, 32 and 33) is occupied by James Macdonald Marine, and through which access is obtained to a number of residential narrow boats which are moored alongside the wharf.

3.45 At the site of the proposed Watford Hospital station, narrow strips of land would be permanently taken on the edges of the Harwoods Recreation Ground to the north (plots 73 and 74), and the Holywell Allotments to the south (plot 73a). Both sites are owned by , and no active allotments would be acquired. Other land would be temporarily occupied as working space (plot 77). A right of emergency access would be acquired over land at Holm Oak Park to the north (plot 70) and to Pioneer Way to the south (plot 71).

3.46 The scheme would necessitate the construction of a new emergency walkway to the rear of 42 and 44 Stripling Way. This would require the permanent acquisition of a narrow strip (plots 83, 84 and 85), and temporary occupation of adjoining land as working space (plots 83a, 84a, 85a and 85b).

Planning policy

3.47 The proposed CRL is supported by the development plan and other policies. Policy S7 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy seeks ‘to deliver improved and more integrated transport systems and reduce the need to travel by locating development in accessible locations’. The supporting text to the policy notes that ‘in particular implementation of the Croxley Rail Link is supported, recognising its potential to enable more sustainable

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

transport choices in the area’. The line is shown on the key diagram of the core strategy.

3.48 Policy T16 of the Watford District Plan is concerned with rail use. Its first two components are directly relevant. Paragraph (a) records that the council will assist in the implementation of the CRL, and paragraph (b) seeks to encourage the improvement and introduction of transport interchange points at all rail stations, particularly at Watford Junction, and at a new station at Ascot Road as part of the CRL.

3.49 The CRL is specifically identified in paragraph (a) of Policy T20 of the Watford District Plan as one of the 4 county council transport proposals in Watford. The route of the link is shown on the Proposals Map. Although the borough council’s draft core strategy does not form part of the development plan, it has been the subject of examination and it indicates the council’s most up-to-date policies. The CRL is proposed in Policy T1 as one of 3 schemes which seek to develop Watford’s role as a regional transport node. Another is Watford Junction Interchange. Similar support is afforded to the CRL by Policy IP 1 – amongst other matters, it seeks to maximise the chances of the project’s delivery at the earliest possible date.

3.50 The CRL is identified on the core strategy key diagram, together with the proposed new stations at Ascot Road and Vicarage Road (Watford Hospital). The strategy includes a number of Special Policy Areas (SPAs). The proposed new station at Ascot Road falls within SPA 6 where the station is linked to the upgrading of the Watford Business Park. The proposed Watford Hospital station would serve SPA 3 focused on the Health Campus. The station at Watford High Street lies between SPA 1 – the Town Centre, and SPA 4 – Lower High Street where the plan proposes improvements to the public realm. Watford Junction station itself is the focus of SPA 2, where 1,500 new homes are planned together with between 1,350 to 2,350 jobs.

3.51 At a larger scale, Watford was identified as a key centre for development and change in the Plan – the regional strategy for the area2. Although the site falls outside the area of the Authority, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy seeks to promote extensions to the underground network. The CRL receives specific support in paragraph (c) of Proposal 22, and in paragraph 299. It records that the link would improve the regional connectivity of north-west London by linking the underground network to the important interchange at Watford Junction and the employment, retail, leisure and healthcare opportunities in Watford town centre.

3.52 At the national level, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in March 2012. At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 29 and 30

2 The regional strategy has now been revoked, but in the light of the facts in this case this does not alter my conclusions.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

set out the important role of transport in facilitating sustainable development. It continues, ‘the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel’. The importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is recognised, together with reducing congestion. Development plans should support a pattern of development which facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.

3.53 A significant proportion of the proposed viaduct would occupy the Green Belt land which lies to the north-east of Croxley Green (in the area of Three Rivers District Council) and to the west of Watford (in the area of Watford Borough Council). A narrow strip of the designated land extends along the River Gade and the Grand Union Canal to the south and south-west. Two photomontages have been prepared which demonstrate that views over and under the proposed viaduct would help to maintain the openness of the Green Belt. After the construction is completed the existing uses will be able to return except for the bases of the individual piers. The development would not therefore lead to urban sprawl.

3.54 Paragraph 90 of the Framework considers forms of development which would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of the land’s inclusion. One of the forms of development identified is local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location. In this case the proposed route of the viaduct is the only feasible alignment that links the existing Metropolitan Line with the disused Croxley Branch Line.

Planning conditions

3.55 The request for planning permission made by the promoters includes 18 draft planning conditions. The reasons for the imposition of the suggested conditions are added in brackets. Although full planning permission is sought, the conditions require the subsequent approval of details relating to construction, archaeology, contamination, means of access, landscaping, massing, height and external appearance of structures, environmental mitigation, drainage, and flood compensation.

3.56 Minor revisions were made to a number of the draft conditions at the beginning of the inquiry (Core Document APP 2.10.1). Draft condition 7 in respect of surface water drainage was the subject of significant revision to ensure that run-off would not exceed 5 litres per second per hectare. Draft condition 8 in respect of contaminated land and groundwater was the subject of significant revision to secure an appropriately staged and detailed procedure. An additional condition was added (draft condition 18) to secure the installation of the noise barriers referred to above and shown in Document CRL/INQ/7.

3.57 Following discussions at the inquiry draft condition 18 was amended by the promoters to include a specific reference to the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996. The final form of the draft conditions is shown at Core Document APP 2.10.2.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

The need for the compulsory acquisition of land and interests

3.58 The land which the Council seeks to acquire compulsorily under the Order is limited to that required by the engineering and operational demands of the proposed works. Wherever possible, temporary rights have been sought, as well as powers or rights over land for access – including in emergencies – or for maintenance purposes. The Order would require the restoration and return of land used on a temporary basis to the reasonable satisfaction of the owners of the land. Proper compensation would be paid by the Council in accordance with the statutory compensation code which applies to compulsory purchase.

3.59 The land required for the works is in a variety of ownerships and is subject to a variety of interests. It could not with certainty be acquired to allow the works to proceed within a reasonable time without compulsory acquisition. There is therefore a compelling case in the public interest for authorising the compulsory acquisition of the land and interests in the land covered by the Order.

The funding of the proposed CRL scheme

3.60 The anticipated total cost of the CRL scheme is £116.81 million. This would be met by a contribution of £33.7 million from the Council, agreed third party contributions of £6.864 million, and a contribution of £76.236 million from the Department for Transport.

3.61 The third party funding arises from contributions made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; from Watford Borough Council; from Watford Health Campus and Local Enterprise Partnership; and a land contribution from .

Amendments requested to the draft Order

3.62 The amendments requested in the second filled up version of the draft Order (Document APP 2 2.2.2) are generally corrections of a minor nature. However, Article 29A (Access to Cinnamond House) includes provision to protect the existing access to Cinnamond House (including plots 15 and 16) unless an alternative has been provided together with a right of vehicular access.

3.63 Article 31 has been revised to remove references to tree preservation orders or to trees in conservation areas. There is a correction in the third column of Schedule 7, so that the reference to the reconfiguration of playground facilities refers to plot 21a, and not plot 16.

3.64 Article 33 (Open space) has been deleted to take account of the agreement achieved with Three Rivers District Council to acquire land included in plot 22. In the circumstances the exchange land (plot 131) is not required. There is a consequential change in Schedule 6 in relation to plots 21b and 22b. According to the promoters’ Note of the last version of the Order

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

(CRL/INQ/13), Article 16 has also been amended to take account of the new circumstances by removing the powers of compulsory acquisition over plot 22. However, in the draft Order the necessary revision has been applied to article 17. This is evidently a mistake.

4 THE CASES FOR THE SUPPORTERS

The material points are:

4.1 The support for the scheme of the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (WHH/1, SUPP/9 and SUPP/4) was presented at the inquiry by Mr Tom Dobrashian. It is recorded that the Watford General Hospital buildings were developed over many years in an ad hoc manner. There are a range of buildings, including the original Union Workhouse, together with car parks. The proposed Watford Hospital station would be about 450m from the hospital. The hospital is one part of the Watford Health Campus covering an area of 26.4 hectares. The area has a mixed character and is in poor quality with large areas of industrial contamination and flood plain close to the River Colne. The Trust is a joint sponsor of the Health Campus scheme and it is vital that this and the CRL scheme are co-ordinated.

4.2 The Trust provides acute healthcare services to approximately half a million people in the surrounding area, with more specialist services in a wider area. The Trust employs about 4,000 (at Watford General, Hospital and St Albans City Hospital), including about 2,500 at Watford General. Watford General is the main acute hospital in west Hertfordshire. The Trust’s maternity service is the largest in south-east England with 6000 deliveries per year. The Trust is in the process of obtaining Foundation Trust status.

4.3 The CRL scheme would provide a direct rail link between the hospital and its major catchment area and significantly improve accessibility. There are currently about 1,000 parking spaces on the site, and the new rail link would materially reduce the need to access the hospital by car.

4.4 Outline planning permission for the Health Campus scheme was granted in 2010. In addition to the growth of the hospital itself, the scheme comprises: 500 new homes; 25,000m of commercial floorspace; 15,000m hotel, leisure and hospitality facilities; CHP energy provision; and associated infrastructure delivery including access roads, a public square and green landscaped areas. Vicarage Road is currently heavily congested and the scheme includes provision for a new access to the south-east. The Trust has secured a grant of approximately £7 million from the Department of Health to develop the new access road including a new bridge over the proposed CRL. The Campus scheme is shown on Document CRL/INQ/6, and the proposal would provide additional potential patronage for the CRL.

4.5 Written support for the CRL is provided by Mr Richard Harrington MP (SUPP/ 3) – the Member of Parliament for Watford, and by Ms Dorothy

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Thornhill (SUPP/11) – the elected . Mr Harrington notes that the scheme has received an overwhelming positive response and that it is necessary in the interests of growth, sustainable development and increased investment. Ms Thornhill observes that Watford is the sub- regional economic centre for West Hertfordshire, and that as such, it has an ambitious regeneration agenda. The CRL would relieve traffic congestion, improve the status of Watford as a retail destination and contribute to the delivery of a number of strategic investments at Charter Place, the Health Campus, the Western Gateway, and Watford Junction station. Watford Borough Council has transferred a number of its own landholdings to facilitate the project and has committed over £2 million to the scheme. Attention is however drawn to the relationship between Laurance Haines School and the proposed Watford Hospital station; to residents living close to the line; and the proposed closure of Watford Met station. If it could be made compatible with the viability of the scheme, it would be preferable that the Met station should remain open. The case for the expansion of services to Chesham and Amersham should also be taken into account.

4.6 Other supporters of the scheme include Mr Bill Stephenson (SUPP/1) on behalf of Harrow Council, Mr Anthony Wood (SUPP/5) for the Federation of Metropolitan Line Users’ Committee, Mr Dan Dark (SUPP/8) for Warner Bros Studios Leavesden Limited, Mr Marcus Richardson (SUPP/2) for Greenhills Asset Management (which owns the freehold of the Croxley Green Business Park), and Mr David Fischel (SUPP/6) for Capital Shopping Centres (which owns the Harlequin Shopping Centre). Support is also expressed by Mr Chris Shaw (SUPP/10) the Asset Manager – Hertfordshire of the Highways Agency. He considers the scheme would provide a creditable alternative to car based travel with inherently lower environmental impacts over a wider area. Individual support is expressed by Mr Chris Mitchell (SUPP/7) (subject to the design of the proposed viaduct contributing to high standards of visual amenity and noise mitigation), and Mr James Ware (JW/1) (subject to technical concerns over power supply and the operational management of the line).

5 THE CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS

I have structured this part of the report on the basis of a number of common themes and locations. Many of the objections and representations have been the subject of correspondence with the promoters. These are included at CRL/INQ/10. The material points of the outstanding objections are:

Principle and costs

5.1 At the most fundamental level are those who consider there to be no need for the CRL and that the existing network is adequate. Mr James Macdonald (OBJ/7, MAC/1) refers to the Croxley Green Branch line and to its closure. He considers this was the right decision. Similarly, the used to extend to Watford Junction, but it too was closed to passengers. The CRL would be ignored and potential passengers will prefer to travel by car. The area does not need regeneration and it already has

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

excellent rail and road communications. The financing of the project is unclear and is likely to go over budget. The prospect of passengers on the West Coast Main Line changing at Watford Junction to get to Baker Street is unlikely when it would take so much longer than staying on the train and going to Euston. In any event, the areas around the proposed Ascot Road and Watford Hospital stations are not heavily populated compared with the residential estates around Cassiobury. Those making for the Croxley Business Park will prefer to use their cars and park in the business park. Keith Murray Consultants acting on behalf of Cinnamond Ltd (OBJ/8) and Mrs L A Field (OBJ/9) also refers to the possibility of reopening the Bakerloo Line link to Watford Junction as an alternative. Ms Stella Merryweather (OBJ/30) considers this would be a cheaper option than the construction of the CRL.

5.2 Mrs Amanda Grant (OBJ/44) records that she would have no use for the CRL and that it would be a waste of public money when education and health are more pressing needs. A regular bus service between Croxley and Watford Junction via the hospital would be a more cost effective solution. A view supported by Keith Murray Consultants on behalf of Cinnamond Ltd (OBJ/8) and Mrs L A Field (OBJ/9). Similarly, Mr David Rice (OBJ/52) also questions whether the scheme would represent value- for-money. There would be more appropriate recipients in poorer areas in other regions, or the money could be used to reduce the national deficit. The claimed benefits would not be realised, and the line would be used by a relatively small number of people. In addition, the estimated cost of the scheme is unrealistically low, and the disused Croxley Green Branch line failed. Furthermore, the extent of public consultation has been inadequate and undemocratic.

5.3 Writing on behalf of the Croxley Green Residents’ Association, Mr Barry Grant (OBJ/31) also questions the priority of CRL over the provision of new secondary schools. He expresses concern about the scheme going over budget, the use of section 106 contributions, and the comparative merits for commuters to London of the extended Metropolitan Line and the existing Euston to Watford Junction service. Similar views are also expressed by Mr Peter Rennoldson (OBJ/36) writing on behalf of the Upper New Road Residents Group.

Closure of Watford Met

5.4 The issue which has generated the greatest volume of concern and objection is the planned closure to passengers of Watford Met station. Cllr George Derbyshire (GD/1, OBJ/32) considers the proposed closure to be a serious flaw in the overall case for the CRL which would otherwise be an important investment in the public transport infrastructure of south-west Hertfordshire. He supports the position adopted by London TravelWatch that there is a business case for passenger services to be retained at Watford Met with a 2 year trial split service between it and Watford Junction. The closure of the station would have a serious adverse impact, especially in relation to pupils attending Watford Boys Grammar School – the numbers of whom were originally underestimated. Their journey times would be significantly increased (by about 15 minutes each way) if they had

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

to walk to and from the proposed Ascot Road station. Other destinations which generate traffic for Watford Met station are the new building and the Colosseum entertainment venue.

5.5 The potential closure of Watford Met station is also a critical concern of Mr Michael Fish (MF/1, MF/2, MF/3, OBJ/21). He refers in particular to operational matters on the proposed link and to the need to reverse trains beyond Moor Park station. The time benefits of reversing trains at Rickmansworth compared with Watford Met are not evident. Reversing at Watford Met has no unknowns, but reversing at Rickmansworth could be fraught with problems. To use the line to Watford Met for stabling only would raise adverse operational and safety issues associated, for example, with security, leaves, and snow and ice. Furthermore, it is understood that equipment from Watford Met station would be re-assigned to Ascot Road station whilst the former is still open. It is hard to believe the perceived financial benefits of this approach would be realised, and there is a clear advantage in buying new equipment – so increasing the capital costs of the project. He also supports the trial split service as advised by London TravelWatch.

5.6 It is a requirement of the Railways Act 2005 that the London Transport Users Committee (also known as London TravelWatch) considers proposals for the closure of stations together with any objections, and that it subsequently reports to the Mayor of London. Mr David Leibling (LTW/1) gave evidence to the inquiry on its behalf. Following its consideration of the matter, including a Panel meeting held in Watford in June 2012 and attended by over 80 residents, it was concluded that the closure of Watford Met station would result in hardship to some existing passengers. This hardship would however be largely alleviated by the implementation of the CRL project and the opening of two new stations. There would be a short additional longer walking journey for about half the existing passengers. The other half would have a shorter walking journey. The hardship would be alleviated by improvements to the walking and cycling environment. A new subsidised bus service should operate between the area and the new stations for 3 years, to allow passengers with mobility impairments to adjust their journeys.

5.7 For some existing passengers using Watford Met, the closest Metropolitan Line station would become Watford High Street or Watford Junction. These passengers would face higher fares. A discretionary fare should therefore be agreed for a limited period. Additionally, there is a business case for Watford Met station to be retained for passengers for a 2 year trial period as part of a split service. Notwithstanding these adverse effects of the CRL scheme, if the trialling of a split service would place the project as a whole in jeopardy (by requiring a renewed application for funding), Mr Leibling reported that London TravelWatch would support the Order scheme.

5.8 The case for the retention of Watford Met station for passengers is supported by Ms Helen Rice (HR/1, OBJ/2), SAWTAG (the South & West Transport Action Group – SAW/2) – represented by Mr J Jackson, Cllr Mark Watkin (WAT/1), Mrs Mary French (FRE/1, OBJ/53), Mr James Macdonald (OBJ/7), Keith Murray Consultants acting for Cinnamond Ltd

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

(OBJ/8) and Mrs L A Field (OBJ/9), Mr Tony Mansell (OBJ/10), Ms Karen Arnott (OBJ/14), Ms Jacqui Landschaft-Singe (OBJ/15), Mrs Ann Macdonald (OBJ/20), Mr Michael Dutton (OBJ/22), Mr Jonathan Sampson (OBJ/23), Cllr Peter Jeffree (PJ/1, OBJ/25), Ms Rosemarie Luckett (OBJ/27), Ms Anne Gruner (OBJ/34), Ms Janet Martin (OBJ/35), Ms June Emson (OBJ/37), Mr L D Elvin on behalf of the South West Herts Archaeological & Historical Society (OBJ/39), Mr Paul Booth (OBJ/47), Mr David Rice (OBJ/52), Mr D Ian Scleater (OBJ/55), Mr G Wright (OBJ/70), Mr Tony Pettit (OBJ/74) Mr Simon Fowle (REP/1), and Mr Chris Beney (REP/5).

Ascot Road and Watford Hospital stations

5.9 Mrs Mary French (FRE/1, OBJ/53) draws attention to both to the distance from the Cassiobury estate to Ascot Road, and to the location of the proposed new station. People would not want to walk, for example, from Ascot Road to Cassiobury Park if they have small children or pushchairs. The area is already busy at peak times as the nearby roundabouts serve the Watford and Croxley Business Parks – where there is ample parking space. It is already difficult to turn right out of Gade Avenue onto Rickmansworth Road. Watford Met station is small and intimate and it induces a sense of security. It is anticipated that Ascot Road station would be unmanned and served by lifts. It is likely to be cold and bleak in winter with inadequate waiting facilities. At Watford Met it is possible to wait in security and comfort on the train before it leaves, and it is in a relatively safe residential area. There are no houses in the vicinity of Ascot Road, and the route to Rickmansworth Road would feel unsafe. Both Rickmansworth Road and Whippendell Road are very busy and it would be inappropriate to encourage more pedestrians who would need to cross these roads. Ms Janet Martin (OBJ/35) believes the proximity of the station to the Ascot Road dual carriageway would also compromise the safety of pedestrians, and Ms June Emson (OBJ/37) also draws attention to the excessive distance between Ascot Road and Cassiobury Park.

5.10 Mr S J and Mrs M A Penny (OBJ/4) contend that the proposed Watford Hospital station would further increase road congestion and traffic accidents. Furthermore, the new station would be sited directly opposite the Laurance Haines primary school, and no parking or drop-off facilities are proposed. The increase in construction traffic while the works were implemented is another cause of concern – especially for the safety of school children. The utility of the proposed station is questioned by Mr D Ian Scleater (OBJ/55). He observes that for the elderly or those with impaired mobility, the station would serve little useful purpose as the route to the hospital is up-hill. Ms Stella Merryweather (OBJ/30) considers that, if the line is built, a new station for the hospital (and the football stadium) should be sited to the south of the hospital. Vicarage Road is too narrow. Mr Gerry Barker (OBJ/19), writing on behalf of the West Watford and Garden and Allotment Society Committee, supports this view.

5.11 The proximity of the line to Laurance Haines School is also raised by Ms Karen Arnott (OBJ/14). She fears it would result in increased vibration, pollution and noise – which are not conducive to learning. Mr Gerry

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Barker (OBJ/19) also believes the road is too narrow and the school causes traffic problems. The siting of the entrance to the temporary work site opposite the school would be unwise, if not dangerous. Attention is drawn by Mr Jonathan Sampson (OBJ/23) to two fatalities on this road in recent years. There is an evident need for a drop-off/waiting area at the least. Ms Mary Reid (OBJ/42) expresses the same opinion. Mr Paul Marsh (OBJ/41), Ms Diana Van Der Stok (OBJ/45) and Ms Shamim Marsh (OBJ/49) are specifically concerned about the threat to children presented by the major construction works involved, and thereafter by the disruptive nature of the line and its impact on the school learning environment. Twelve trains per hour would be passing the school, and the existing difficulties of the school journey would be aggravated both during the construction period and after the line is brought into use.

5.12 The prospect that the CRL would lead to greater traffic congestion is supported by Ms Karen Arnott (OBJ/14). She considers the prediction that the scheme would take 3,000 cars per day off the roads to be questionable. If this is a realistic prediction there would be no need to build a car park attached to the proposed Ascot Road station. Her view is endorsed by Ms Jacqui Landschaft-Singe (OBJ/15) who considers the roads in and around Watford are incapable of coping with any more traffic. Cllr Peter Jeffree (PJ/1, OBJ/25) is similarly concerned that one result of the scheme would be to force more people into their cars to use the Ascot Road station. This would be counter-productive at a time when transport policy should be actively encouraging people to leave their cars at home. It would be essential if the scheme is implemented that improvements are made to the quality of cycling and walking links around the existing and proposed stations. Ms Anne Gruner (OBJ/34) considers the closure of Watford Met station would result in increased traffic on Rickmansworth Road as commuters make up their journey times by driving to Watford Junction.

Croxley Car Centre

5.13 The western end of the proposed viaduct would over-sail the land occupied by the Croxley Car Centre. The freehold interest is owned by Mrs L A Field. She is represented by Keith Murray Consultants (OBJ/9), while the car display area and building is occupied by Mr Terry Gould and Mr Matthew Scott (OBJ/46). Mrs Field has submitted exchanges of correspondence with the CRL team, Mr David Gauke MP, LUL, and the Council (LF/1). Mr Gould has clarified the buildings occupied by Croxley Car Centre (CC/1).

5.14 Plot 7 on the deposited plans would be subject to permanent acquisition, and plot 8 would be subject to temporary occupation. Keith Murray Consultants (on behalf of Mrs Field) object to the scheme on the grounds that the acquisition of plot 7 would render the property incapable of proper and beneficial occupation, and if plot 8 was occupied for any length of time it would force the closure of the Croxley Car Centre and render the site incapable of proper and beneficial occupation. Mr Gould and Mr Scott record that without the premises, the business would cease to exist. It is heavily reliant on its location and passing traffic, as well as its local

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

reputation. It would appear that the CRL has been planned without examining any possible alternatives.

Cinnamond House

5.15 Keith Murray Consultants (OBJ/8) also act for Mr K P Cinnamond and 4 associated companies, based in Cinnamond House, which lies to the north of the Watford Road/Baldwins Lane roundabout. Plot 15 on the deposited plans would be the subject of permanent acquisition, while plot 16 would be subject to temporary occupation. Mr Trevor Cinnamond (CIN/1, CIN/2 and CIN/3) is a director of Cinnamond Contracts Limited and gave evidence to the inquiry. The areas affected are particularly important and are used for the maintenance, testing, parking and circulation of heavy industrial machinery, including the storage of ancillary equipment and construction materials. The loss of plot 15 would render the entire property incapable of supporting the day-to-day operations of the Cinnamond companies. The proposed construction of the viaduct crossing the land would disrupt the water storage and drainage system installed in 1999/2000 when Cinnamond House and yard were constructed. The property would become incapable of proper and beneficial occupation.

5.16 One of the piers of the proposed new viaduct would be sited directly on the means of access to Cinnamond House. The CRL team has proposed a new access (CRL/INQ/2) off the roundabout equidistant between Baldwins Lane and the eastern leg of Watford Road leading to Cassio Bridge. However, there is concern that traffic making for the site from Watford Road would have to turn more sharply across traffic coming from Baldwins Lane. The drivers of vehicles making the left turn could indicate only after passing the Baldwins Lane entrance to the roundabout, and the rearrangement would result in the creation of an accident blackspot. In any event, the proposed acquisition would be excessive. The requirement of the viaduct could be met by the acquisition of the pier bases alone, with the grant of rights of access to the elevated parts of the viaduct itself.

5.17 As an alternative to the planned scheme the viaduct could be re-engineered and the pier concerned located in a different position. Alternatively, a new means of access could be constructed off Watford Road at the site of the existing bus stop. Furthermore, although concerns about the impact of the construction phase have now been resolved, the visual impact of the viaduct and the noise of trains would have an adverse impact on the property.

Appearance of viaduct

5.18 On behalf of the Croxley Green Parish Council, Mr Chris Mitchell (CPC/1, REP/7, SUPP/7) observes that although the council does not raise an overall objection to the CRL scheme, there are concerns about the design and appearance of the viaduct and the disruption which would inevitably occur during the construction period. Taking account of the size of the proposed viaduct, the council seeks to ensure that its quality of design would be appropriate and sympathetic to the environment. The council is particularly

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

keen both that it is consulted and that there would also be a form of public consultation. This should include any long term changes to the road layout. The council is supported in its concern by Mr Barry Grant (OBJ/31), writing on behalf of The Croxley Green Residents’ Association, and by Mr Peter Rennoldson (OBJ/36), for the Upper New Road Residents Group. Ms Rosemarie Luckett (OBJ/27) and Ms June Emson (OBJ/37) are also keen that the proposed viaduct should be of sufficient design quality to both reduce its visual influence and ensure it would not be an eyesore.

5.19 Mr Stan Friedman (OBJ/5) is concerned about the potential visual impact of the viaduct, especially considered together with the sight and sound of trains. A more fundamental objection is raised by Ms Karen Arnott (OBJ/14). She considers the viaduct would be seen as a barrier which would separate Watford from Croxley Green and Rickmansworth, and that it would have an impact on the retail businesses in the area. Ms Ann Macdonald (OBJ/20) considers the railway would form a scar on the appearance of the Grand Union Canal, and Mr Roy Cook (OBJ/54) considers the route too obtrusive. In this respect they are supported by Mrs Mary French (FRE/1, OBJ/53) who considers that neither cladding nor other design features would compensate for the adverse visual impact of a tall concrete viaduct. Ms Judith Mansell (OBJ/11) refers to her concern about the effect of the viaduct on nearby new homes.

5.20 In the context of an alternative suggestion, attention is drawn by Mr J Jackson, on behalf of SAWTAG (SAW/1, pages 14-17), to the site of the proposed viaduct in the Metropolitan Green Belt. SAWTAG advises against the construction of a concrete viaduct in such a location.

Watford Road Playground and TS Renown

5.21 Having crossed the A412 dual carriageway, the viaduct would then cross the Watford Road Playground on two piers. The land is owned by Three Rivers District Council and is designated as public open space. The land would be used during the construction period as working space, but the playground would be subsequently reinstated.

5.22 Evidence was given at the inquiry by Mr Fabian Hiscock (SEA/1/1, SEA/1/2) for the Rickmansworth, Watford and District Unit of the Sea Cadet Corps, and by Mr Michael Morris (SEA/1/3, MM/1, OBJ/67) for the Morris Minors Pre-school. There is also a letter of objection by Mr Robert Bradshaw (OBJ/38) on behalf of the Sea Cadets. Mr Bradshaw observes that the site of the TS Renown is a safe and tranquil location, which is ideal for the purposes for which it is used. The building and its surroundings are used by the Sea Cadets on two evenings per week and at some weekends. It provides supervised youth activities for young people between the ages of 12 and 18. The pre-school is used during the day by up to 32 children at any one time – although there are currently 60 children on the roll.

5.23 The viaduct would pass within feet of the north-east corner of the building. It would have a significant adverse environmental impact and interfere with both activities. It is feared the effects may be sufficiently adverse that

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

parents may feel obliged to withdraw their children. As far as the pre- school is concerned, the main threat would be during the construction phase, especially if there would be traffic conflict at the entrance off the Baldwins Lane/Watford Road roundabout. It is necessary that emergency access is possible to the building at all times when it is in use as a pre- school. The use of a banksman to regulate traffic at the junction would be far from ideal, and experience during test drilling on the site last year was not positive. The noise generated during piling operations would be a particular concern. Although piling could be scheduled during school holiday periods, any delay would be very damaging if the operations were carried out during term time.

5.24 The building is in a suburban location, but it is very quiet and screened by trees. The noise from passing trains in such close proximity would affect the long term amenity of the building and its suitability to both users. Any consequential threat to the financial viability of the pre-school would also be a threat to the future of the Sea Cadet Unit. Of the options for the layout of the playground and means of access to the building3, option 2 would be preferred – including the use of an additional strip of Council land following its acquisition of the former Croxley Green station. Notwithstanding its concerns, both organisations would work with the CRL project team in an attempt to overcome objections.

5.25 Mrs L Beeching (OBJ/18) and Mrs Ann Macdonald (OBJ/20) refer to the use of the playground by children from the pre-school using the TS Renown. Mr A Evans (OBJ/26) is also concerned that the area provides a useful open space for local residents and dog walkers, as well as an amenity for the Sea Scouts and the pre-school. He fears that without a formal plan the area would become overgrown and abandoned and a magnet for anti-social behaviour. Similarly, Ms Rosemarie Luckett (OBJ/27) wonders if the children’s playground would be replaced and the effect of the scheme on the Sea Scouts.

5.26 Writing on behalf of the Croxley Green Residents’ Association, Mr Barry Grant (OBJ/31) expresses concern about the future of the playground. On its return to the council, the land would be in the shadow of the viaduct and it could prove to be undesirable for such a use4. The same concerns are expressed by Mr Peter Rennoldson (OBJ/36) for the Upper New Road Residents Group.

5.27 Mrs Amanda Grant (OBJ/44) is concerned that the Sea Cadets and the pre-school would be unable to use the TS Renown building, or at the least, not without severe difficulty. Mr Roy Cook (OBJ/54) observes that no acceptable alternative to the children’s playground has been offered during the construction phase.

3 See CRL/R/38 & 67

4 Mr Grant also refers to the then proposed exchange land, but this aspect of the project was resolved during the inquiry.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Cassio Wharf

5.28 The viaduct would cross the Grand Union Canal directly to the east of the TS Renown, with a pier on the eastern side of the canal, before crossing Beggars Bush Lane and the River Gade. Directly under the route of the proposed viaduct and extending in both northerly and southerly directions, the eastern bank of the canal provides a mooring and maintenance location for 10 residential narrow boats at Cassio Wharf.

5.29 Mr James Macdonald (MAC/1) gave evidence to the inquiry together with a letter of objection (OBJ/7). He believes the CRL, and the viaduct in particular, would have a debilitating effect. Taking account of the existing Metropolitan Line railway bridge leading to Watford Met station, the now disused bridge leading to Croxley Green station, and the two road bridges carrying the A412 (Watford Road); there would be 5 bridges over the canal relatively close together. The canal side walk used to be pleasant, but it would be changed into an unattractively dark corridor with a train passing overhead every 7 minutes. The wharf has operated as a boat yard in the past. Mr Macdonald occupies the land under a lease, and moorings are let to tenants. The boats enjoy the benefits of facilities for drinking water, electricity supply, sewage disposal, car parking and storage. The wharf has a quiet, bucolic atmosphere, but with the construction and use of the proposed viaduct it is very unlikely that anybody would want to live there. His income would thus be reduced, and his way of life compromised.

5.30 The wharf is already adversely affected by the existence of the disused bridge leading to Croxley Green station. It casts a shadow onto the boats below. The new viaduct would have a similar effect on another length of the wharf. The proposed work site between Beggars Bush Lane and the canal would require the removal of the fence and hedge, and the security of the site would be severely compromised by the possibility that contractors’ vehicles could block access from the north (Watford Road).

5.31 The CRL team has failed to conclude an acceptable plan for the relocation of tenants during the construction period. The relocation of boats to the marina at Bridgewater Basin (to the north just beyond Cassio Bridge) would be unacceptable. There are no facilities, and the boats would have to be moored abreast. None of his tenants would be willing to be relocated there as it would be an inferior situation. The possibility of relocation to Packet Boat Marina would be unacceptable as it is 34 km from the current site and expensive. Mooring boats abreast away from the proposed viaduct has been suggested, but it would be unsuitable in terms of access and proximity. Only one suggestion has merit – this would involve extending the wharf to the south-west and using the space created for the relocation of boats. However, the site lies within the Green Belt and it is advised that the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt are unlikely to be considered to apply. The adverse effect of the scheme on his income could commence shortly as it is feared it would be difficult to re-let mooring space in the event of a tenant leaving.

5.32 Mrs Ann Macdonald (OBJ/20) shares the concerns expressed and also

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

refers to the canal as a green corridor. Mrs L Beeching (OBJ/18) also refers to the adverse effect of the scheme on the utility of the moorings at Cassio Wharf. In addition, she draws attention to the extent to which the towpath (which is on the western bank of the canal) is used. The new viaduct would pass directly above the residential mooring occupied by Mr & Mrs Laurie and Ms Jean Hicks (OBJ/66). They agree with the concerns expressed by Mr Macdonald, but they also fear the loss of trees and wildlife. Mr David Rice (OBJ/52) also considers the implementation of the viaduct would be permanently damaging to the green area surrounding the canal and to its wildlife.

Holm Oak Park

5.33 Holm Oak Park is a gated residential estate which occupies land between the route of the CRL and Hagden Lane where it forms part of the A4145. The estate is owned by Holm Oak Park Freehold Limited, and evidence was given on its behalf by Mr D E P Etherington (OBJ/65) – a Director of the company. The company is owned by 82 of the 85 residents on the estate. It objects to the scheme on the grounds of the loss of trees in the existing disused cutting to the rear of the estate, and because of the potential for noise disturbance from trains and loud speakers at the proposed Watford Hospital station.

5.34 The estate lies to the north-west of the proposed station, and the scheme envisages the identification of an emergency escape route (plot 70) from the platform, and hence through the estate to Hagden Lane. There are a number of security measures at the estate including gates, fences and CCTV. These are designed to keep uninvited non-residents out of the site, but they could also keep people trapped within the development in the event of an emergency. The emergency could happen in the dark and, once inside the estate, there would be no evident escape route. The gates at the means of access are not designed to accommodate 1,200 people escaping from a fire and access for ambulances would be difficult. The necessary emergency access could easily be provided at the now disused station on Tolpits Lane. Alternatively, access could be provided into the rear gardens of either 21 or 17 Kelmscott Close. It is recognised in the former case that a right of way would be necessary over land in the company’s ownership to the north-east of Block K (ETH/1). In addition to the practical objection made by the company, it is considered the compulsory acquisition of the rights would constitute a threat to the redevelopment value of the land.

5.35 The company’s objection to the scheme is supported by Mr S J Hardy (OBJ/6) acting for Watford Estates; by Ms Ann White (OBJ/56); by Mr Craig Bentley (OBJ/57); by Ms Suzanne Dutton (OBJ/58); by Ms Vina Shah (OBJ/59); by Mrs F M Harman (OBJ/60); by Ms Danielle and Mr John Evans (OBJ/61); by Ms Nita Kamdar (OBJ/62); by Mrs G Thompson (OBJ/63); and by Ms Gail Barnett (OBJ/64). All but the first are residents of the Holm Oak Park estate.

Noise, vibration and disturbance

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

5.36 Evidence was submitted to the inquiry by Ms Lizzie Reid (NST/1) (OBJ/69) and Ms Karen Arnott (OBJ/14) on behalf of the residents of Neal Street. Their objection includes a two page petition to take forward the process of protecting their homes and quality of life, and seeking a positive outcome from the inquiry. Also included is a survey of Neal Street residents comprising a number of questions concerned with noise and vibration.

5.37 Most of the houses in Neal Street backing onto the rail track were built with shallow foundations in the early twentieth century. There are cracks in the houses which it is believed are caused by vibrations from the existing trains passing at a rate of 6 tph. There are no sound barriers or noise abatement structures to counter the noise of passing trains. The track has recently been upgraded with a substantial increase in noise disturbance, including high level screeching as trains approach or leave Watford High Street station. It is also believed that a sticky black soot is generated by the trains – it is thought to be brake dust.

5.38 With the introduction of the CRL the number of trains would increase to 16 tph. They would also be considerably longer. Much concern was expressed by residents about the noise and disturbance caused by the recent rail works, and it is feared that the CRL works might have a similar effect, constituting a negative impact on households, quality of life, and finances.

5.39 Evidence concerning the impact of additional noise and disturbance was also presented to the inquiry by Mr David Tremayne (TRE/1) and Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst (GM/1). Mr Tremayne refers to the impact of noise at dwellings in a number of roads close to the line between Watford High Street and Watford Junction stations. These include Gladstone Road, Shaftesbury Road, Queens Road, and Ottoman Terrace. He suggests that a more comprehensive noise and vibration survey is undertaken; that noise mitigation is installed wherever possible; and that noise levels are subsequently monitored. Cllr Giles-Medhurst (who represents the Central Watford and Oxhey Division on the Council) supports the principle of the CRL scheme, but it is important that the benefits of the project are not negated by the disbenefits of those whose dwellings back onto the line. He calculates that 566 dwellings would be affected in Gladstone Road, Queens Place, Queens Road, Woodford Road, Orphanage Road, Shaftesbury Road, Ottoman Terrace, Water Lane, Dyson Court, Neal Street, Elfrida Road, and Cannon Road. Attention is also drawn to the potential adverse effect on the enjoyment of Waterfields Park. It is suggested that failure to appropriately address the impact of noise and vibration on nearby dwellings could amount to a breach of the human rights of the occupants to enjoy their property. The promoters should include mitigation measures along the entire length of the CRL.

5.40 Similar concerns are expressed by Ms Janet Golding (OBJ/3) in relation to Dyson Court, but with the addition of disturbance from station announcements. Mr Michael Dutton (OBJ/22) refers to the adverse effect of trains on residents’ enjoyment of their gardens. Mr Paul Cooke (OBJ/29) also expresses concern about the potential increase in noise at his house in Shaftesbury Road. Writing on behalf of the Croxley Green Residents’ Association, Mr Barry Grant (OBJ/31) is concerned about the

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

potential adverse effect on dwellings caused by the noise of trains crossing the proposed viaduct. His concern is repeated by Mr Peter Rennoldson (OBJ/36) on behalf of the Upper New Road Residents Group. Ms Anne Gruner (OBJ/34) is concerned about the potential adverse effect of additional rail noise on property values. Mrs Amanda Grant (OBJ/44) is also concerned about noise and vibration both during construction and in operation at her home in Frankland Road. Mr Keith Jackson (OBJ/48) is a director of the Sanctuary Housing Association and he is concerned about the noise impact of trains on residential amenity at two houses in Stripling Way. He also fears the scheme would compromise the privacy of the houses by reason of overlooking.

Statutory undertaker

5.41 Mr Chris Chapman (OBJ/51) writes on behalf of Eastern Power Networks plc and UK Power Networks Holdings Limited to object to the making and confirmation of the Order unless, at the cost of the acquiring authority, there are provided to it, on no less favourable tenure, suitable alternative sites and suitable alternative rights to those to be acquired and/or temporarily used.

6 THE CASES OF THE REPRESENTORS

I have reclassified the representation by Mr Simon Fowle (REP/1) as an objection, and report the other representations in order. The material points are:

6.1 Mr Gordon Wyatt (REP/2) writes on behalf of Natural England. The statutory purpose of Natural England is to ensure the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. It raises no objection to the scheme and considers there would be no significant effects on the interest features of the Croxley Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest. As far as protected species (including bats, badgers, reptiles and breeding birds) are concerned, the mitigation measures proposed in the ES are likely to form the basis of an acceptable solution to any issues raised.

6.2 Mr Colin Knight (REP/3) writes on behalf of the Ramblers’ Association that there is no objection to the scheme. Attention is however drawn to two footpaths which are not included on the Definitive Map – between The Gateway and Ascot Road, and the south-west end of Cardiff Road. It is suggested that both should be added to the Map.

6.3 Mr Peter Brooker (REP/4) is the Director of Community and Environmental Services for the Three Rivers District Council. He records that the council firmly supports the CRL, and confirms in particular that the council would work with the promoters to ensure the environmental impact of the project (including the proposed viaduct) is mitigated and the local environment safeguarded. The importance of the retention of existing embankments (on the line between Baldwins Lane and the Grand Union Canal, and at the disused Croxley Green station) is emphasised in the interests of residential amenity. The council records the importance of

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

appropriate environmental mitigation measures along the route of the CRL line. It raises no objection to the draft planning conditions.

6.4 Mr Chris Beney (REP/5) writes on behalf of the Open Spaces Society. He supports the view expressed by Mr Knight.

6.5 Ms Odette Carter (REP/6) writes on behalf of the Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust. The Trust considers the ES comprehensively addresses the ecology and nature conservation issues relating to the CRL proposal, including the restoration of habitat connectivity along the transport corridor. Subject to the implementation of the planned mitigation, the current function of the corridor as a link for wildlife and a dispersal route for reptiles, bats and other species, would be maintained in the long term.

6.6 Mr Stuart Taylor (REP/8) writes on behalf of the Rhodes Property Company concerning plots 50 and 51. The plots would be required for temporary occupation as a working site and means of access. Mr Taylor indicates that he is fully aware of the proposed Ascot Road station and is prepared to work alongside the promoters to the benefit of both parties.

7 REBUTTAL BY HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

I have reported the rebuttals made by the Council on the basis of the Composite Responses (CRL/R/2 to CRL/R/69) and the Closing Submissions (CRL/INQ/9) made at the inquiry. The material points are:

Principle and costs

7.1 Particular attention is drawn in CRL/R/2 to the increased benefits of the scheme and the business case of the promoters. Figure 1 in CRL/2/3 illustrates the 800 m catchment areas of the existing station at Watford Met and those of the 4 stations (Ascot Road, Watford Hospital, Watford High Street, and Watford Junction) which would be added to the Metropolitan Line. Figure 2 in CRL/2/3 shows the home locations of existing Watford Met users. The latter drawing shows that many of the current users of Watford Met station would be closer to, and within walking distance of, the proposed Ascot Road station. Taking account also of new passengers, the BCR of the scheme would be 2.61.

7.2 The offer of Central Government funding for the scheme is dependent on the strength of the business case. The possibility of retaining Watford Met station open for passengers would materially reduce the strength of the business case to the extent that the BCR would fall below 2, and such a change to the scheme could result in the loss of the funding approval. Notwithstanding the proposed closure of Watford Met station, the benefits of the scheme would be material, and the majority of the beneficiaries would be the local people. Paragraph 5.3.2 of CRL/2/2 reports on the financial arrangement between the Council and LUL. This includes the transfer of the revenue surplus for an agreed period in return for the Council’s initial capital contribution.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

7.3 The current estimate of the cost of the CRL scheme is £116.8 million. This is lower than the cost estimate included in the Best and Final Bid of £170.8 million made in 2009. The difference is attributable to a change in the proposed opening year from 2018 to 2016, a lower inflation rate (of 3.5% pa, rather than 4.5% pa), together with a scheme review and value engineering exercise.

Cassio Wharf

7.4 The prospect of extending the wharf to the south to facilitate additional moorings would present considerable challenges as the land falls within the Green Belt. Other options include temporary removal to the Bridgewater Basin marina, or mooring boats two abreast. The construction of the viaduct and the operation of the railway would not result in a loss of moorings, but it is recognised that there would be an effect on the residential amenity of boats moored below – in terms both of shade and noise. The shaded area would not extend to the full length of the wharf. The adverse effects of the scheme on the value of the owner’s interest would be addressed by the compensation code.

7.5 During the construction period any unattended buildings would become part of the secure site compound. Vehicular access would be maintained except for specific construction activities, with any closure clearly notified by signage and/or letters to all affected parties.

Cinnamond House

7.6 For the purposes of inspection, maintenance, repair and renewal, and for security and safety, LUL require the ownership of the land and the airspace both above and beneath the proposed viaduct. It would need to ensure that no hazardous or detrimental operations (including fires for example) were undertaken on the land which would endanger any part of the structure or operation of the railway. The land would be offered back on a long term lease for use as open storage or the parking of vehicles. The lease would be for a period of 125 years. A term of 999 years would not be acceptable to LUL, as the viaduct would have a life span of only about 100 years. As far as access is concerned, the existing access would not be closed until the proposed new access was available for use. In relation to any reduction in value or detrimental effect on the business, this would be addressed by the compensation code.

7.7 The planned alignment of the viaduct is the optimum one derived from the constraints of the site and its surroundings and LUL standards. The possibility of amending the position of the piers has been considered. It is not feasible to span the A412 dual carriageway without a pier in the central reservation, and there is little flexibility in the location of other piers in the vicinity of the River Gade, the canal, and Baldwins Lane. A longer span over the A412 would necessitate a greater deck depth and an unacceptable clearance over the road. The use of spans of the same length is structurally more efficient, less expensive, and more aesthetically pleasing. The viaduct would be designed from a fixed point in the middle with expansion joints at

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

both ends where they would be reasonably accessible. The use of different span lengths would necessitate further elevated expansion joints on the viaduct which would be inherently more difficult to reach.

7.8 In relation to the proposed new access arrangement (CRL/INQ/2), this would result in more evenly spaced arms on the roundabout, and an improved geometry at the Baldwins Lane arm. It is considered the future collision record of the junction would be similar to (or slightly better than) that of the current layout.

7.9 The proposal for the construction of a means of access from the eastbound carriageway of the A412 would raise difficulties associated with the site of the existing bus stop, amendments to the need to relocate the Toucan crossing, and the existing vehicular access to the rear of Cassiobridge Terrace.

7.10 It is acknowledged that construction works would inevitably lead to increased noise levels. Significant emphasis is placed on communications between the promoters, the contractors, and people within the communities affected. It would be a requirement of the contract that account is taken of the commitments made in the ES. There would also be some dust generated, but this would be controlled by commonly adopted measures. It is estimated that noise from trains at the façade of Cinnamond House would be in the order of 53-55 dB(A), but there would be a corresponding reduction in the noise experienced on the western and northern façades of the building.

Construction and operational matters

7.11 The implementation of the CRL would require the acquisition of one additional Metropolitan Line train. The Croxley Green Branch line would be sufficient to accommodate the new S8 stock within standards and without additional land acquisition. The project would address all relevant construction issues. All track and ballast would be replaced to meet current standards.

7.12 All the existing bridges on the disused line have been surveyed and found to be in reasonable condition. Some repairs would be made to the Tolpits Lane road bridge before the line was brought back into service. However, the bridge over the old Ascot Road would be completely removed and replaced with a new bridge.

7.13 The stabling of trains at Watford Met station would incur very few costs in comparison with an operational station. Necessary security could include the upgrading of fences and additional CCTV coverage. The car park at Ascot Road station would accommodate about 200 cars – 70 more than is currently provided at Watford Met. Vehicular access to the car park from the Cassiobury Estate could use Cassiobury Park Avenue or Gade Avenue.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Pedestrian access routes from the proposed Ascot Road station to Cassiobury Park would be available either across Whippendell Road and Rickmansworth Road, or by using the towpath on the western side of the canal.

7.14 The case for the closure of Watford Met station is not based on the number of passengers forecast to use the station with a split service, but rather on the poor performance of the option resulting from the reduced service frequency on both the existing line and the CRL. There would therefore be no benefit in a trial service; it would merely be the cause of detriment to passengers. The Metropolitan Line service at Watford Junction could be run at 10 tph whilst still catering for the Euston – Watford Junction DC line trains. If demand was sufficient, an additional service could run from Amersham/Chesham to Watford Junction via the north curve (between Croxley and Rickmansworth stations).

7.15 A split service would increase the operational complexity of the Metropolitan Line as a whole. It would increase the risk of unreliability, and reduce the flexibility of controllers trying to recover the service after disruption. Nor would it be possible to secure a continued service to Watford Met station on the basis of the planned Sub-Surface Upgrade.

7.16 Watford Met station is in any event already lightly used with about 2,500 passengers per weekday. With the implementation of CRL a high proportion of the passengers would transfer to the new line, and the level of usage at the existing station would become very low. There is no transport case for seeking to keep Watford Met station open with the implementation of the CRL. In the event of the upgrading of the service on the Metropolitan Line as a whole, with 10 tph at Moor Park and 6 tph at Watford Junction, there would be a greater public benefit in reversing the 4 tph at Rickmansworth rather than Watford Met station because of the higher number of passengers there. In addition, this is an operational matter and not an issue for the current inquiry. Notwithstanding its concerns, London TravelWatch is a supporter of the CRL scheme, and if a trial for a split service would place the scheme in jeopardy, it would support the Order.

7.17 It is recognised that the numbers of pupils using Watford Met station to reach Watford Boys Grammar School was originally underestimated. However, the correction had a minimal effect on the BCR. As far as the and West Hertfordshire College are concerned, these are better or equally well served by Watford Junction. The business case for the scheme takes account of changes in the cost of travel and increases in journey times, but it is concluded that these would be outweighed by the benefits experienced by others. In any event, there is no reason why the boys should not walk for an extra 8 minutes, and the school itself has not objected to the scheme. The extra distance would be offset by a better journey for girls resident in West Watford or Croxley Green and attending the Watford Girls Grammar School, and by users of Watford General Hospital.

Sea Cadets and Morris Minors

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

7.18 The potential for traffic conflict between the contractor and the Sea Cadets and Morris Minors Pre-school at the entrance off the roundabout is recognised. Drawing No: M/1019324/PYGD/002/01 attached to CRL/R/38 & 67 shows a potential layout which seeks to minimise difficulties. The highway authority has agreed in principle to the temporary exit off the westbound A412 indicated. As far as possible, deliveries to and collections from the site would be timed to avoid the peak periods when access is required to the TS Renown. A liaison officer and banksman would be appointed.

7.19 Piling would be scheduled to be carried out during school holiday periods. It should take between 4 and 6 weeks, and a temporary noise barrier would be installed during the works. Subject to the agreement of the landowners (Three Rivers District Council) the outdoor space in the vicinity of the TS Renown would be improved, as shown on the two options attached to CRL/R/38 & 67.

7.20 Site hoarding would be erected along the boundary between the worksite and the TS Renown and car park – in order in part to protect the existing trees which lie beyond the northern edge of the forecourt of the building.

Neal Street

7.21 The area from which wheel squeal is being generated is considered to be from the tightest part of the curve on the existing track of the Euston – Watford Junction DC line approach to Watford High Street station. This starts from a point opposite the rear garden of 64 Neal Street where the line towards Euston turns through over 90˚ with a 204 m radius. The junction with CRL would be opposite the rear garden of 30 Neal Street, and the CRL trains would not therefore be using that part of the existing track with the tight radius – which is the responsibility of Network Rail. It is considered the rail squeal issue would not be worsened by the CRL scheme. The black soot deposit identified by the Neal Street residents is not understood. The trains use regenerative braking systems which tend not to use brake discs.

7.22 An assessment has been made of the potential noise climate after the implementation of the CRL in accordance with the DfT’s Calculation of Railway Noise. Even on the basis of 18 Metropolitan Line tph, the increase is predicted to be slight to moderate. This would not constitute a significant increase in noise levels, and it would not trigger the levels requiring mitigation under the Noise Insulation Regulations for new track, or under LUL’s noise policy for new railways. Nor would the scheme be expected to give rise to any significant increase in vibration after implementation. The compensation code that applies to the Order does potentially seek to address claims by people affected by the use of the railway, but it is considered unlikely that the increased traffic would give rise to any claim.

Croxley Car Centre

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

7.23 The viaduct would have to cross the site of Croxley Cars in order both to avoid the dwellings at Cassiobridge Terrace, and to ensure the radius of the curve is as great as possible to reduce the possibility of wheel squeal. The owner and the occupier would be compensated in accordance with the statutory compensation provisions.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

8 CONCLUSIONS

Taking account of the submissions and representations on which I have reported, I have reached the following conclusions. I refer in square brackets to the earlier paragraphs of the report as appropriate.

8.1 On 6 June 2012 the Secretary of State issued a statement setting out those matters about which she specifically wished to be informed for the purposes of her consideration of the draft Order. I address each of these matters below.

The aims and objectives of, and the need for, the proposed CRL, extending the LUL Metropolitan Line from Croxley to Watford Junction (“the scheme”).

8.2 The Council’s promotion of the scheme has three primary aims: to enhance sustainable links both within Watford and across Hertfordshire, including links with London, by reinforcing Watford’s role as a key transport hub; to improve local connectivity; and to provide a sustainable and value-for- money alternative to car travel with inherently lower environmental impacts per trip [3.4]. Objectors to the scheme refer to the relatively recent failure of both the Croxley Green Branch line and the Bakerloo Line link to Watford Junction; the more rapid alternative for London commuters of using the Euston – Watford Junction DC line; the low population density around the proposed Ascot Road station; the greater attraction of travel by car; and the benefits of both travel alternatives (especially buses) and competing demands for public expenditure (especially health and education) [5.1, 5.2, 5.3].

8.3 The area of south-west Hertfordshire into which Watford falls is well- endowed with major transport routes. The West Coast Main Line passes through Watford Junction, and this provides a rapid route into Euston [5.1]. The Euston – Watford Junction DC line provides a slower but more frequent service, but both services terminate at Euston. There is a local line from Watford Junction to St Albans (the ). The latter lines link Watford with surrounding suburban settlements to the north-east and south, including , Garston and Bricket Wood (on the Abbey line), and Bushey/Oxhey, and Harrow (on the DC line). The western part of Watford is served by The Metropolitan Line. It provides a direct link to the northern part of central London (at Baker Street and Euston Square, for example), and to the City (at Moorgate and Aldgate). Closer to Watford it provides local links with , Northwood, Moor Park and Croxley Green, but it terminates at Watford Met station – about 1 km west of the north-west extremity of the town centre.

8.4 The M1 and A41 pass within about 2.5 km of the town centre (which is characterised by a high capacity ring road) to the north-east and north respectively. The principal road to the west (A412) passes through Croxley Green and Rickmansworth to the M25 – a distance of about 7 km from the town centre. The town and its surroundings thus form part of a busy road

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

network. However, there is no dispute between the parties that, particularly to the west of the town centre, the network is both congested and frequently over capacity [3.3, 4.5, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12].

8.5 In seeking to address these matters, it is inevitable that LUL and the Council have different geographical perspectives in relation to the scheme. The purpose of LUL is to provide a comprehensive rapid public transport network for London and its surroundings, whereas the Council’s concerns are more focussed on Watford and south-west Hertfordshire. At present, the potential for linkage between the railways which service the town centre to the north-east and south-east are not complemented by comparable services to the west. Indeed, the existing Watford Met station is some distance both from the town centre and from other passenger generating uses [3.5]. By linking the Metropolitan Line with the National Rail network at Watford Junction, the scheme would inevitably contribute to the Council’s objective of reinforcing the town’s role as a key transport hub [3.4].

8.6 The current inadequacy of the linkage between the National Rail network and the Metropolitan Line can only serve to underline the Council’s first objective, and the scheme would enhance the travel choices both for London commuters and for others going elsewhere. The CRL would result in a net increase in the numbers of potential passengers within 800 m of a Metropolitan Line station to over 14,000, and although some in the vicinity of Watford Junction and Watford High Street stations may not wish to take advantage of the choice, there would be a clear benefit for actual or potential commuters living in the vicinity of the proposed Watford Hospital and Ascot Road stations [3.5].

8.7 A second limb of the Council’s objectives is to improve local connectivity [3.4]. Currently, the lack of a link between the Metropolitan Line to the west and the National Rail services to the east and south-east, means that the potential for linkage between the centre and the western suburbs cannot be fully realised. Although the now disused Croxley Green Branch line would have provided a limited service in this respect, the failure to make the link with the Metropolitan Line must have curtailed the opportunities of those along the route who would have wished to go to or from Watford. The Council draws attention in particular to the needs of the residential communities in the western part of the town and their limited means of access to the business, leisure and employment opportunities focussed towards its more central and eastern parts [3.2, 3.3]. I agree with its identification of this deficiency.

8.8 I conclude in relation to the Secretary of State’s first matter that the CRL would fulfil the Council’s aims and objectives for the project. As far as the need for the scheme is concerned, I consider that, taking account of the existing level of traffic pressure, the area surrounding the proposed Watford Hospital station is in need of a high volume public transport system. In particular, the scheme would facilitate travel – including access into London – for those local residents without cars, as well as others from a much larger area requiring access to the hospital. Although the needs of those with cars may not be as acute, the scheme would provide an alternative to car travel with lower environmental impacts, to the benefit of all. In

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

response to the objections which have been made, I consider that the planned formation of the link with the Metropolitan Line renders the scheme substantially distinguishable from, and superior to, the old Croxley Green Branch line. I recognise there are large areas of non-residential land uses south of the proposed Ascot Road station, but there is a significant residential population to the north-east of the site. I do not consider that an enhanced bus service would provide an equivalently reliable service at a local or regional scale. Finally, I consider the competition for funds between public transport, health and education demands to be outside the terms of the inquiry.

The justification for the particular proposals in the draft TWA Order, including the anticipated transportation, regeneration, environmental, and socio-economic benefits of the scheme.

8.9 In promoting the scheme, the Council’s third main objective is to provide a sustainable and value-for-money alternative to car travel with inherently lower environmental impacts per trip [3.4]. The CRL would pass through areas of West Watford characterised by relatively high rates of deprivation and low rates of car ownership. In addition, the scheme includes the closure to passengers of Watford Met station, where the opposite characteristics apply [3.2].

8.10 The promoters recognise in this context that the implementation of the scheme would have an effect on highway traffic flows in the area [3.6]. Increases in flows would be expected at Gade Avenue and Tolpits Lane, with more modest increases elsewhere on the network, but these would be outnumbered by a greater number of decreases. It is not anticipated the scheme would result in more than a modest benefit in terms of highway traffic flows. Objectors fear the anticipated change in flows would be optimistic at best, and would compromise highway safety at worst [5.9, 5.11, 5.12].

8.11 As a part of the input to the ES the promoters of the scheme commissioned a Transport Assessment. It is on the basis of this work that the Council predicts a modest benefit. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the work which has been carried out. I saw on my visits that, although queuing appears to be a characteristic of Rickmansworth Road during the morning peak, the capacity of the network is higher at Ascot Road. I anticipate little highway or traffic difficulty in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new station or its car park [2.4]. In any event, I agree with the Council that a large proportion of the current Watford Met station users would walk to the new station [7.1]. I recognise that others (from the Parkside Drive and Cassiobury Drive area, for example) may use their cars to reach the station, but I also note that approximately half the 800 m Watford Met station catchment area identified by the Council [3.5] is occupied by Cassiobury Park itself. In addition, the southern portion of the area overlaps with the northern part of the proposed Ascot Road station area.

8.12 In comparison with the circumstances at Ascot Road, the identified catchment area and the proposed arrangement for Watford Hospital station

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

would be notably different. The catchment area suffers from generally higher levels of deprivation and lower levels of access to a car, and no car park is planned off Vicarage Road at the station site [3.2]. I anticipate it is this station which would generate significant numbers of new passengers to the Metropolitan Line travelling both west (towards Rickmansworth and London) and east (to Watford town centre and Watford Junction station).

8.13 Taking account of both the character of the surrounding area and the location of the proposed station, it is in this location that I anticipate the main socio-economic benefit of the CRL would be realised. In relation to the transportation benefits of the scheme, I see no objection in principle to the station not being complemented by a car park. However, although I recognise the bridge and the highway may limit the opportunities at this location, I consider nevertheless that an appropriate dropping off and picking up lay-by would be desirable if this could be safely designed and implemented [5.10].

8.14 Attention was drawn both at the inquiry and in the representations of supporters to the regeneration and socio-economic benefits of the scheme. The Watford General Hospital is both a significant destination for the surrounding area and a major employer. That the scheme would improve the choice of means of access to the site for patients and staff was not subject to significant challenge. I saw on my visits that, although Vicarage Road which serves the site forms part of the A4145, it is both relatively narrow and it also serves residential and commercial uses. It is heavily congested [4.2, 4.4]. Although the hospital would not directly adjoin the proposed station, the two sites are relatively close [4.1], and I consider their proximity would benefit the journeys of many out-patients. I do not consider the incline between the station site and the Vicarage Road/Willow Road junction would be a significant barrier to access [5.10].

8.15 The hospital is the essential component of the Watford Health Campus scheme for which outline planning permission has already been granted, and I agree with the Council and the local NHS Trust that the two schemes are inter-dependent [3.2, 4.4]. Others writing in support of the CRL scheme have drawn attention to the contribution they consider it would make to the realisation of investment projects at Charter Place, the Western Gateway, the Harlequin Shopping Centre, and Watford Junction station itself [4.5, 4.6]. I agree with these views.

8.16 The principal environmental benefit of the scheme would be derived from the modal shift for trips from private cars to trains, and the corresponding reduction in emissions [3.4]. Although the Council’s predicted reduction in the number of cars on the local network was not accepted by all, and the promoters themselves acknowledge that traffic flows would increase at some locations, I do not dispute the overall prediction of a modest benefit [5.12]. It follows that in environmental terms there would also be a corresponding modest benefit.

The main alternative options considered by the promoters and the reasons for choosing the proposals comprised in the scheme.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

8.17 The late nineteenth and early twentieth century history of the railway network on the south and south-west sides of Watford is informative [5.8]. Although the area was well served by railways (from the main Euston line to the east, and from the Metropolitan Line to the west), the link between the two was never made. I gather this has been an aspiration for many decades. A number of alternative alignments and mode options have been considered in the context of the current proposal.

8.18 Alternatives considered include a tunnel link from Watford Met station to Watford Junction – as originally proposed in the 1920s. This was rejected on cost grounds and because it would fail to improve the public transport service on the south side of West Watford or in the town centre. Another alignment considered was the reinstatement of the former Watford – Rickmansworth railway. It would have been more expensive than the current scheme, and less beneficial in terms of both the residential areas along the CRL route, and the potential employment and development sites.

8.19 The possibility of a rail shuttle between Watford Junction and Ascot Road was considered, but this would not make the link with the Metropolitan Line and the opportunities for access along the line could not be realised. A option link with the Abbey Line (between Watford Junction and St Albans) was considered. However, the full benefit of the scheme could only be achieved by crossing the West Coast Main Line and passing through the town centre. It would be more expensive than the current scheme, and the benefit of a direct Metropolitan Line link to London would be absent.

8.20 The conversion of the Croxley Green Branch line to guided or non-guided busways was considered. However, both these options would involve a change of mode at Croxley and Watford Junction, and the benefits of fully integrated travel into London would be lost. Although there would be cost advantages it was considered that, because of road congestion, it would be less reliable than the CRL scheme. It was concluded it would not offer better value-for-money than the preferred scheme.

8.21 There has been some support for the option of improved bus services, and for enhancing the orbital service between Watford and Amersham/Chesham [5.2]. I understand the latter remains a possibility in operational terms, but it does not have a strong business case [3.16]. In its consideration of alternatives, emphasis is placed on the link which the scheme would establish with central London and the other potential destinations on the Metropolitan Line, together with the regeneration benefits of the extension of the line to Watford Junction.

The extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning, transport and environmental policies.

8.22 One of the primary aims of the scheme is to establish sustainable links within Watford, across Hertfordshire, and with London – an objective consistent with the presumption included in the NPPF in favour of sustainable development [3.4, 3.52]. In terms of the development plan,

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

the scheme would constitute the implementation of Policy S7 (To deliver improved and more integrated transport systems and reduce the need to travel by locating development in accessible locations) in the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy, and Policies T16 (Rail use) and T20 (Transport proposals) of the Watford District Plan.

8.23 The scheme is also included in the borough council’s emerging core strategy. Policy T1 seeks to develop Watford’s role as a regional transport node, and Policy IP 1 provides specific support by proposing the delivery of the scheme at the earliest possible date [3.49].

8.24 The East of England Plan was the regional strategy for the area, in which Watford was identified as a key centre for development and change5. In relation to Greater London, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy promotes extensions to the underground network, and the CRL receives specific support in paragraph (c) of Proposal 22 [3.51].

8.25 None of the objectors to the scheme have cited conflict with local planning policies or proposals. Reference has however been made to the siting of the proposed viaduct in the Green Belt [5.20]. The Council observes that the scheme would not give rise to urban sprawl, and, except for the piers, the existing uses would be able to return after the construction period. Development comprising local transport infrastructure requiring a Green Belt location would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided openness is preserved and the scheme would not conflict with the purposes of the land’s inclusion [3.53, 3.54].

8.26 The link between the Metropolitan Line and the former Croxley Green Branch line is the most essential feature of the scheme, and, given the levels and the need to bridge Baldwins Lane, the A412 dual carriageway, the Grand Union Canal, and the River Gade, the only feasible alignment is the route proposed. I also agree with the Council that the viaduct could not be accurately described as urban sprawl – the checking of which is one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt designation referred to in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. However, the viaduct would undoubtedly be a large and very visible structure, especially where it would cross the A412 and the canal, and I do not believe it would preserve openness.

8.27 In relation to the purposes of designation, I consider the viaduct would, to a degree, entail a minor encroachment into the countryside setting of the canal, although the A412 dual carriageway is already a dominant component of the locality. On the other hand, the CRL as a whole can be accurately described as the recycling of derelict urban land (the former railway) and the scheme itself would constitute urban regeneration – another of the purposes of Green Belt designation.

8.28 I conclude nevertheless in relation to this matter that, because of its

5 See footnote 2 above.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

potential impact on openness, the viaduct would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would thus be harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the harm resulting from inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the need to consider the existence and extent of any other harm, I return to this matter later in the report.

The likely impact of the proposed closure of Watford Metropolitan station on passengers having regard to the conclusions of the London TravelWatch report to the Mayor of London on hardship.

8.29 The report by London TravelWatch to the Mayor of London is included as Document LTW/1. The committee considered that the implementation of the scheme would result in hardship to some existing passengers using Watford Met station. About half the passengers using the station would have to walk rather further than before, but this could be alleviated by improvements to the walking and cycling environment, by a subsidised bus service, and by the agreement of discretionary fares for those passengers disadvantaged by the zone fare structure. A 2 year split timetable trial period is suggested (with Metropolitan Line trains serving both Watford Junction and Watford Met stations), but not if this would jeopardise the existing funding arrangements [5.6, 5.7].

8.30 Most of the objection to the scheme is the result of the planned closure of Watford Met station as an integral part of the project. Particular attention was drawn to the effect on pupils attending the Watford Boys Grammar School (which lies in the block between the station and Rickmansworth Road) [5.4, 5.5, 5.8]. Even supporters of the scheme recognised the benefit of keeping the Met station open [4.5]. The Council acknowledges that its original calculations concerning the numbers of pupils who would be affected was incorrect, but having rerun the calculation on the basis of revised figures the effect on the benefit to cost ratio was minimal [7.17].

8.31 On my site visit with representatives of the parties I timed the respective distances involved. Walking from the Met station to the Shepherds Road entrance of the school takes about 5 minutes. From the Rickmansworth Road access of the school to the site of the proposed Ascot Road station takes some 12 minutes. I recognise that there is considerably more traffic on the latter route with two busy roads to cross – Rickmansworth Road and Whippendell Road – but traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings are available on both roads. I acknowledge that the route is neither as pleasant nor as short as the existing route for pupils using the Metropolitan Line, but I agree with the Council that the time penalty is relatively modest in absolute terms [7.17].

8.32 I have referred to the benefit in terms of the numbers of potential passengers living within 800 m of the proposed Watford Hospital station. In relation to the closure of Watford Met station it is recognised that this would not be entirely complemented by the opening of the planned Ascot Road station. The existing passengers who live closest to the Met station would

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

have further to walk, especially those living on the north side of Cassiobury Park, in Parkside Drive and Cassiobury Drive for example. The Council estimates that passengers living around the park would see a 14 minute increase in their journey time [3.9]. The area includes large detached houses in Cassiobury Park Avenue and Swiss Avenue, and the more recent development of houses and apartments at Cassio Metro off Station Approach. I note in this context however that roughly half of the north- eastern part of the Met station catchment area comprises parkland.

8.33 I do not dispute that the existence of the park itself must generate some passengers who appreciate the location of the Met station. Similarly, I recognise that the traditional appearance and character of the station induces a sense of security. Having crossed the valley of the River Gade on a viaduct and embankments, the line and station platforms are generally below the level of the surrounding streets and dwellings, and the station does have a reassuring and intimate character [5.9]. I agree with the objectors who have referred to the differences between this area and the surroundings of Ascot Road, but I cannot attribute any more than limited weight to this aspect of the case.

8.34 In response to the hardship identified by London TravelWatch and others, I have considered the possibility of a split service for a trial period in order to avoid the closure of the Met station [5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8]. I note in this context that, the purchase of more than one additional train would have a serious adverse impact on the business case for the project [3.12]. Similarly, I consider that using the need to reverse trains as a rationale for keeping the Met station open to passengers, would result in considerable operational complexity. I do not doubt the Council’s fear that a split service would mean a potentially inefficient service on both lines, with serious consequential effects on the remainder of the Metropolitan Line. There is no dispute between the parties that delays on one line can be critical to the network as a whole [3.13, 3.14]. I note the suggestions made for a subsidised bus service and/or discretionary fares. These possibilities were not discussed at the inquiry and I do not consider they could be determinative. I believe they are essentially matters for the consideration of the promoters.

8.35 I conclude in relation to this matter that, although the implementation of the CRL scheme would be disadvantageous to a number of users, the extent and significance of the hardship involved would be quite limited.

The likely impact on residents, schools, businesses and the environment of constructing and operating the scheme, including:

(a) noise and vibration, including the impacts of construction traffic;

(b) impacts on air quality;

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

(c) impacts on water resources, including flood risk and the potential for contamination;

(d) impacts on landscape, townscape and visual amenity;

(e) impacts on cultural heritage and archaeological remains;

(f) impacts on land use, including effects on commercial property and on public footpaths;

(g) impacts on the Grand Union Canal and its users, including boat residents and waterway-related businesses;

(h) the temporary and permanent effects of the scheme on open space; and

(i) the impacts of constructing the scheme on pedestrians and road traffic in the area.

8.36 (a) On the basis of the submissions made in writing and to the inquiry, and my visits to the various sites, I have considered this matter in 3 sections. First, from Watford Junction station to the proposed junction of the CRL with the Euston-Watford DC line the existing railway is already well used. The scheme would necessitate the installation of an additional power supply rail but the track itself would be shared between LUL and Network Rail. Second, between Wiggenhall Road in the east and Ascot Road in the west the scheme essentially involves the re-establishment of the former Croxley Green Branch, the closure of which occurred in the relatively recent past. Third, the final length between Ascot Road and the proposed new junction with the existing Metropolitan Line would be achieved by the construction of a viaduct along a completely new alignment [3.17 – 3.24].

8.37 Having departed from the route of the West Coast Main Line, the first length of the route passes to the rear of dwellings in Queen’s Road, Gladstone Road, Ebury Road and Shaftesbury Road. The line enters a cutting before Watford High Street station, and thereafter passing more dwellings at Dyson Court and Neal Street. I understand the existing DC line service operates at 6 tph in each direction, and it is proposed the CRL would also operate at 6 tph in each direction. The number of trains using the line would therefore double.

8.38 Objectors have referred to the noise and vibration resulting from the existing service. The residents of Neal Street in particular have drawn attention to the screeching noise from wheels as trains pass to the rear of the terrace. The problem has recently worsened following the upgrading of the track [5.36, 5.39, 5.40].

8.39 The existing levels of noise disturbance at Neal Street cannot be attributed to the CRL scheme. I saw on my visit that the line is quite close behind the

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

rear gardens of the Neal Street houses, especially those towards the south- west end of the terrace, but the junction with the CRL line would be sited opposite the rear garden of No 30 [7.21]. I have no reason to doubt the Council’s explanation that the screeching noise is the result of the tight radius of the DC lines to the rear of Elfrida Road. I understand the existing track is the responsibility of Network Rail.

8.40 I recognise the utilisation of the line would be doubled with the implementation of the CRL, but, on the basis of the evidence I have received, there is no reason to expect this would exacerbate the intrusive screeching noise. I do not dispute there would be an increase in the frequency of the less intrusive noises generated by a passing train, but the ES indicates that the change in the predicted levels would be only slight to moderate in terms of their impact significance [7.22]. Indeed, at the relevant noise monitoring locations, R8 (at the north-east end of Neal Street) and R9 (at Gladstone Road), it is predicted the increase would be no greater than 2-2.5 dB(A) [3.33]. I conclude in relation to this section of the CRL line that no mitigation measures would be necessary.

8.41 In contrast to the first length of the line, there are two locations along the second length where the increase in operational noise would be significantly greater. At R7 (Cardiff Road) and at R3 (The Gateway) the predicted increase would be 6.0 and 5.8 dB(A) respectively. It would thus exceed the 5 dB(A) increase above which the promoters consider mitigation would be required. I have no reason to doubt this assessment or its conclusions [3.32]. There would also be an increase in operational noise levels at R4 (Kelmscott Crescent, adjacent to Holm Oak Park), where an objection has referred to possible noise interference [5.33]. However, in this case the increase would be only 3.1 dB(A), and no mitigation is therefore proposed.

8.42 On the third section of the line the route would pass directly over Cassio Wharf on the Grand Union Canal – a location which provides moorings for the occupiers of residential narrow boats. The monitored level of noise in the vicinity is 53 dB(A) and it is considered the increase here would be 1-3 dB(A) – below the increase giving rise for a need for mitigation [3.35]. The potential for noise disturbance at Cinnamond House and the TS Renown has also been raised [5.17, 5.29].

8.43 The noise environment in the area of the wharf – which includes the TS Renown – is notably more tranquil than at locations closer to the A412 where traffic noise is dominant. In view of the residential use of the wharf and the use of the TS Renown as a pre-school, I consider that in the event of the Order being confirmed and the scheme implemented, both locations should be the subject of monitoring within the terms of draft condition 15. Similarly, I saw on my visit that new dwellings have been constructed at Sansom Close, off Watford Road. These are close to the proposed abutment at the western end of the proposed viaduct and would be below the level of the tracks. The new tracks would be closer than the existing Metropolitan Line, and I consider this location also should be the site of further monitoring. I see no comparable requirement however for monitoring at Cinnamond House.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

8.44 The impact of noise and distraction (during both the construction and the operational periods) in relation to the learning environment at Laurance Haines School has been raised [5.11]. However, the Council has been in discussions with the school and the erection of a barrier along the common boundary has been agreed. It is on this basis that the school has withdrawn its objection to the draft Order. I do not consider the learning environment would be significantly adversely affected [3.34].

8.45 The likelihood of damage resulting from ground-borne vibration has also been raised, especially in relation to the Neal Street houses [5.36]. The potential for vibration has been considered, but the Council has concluded the risk of complaint or cosmetic damage would be low during both the construction phase and thereafter [3.36]. I agree with the Council that the risk of damage or complaint from this source is insufficient to justify restraining the Order.

8.46 It was suggested during the inquiry that the failure to appropriately address the impact of noise and vibration on nearby dwellings could amount to a breach of the human rights of the occupiers. I refer to this again at the end of this report.

8.47 (b) Although it is widely recognised that construction work inevitably creates a certain quantity of dust and dirt, no specific objection has been made against the scheme on the basis of any adverse effect on air quality. The Neal Street residents are concerned about a sticky black soot which they have observed, and which they fear may be brake dust [5.37]. The Council notes however that trains would be an unlikely source of this deposit [7.21]. Subject therefore to a marginal improvement associated with the modest benefit in terms of traffic on the highway network, I consider the scheme would be of little significance in relation to air quality [3.6].

8.48 (c) As far as the water environment is concerned the scheme would span the River Gade and the Grand Union Canal at its western end, and between Vicarage Road and Wiggenhall Road it would pass through the flood plain of the River Colne [3.37]. However, along the latter section the track would occupy the existing embankment of the Croxley Green Branch line and no further significant works would be necessary. The proposals allow for level by level compensatory storage capacity, and no objection is now raised in relation to the scheme by the Environment Agency.

8.49 The principal danger of contamination, including the contamination of ground water, would be derived from the construction of the viaduct. Working sites would be close to both the river and the canal, but appropriate working practices should ensure that neither is contaminated. The danger to ground water of piling is recognised, and the piles would be bored and lined. The proposed works have not given rise to objections on water quality grounds, and the initial concerns of the Environment Agency have been satisfied. In terms of both surface water drainage and contamination, draft conditions 7, 8a, 8b and 8c would apply. Draft conditions 2 and 3 would secure the submission of an appropriate Code of

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Construction Practice. I conclude the scheme would be able to satisfactorily address the need to protect the water environment.

8.50 (d) Although the impact of most of the scheme on landscape, townscape and visual amenity did not form a substantial component of the inquiry, concerns were expressed about the appearance and effect of the proposed viaduct [5.17-20], and the loss of trees on the route of the former Croxley Green Branch [5.33].

8.51 The viaduct has not yet been designed, but the design parameters are known. It would be a continuous structure with a steel/concrete deck and steel/concrete composite cantilevers on a total of 8 concrete piers and 9 spans [3.19]. Enough is known about the structure for the Council to have been able to produce a number of useful photomontages (reproduced in CRL/5/3). The steel beams would be enclosed in a concrete casing so that the structure as a whole would directly follow the curving alignment of the railway tracks.

8.52 The viaduct would have the appearance and character of a clean, modern structure, which would contrast favourably with the old Croxley Green Branch line railway bridge over the canal and the Metropolitan Line bridge over Baldwins Lane. However, it would not be possible to obscure or significantly disguise the structure, and it would be a major component of the scene, especially where it would cross the A412 and the canal. I saw on my visits that there are a significant number of trees in the vicinity, some of which would be taller than the viaduct, so that the structure would be partly obscured – at least during the summer. This part of the scheme falls within the area of the Metropolitan Green Belt, and I note in this context that paragraph 81 of the NPPF provides an impetus to retain and enhance the landscapes and visual amenity of the Green Belt. I fear the viaduct could not comply with this encouragement, and I conclude, on balance, that the visual impact of the viaduct weighs against the scheme.

8.53 The implementation of the scheme further along the line would necessitate significant tree felling [3.28, 3.30]. However, the proposals provide for the replanting of native tree and shrub species, and draft conditions 4, 5 and 6 ensure that appropriate landscaping would be reinstituted. I conclude on this basis that, as far as trees are concerned, there would be no net loss of visual amenity.

8.54 (e) The impact of the scheme in relation to the cultural heritage of the area and any archaeological remains formed a significant part neither of the inquiry nor of the objections received. Although Watford Met station is a Grade II listed building, I do not consider this would render the building incompatible with other appropriate uses [3.26]. As far as archaeological remains or artefacts are concerned, the purpose of draft condition 9 would be to ensure that potential archaeological interests are recognised.

8.55 (f) The effect of the scheme on land use and commercial property is again essentially confined to the area of the proposed viaduct. The scheme would necessitate the compulsory acquisition of land at the Croxley Car

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Centre, at Cinnamond House, at Watford Road Playground, and at Cassio Wharf [3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.44]. With the exception of the playground, the respective owners and/or occupiers of the sites have objected to the scheme.

8.56 In the case of the Croxley Car Centre the owner and occupiers fear the scheme would force the closure of the used car trade which currently occupies the site [5.14]. Although the land would be offered back after the completion of the works [3.40], the Council does not dispute this prediction. The owner and occupier would be compensated in accordance with the statutory compensation code [7.23].

8.57 I recognise and acknowledge that a significant break in the service the current occupiers are able to offer would constitute a threat to the commercial viability of the enterprise. On the other hand, the land required for the abutment of the viaduct would be quite limited, and I can see no reason why a similar enterprise and use should not subsequently take advantage of the site.

8.58 Cinnamond House is the office base for a number of companies, and the yard between it and Baldwins Lane/Watford Road is used for the maintenance, testing, parking and circulation of heavy industrial machinery, including the storage of ancillary equipment and construction materials [5.15]. The site would be occupied by a worksite and ultimately by 3 viaduct piers, but the bulk of the land would be offered back after the completion of the works [3.41]. A new means of access would be created off the adjacent roundabout.

8.59 I recognise and acknowledge that the proposed works would inevitably entail some disruption to operations in the yard, and the proximity of the viaduct would have some effect on amenity at the office itself. However, I consider the most significant effects would be temporary, and, taking account of its current use, I do not believe the impact in either land use or commercial terms would be serious.

8.60 At Watford Road Playground agreement has been reached with the owner (Three Rivers District Council) that the land would be acquired [3.43]. It would be occupied by a worksite and ultimately by two piers. After the completion of the works the land would be offered back for the reinstatement of the use. I recognise this would disrupt the land use, but I do not consider the reinstatement of the use would be incompatible with the proximity of the viaduct.

8.61 The land directly adjoins the TS Renown. The building is also in the ownership of the Three Rivers District Council, but it is leased to the Sea Cadets, and the building is shared with the Morris Minors Pre-school. There is concern that the proximity of the proposed viaduct could affect the amenity of the building and hence the financial viability of the pre-school. This in turn could constitute a threat to the future of the Sea Cadet Unit [5.24].

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

8.62 Discussions continue between the parties concerning the means of egress from the worksite, the use of the car park, and the use of land on the south side of both the car park and the building. I do not dispute that the proximity of the viaduct (and of the trains) to the TS Renown would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the building and I recommend that, in the event of the confirmation of the Order and the implementation of the scheme, the building should be the location of noise monitoring under draft condition 15. On this basis I consider the scheme would be a threat to neither the use of the building nor the commercial viability of its occupants.

8.63 The eastern end of the proposed viaduct would coincide with the Grand Union Canal and Cassio Wharf. The draft Order does not provide for the acquisition of the canal itself, but the land at Cassio Wharf would be acquired – permanently under the viaduct, and temporarily to both the north and the south for use as a worksite [3.44]. Although the land was used as a boatyard in the past, it is now used both as a means of access to residential narrow boats moored alongside, and as the location of essential services to the residents. These include facilities for drinking water, electricity supply, sewage disposal, car parking and storage [5.29].

8.64 The need for the relocation of a number of the narrow boats closest to the route of the viaduct has been the subject of discussion between the parties, but an agreement has not been reached [5.31]. I do not dispute that the construction of the viaduct would severely disrupt the potential of the site for the mooring of residential boats, nor that its subsequent use would have other than a significant effect on residential amenity at the wharf. In the event of it not being possible to let the berths affected, the scheme would have long term adverse consequences for the land use and the viability of the enterprise as a whole. The Council has recorded that in such circumstances the owner’s interest would be addressed by the compensation code [7.4].

8.65 Additional narrow strips of land would be acquired at Harwoods Recreation Ground and at the Holywell Allotments for the construction of the proposed Watford Hospital station. The land is in the ownership of Watford Borough Council, which supports the scheme [3.45, 4.5]. At neither location would the scheme have a significant effect on the land uses involved, and no active allotments would be acquired. The acquisition of a narrow strip of land to the rear of 42 and 44 Stripling Way would also be necessary [3.46]. Notwithstanding the concern expressed on behalf of the Sanctuary Housing Association, I consider the scheme would affect neither the residential land use nor any commercial interests [5.40].

8.66 The draft Order proposes the temporary stopping up of two footpaths. First, at the south-west end of Cardiff Road between points T9 and T10, and second, above the platform at Watford High Street station between points T11 and T12. I understand the former is not on the definitive map, and at the latter, an alternative would be readily available.

8.67 (g) I have considered the impact of the scheme on the boat residents and waterway-related businesses of the Grand Union Canal above.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Although the Canal & River Trust originally objected to the draft Order (OBJ/33), this was subsequently withdrawn. Article 15 of the draft Order would authorise the temporary closure of the canal for construction or maintenance purposes, but there is no reason to presume the power would not be utilised without appropriate regard for canal users.

8.68 (h) Following an agreement between the Three Rivers District Council (the owner of the Watford Road Playground), and the promoters, this matter has been resolved. I refer to this earlier in the report [1.9, 3.43, 3.64].

8.69 There is another area of land identified in the Watford District Plan as public open space which would be affected by the proposals. Plots 73 and 74 comprise part of the Harwoods Recreation Ground along the northern boundary of the disused Croxley Green Branch line. It would be permanently acquired for parts of the Watford Hospital station structure. Plot 77 is a larger area of the recreation ground which would the subject of temporary acquisition during the construction period. All the land is in the ownership of Watford Borough Council which raises no objection to their acquisition.

8.70 The promoters have proposed that disused railway land forming part of plot 69 is offered as replacement land for the land which would be permanently acquired. The net loss of public open space would therefore be confined to 52.5m, and I saw on my visit that both the area which would be permanently acquired, and the replacement land, are heavily overgrown and unused. I understand the proposals have been locally advertised by the council and that no objections were received. Notwithstanding its designation, the land to be acquired is neither laid out as a public garden nor used for the purposes of public recreation. I conclude on this basis that the land concerned does not fall within the terms of section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and that an exchange land certificate is not therefore necessary. I agree with the Council that the proposed acquisition and substitution would have a neutral impact on the use and utility of the recreation ground (Document CRL/7/2, paragraphs 5.3.46-50).

8.71 (i) Article 8 and Schedule 3 of the draft Order would authorise the permanent stopping up of the street at point P1 – within the central reservation of Watford Road between Cassio Bridge and the roundabout. The site would be required for a proposed viaduct pier. I see no objection to this part of the draft Order.

8.72 Article 9 and Schedule 4 refer to the need for the temporary stopping up of streets between T1 and T2 in Baldwins Lane, T3 and T4 in Watford Road (including the cycle track), T5 and T6 in the new Ascot Road, and T7 and T8 in the old Ascot Road (including the cycle track). Concerns were expressed on behalf of the Croxley Green Parish Council about the disruption which would inevitably be caused during the construction period [5.18]. I agree with the parish council that this would be inevitable, and closures would have to be carefully timed and kept to the minimum. Article 9 includes safeguards to this effect, and I see no objection to this part of the draft

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Order.

The effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers and their ability to carry out their undertakings effectively, safely and in compliance with any statutory and contractual obligations.

8.73 There is one outstanding objection from a statutory undertaker – Eastern Power Networks plc and UK Power Networks Holdings Limited [5.41]. However, the objection makes no reference to any specific site, equipment or plant, and I presume the objection is of a general nature. I have no reason to suppose the Council would authorise anything which would disadvantage the undertaker.

The measures proposed by the promoters for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme, including:

(a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice;

(b) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major or significant adverse environmental impacts of the scheme; and

(c) whether, and if so, to what extent, any adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the proposed mitigation.

8.74 (a) A draft Code of Construction Practice is included with the ES at Appendix 18A in Volume 3. It comprises 11 chapters including general principles and general site operations, including working hours, site security, lighting, emergency procedures, fire prevention, and the need for a green travel plan. More specifically it addresses public access and highway matters, including road cleanliness; controls over noise and vibration; air quality matters, including dust control; water resources, including the control of potential water pollution; dealing with contaminated land; waste and energy management; ecology and nature conservation, including the protection of trees, breeding birds, badgers and bats; and archaeology and built heritage. I consider the document demonstrates an intention to secure a comprehensive range of controls and practices over contractors. Draft conditions 2 and 3 would require its submission to and approval by the respective local planning authorities.

8.75 (b) I have referred in previous parts of this report to the measures it is proposed should be undertaken to mitigate the noise of trains where these would be close to residential property. The plan at CRL/INQ/7 (Drawing No: 1044118 – NB1) shows the location of planned environmental barriers. They would be located on the northern side of the line between it and The Gateway – a large area of relatively recently constructed flats and apartments; and on the northern side of the line to the rear of houses in Cardiff Road – for the main part these are traditional brick and slated terraced houses. It is estimated that the noise reduction barriers would mitigate the increase in the levels of noise at the two locations from some 6 dB(A) to about 1.5 dB(A). The increase would thus fall within the terms of

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

LUL’s guidelines.

8.76 (c) I have referred elsewhere in this report to draft condition 15 and to specific locations where I consider operational noise monitoring would be necessary. These are first, in the vicinity of the Grand Union Canal where both residential moorings and the TS Renown would be close to the railway, and second, to the rear of the new houses in Sansom Close. The reason for the condition is to identify whether the eligibility requirements of the Noise Insulation Regulations would be met, but it follows that if they are not, a form of mitigation would be necessary. Other locations where the potential for increased noise levels attributable to the scheme are of concern to residents are at Queen’s Road, Gladstone Road, Ottoman Terrace, Shaftesbury Road, Dyson Court, Neal Street and Holm Oak Park. I recommend that these should also be locations subject to operational noise monitoring.

8.77 I have concluded elsewhere in this report that the proposed viaduct would have an adverse environmental impact in terms of the visual amenity of this part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Council has indicated that the structure has not been the subject of detailed design, but I fear in any event it would not be possible to entirely mitigate the harm.

The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the TWA Order having regard to the requirements of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 and whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with.

8.78 I confirm my view that the ES submitted with the application is comprehensive, exhaustive and adequate. I also confirm that the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with, including those included in the Applications and Objections Procedure Rules.

The conditions proposed to be attached to the deemed planning permission for the scheme, if given, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests of DoE Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable.

8.79 The draft conditions have been agreed between the Council and the relevant local planning authorities – Three Rivers District Council and Watford Borough Council. They were considered and discussed at the inquiry, and I have assessed them against the tests included in DoE Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. A number of the draft conditions include provisions requiring the submission of further details for approval. I raise no objection to this, but I have omitted the references to subsequent revisions. I recognise the need for some flexibility in the design and submission of details, but the accommodation of another round (or rounds) of detailed submissions would result in uncertainty and sidestep the statutory process. I consider such provisions would conflict with the precision and reasonable tests included in Circular 11/95. I have also made some minor alterations in the interests of clarity

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

and attach a list at Appendix F. I record the rationale for the conditions below.

8.80 A time limit is necessary (draft condition 1) to ensure the development is begun within a reasonable period, and, for the avoidance of doubt, draft condition 14 (Phasing) seeks to establish the stages of the development. The purpose of the Code of Construction Practice (draft conditions 2 and 3) is to protect the amenities of residents and the local area generally. A landscaping design scheme (draft condition 4) is necessary and is required in the interests of visual amenity, while draft conditions 5 and 6 (Landscaping implementation and maintenance) secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development and ensure that the planting is both carried out in a timely manner, and thereafter maintained.

8.81 The purpose of draft condition 7 (Surface water drainage) is to ensure the provision of adequate surface water and foul drainage facilities so as to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution. Draft condition 13 (Flood compensation) is more specific but it has a similar purpose. Draft conditions 8a, 8b and 8c (Contaminated land and groundwater) seek to secure any necessary site investigations and remedial action in relation to contaminated land. Draft condition 9 (Archaeology) is to secure any artefacts and information is preserved. The ecological management plan (draft condition 10) is designed to protect and enhance the ecological value of the area, and the purpose of the condition is to secure its implementation.

8.82 Draft condition 11 (Highway access) requires details of accesses to highways to ensure satisfactory designs. Similarly, the purpose of draft condition 12 (Detailed design approval) is to protect the amenities of adjacent properties and secure the satisfactory external appearance of the development. Draft conditions 16 and 17 (Station exterior details) apply specifically to the proposed stations and require more details of their design and lighting arrangements. Their purpose is to ensure provision is made for different travel modes, together with efficient parking and circulation areas, and to prevent light pollution.

8.83 The purpose of draft condition 15 (Operational noise monitoring) is to ensure that the eligibility and implementation requirements of the Noise Insulation Regulations are met, while draft condition 18 (Noise barrier) secures the installation of the proposed noise barriers to protect residential amenity.

The promoters’ proposals for funding the scheme.

8.84 The Council’s case includes a section on the funding of the scheme [3.60- 61]. The majority of the funding would be by the Department for Transport, with a substantial contribution by the Council. Smaller third party contributions would be made by Watford Borough Council, Watford Health Campus and Local Enterprise Partnership, together with a land contribution by Network Rail. I have no reason to suppose the proposed funding arrangements are anything other than secure.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on the promoters powers to compulsorily acquire and use land for the purposes of the scheme, having regard to the guidance on the making of compulsory purchase orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, paragraphs 16-23; and whether the land and rights in land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are required by the promoters in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme.

8.85 On the basis of the material and representations I have received, and my own observations of Watford and the site, I understand the case for restructuring the railways both within the town and between Watford and London has been the subject of debate for many years [3.1]. An essential feature of the railway system is that, as far as possible, it should indeed form a network. A notable aspect of the existing provision in Watford however is, and it appears always has been, the failure of the systems which serve the east and west sides of the town to connect. The scheme which forms the subject of the draft Order would create the link and thus make a major contribution towards reinforcing Watford’s role as a key transport hub.

8.86 Notwithstanding the planned closure of Watford Met station, the scheme would significantly enhance connectivity at the local level along the western approach to the town centre. At the regional level the connections between Watford and London would also be enhanced – including parts of London which are not directly served by the existing links between Watford Junction and Euston. I agree with the promoters that rail travel provides a sustainable and value-for-money alternative to car travel with inherently lower environmental impacts per trip, and, taking account of the predominant pattern of streets in West Watford, I consider this would be a considerable benefit [3.4].

8.87 It is evident however that the scheme could not be implemented without the acquisition of the necessary land and interests along the route of the proposed line. The land which it is sought to acquire is limited to that required by the engineering and operational demands of the proposed railway [3.58], and each component of the scheme is contingent on the successful implementation of the others. The funding for the scheme is in place [3.60-61].

8.88 I therefore conclude that a compelling case has been made in the public interest for conferring the necessary powers to compulsorily acquire and use the land identified for the purposes of the implementation and operation of the scheme. I have taken account of the contents of ODPM Circular 06/2004, especially those contained in paragraphs 16-23, and I consider appropriate account has been taken of the resource implications of the scheme. In the event of the Secretary of State making a direction under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission would have been deemed to have been granted for the works specified in the draft Order, and in the circumstances, I would see no impediment to the implementation of the scheme.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

In relation to the proposed disapplication of the provisions of the Allotments Act 1925 (in Article 16(2) of the draft Order), for the compulsory acquisition of plot 73a, designated as ‘allotment land’, whether the land in question is used, or could in future (in the absence of the scheme) reasonably be used, as part of an allotment plot; and if so, whether it is the case that: the allotment in question is not necessary and is surplus to requirement; adequate alternative provision will be made for displaced plot holders, or that such provision is not necessary or is impracticable; the number of people on the waiting list has been taken into account; the authority have actively promoted and publicised the availability of the sites and have consulted the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners; and, the implications of disposal for other relevant policies, in particular development plan policies, have been taken into account.

8.89 I saw on my visit to the site of the proposed Watford Hospital station and Vicarage Road, that the plots at the northern end of the Holywell Allotments site are now used as part of a landscape strip which runs along the boundary. I gather this was created as there was a surplus of vacant plots. Plot 73a extends to 28.6m along the common boundary between the allotment land and the disused railway. I understand the area concerned amounts to about 11% of a full sized plot, and that a number of other vacant plots have been set aside to protect the slow worm population. No plot holders would be displaced as a result of the acquisition of plot 73a, and there were no people on the waiting list in June 2012. The availability of plots is publicised locally, and, although there is a protective local plan policy in respect of allotments, I consider there would be no need to either provide alternative land or resist the acquisition proposed (Document CRL/7/2, paragraphs 5.3.51-64).

The purpose and effect of any substantive changes proposed by the promoters to the draft TWA Order and whether anyone whose interests are likely to be affected by such changes has been notified.

8.90 I have referred above [3.62] to the change requested at Article 29A to secure access to Cinnamond House. The owner and occupier is aware of the proposed change [5.16].

8.91 I have also referred in the report above [3.64] to the intention to amend Article 16 of the draft Order to remove the powers of compulsory acquisition over plot 22 – land at the Watford Road Playground (Document CRL/INQ/13). The proposed amendments to Schedule 6 and Article 33 relate to the same matter. In Schedule 6 the reference is deleted to plots 21b and 22b, and in Article 33 (referring to the vesting of the exchange land at plot 131 before the acquisition of the playground) the reference is deleted. The proposed changes have come about with the agreement of the Three Rivers District Council.

8.92 I consider that no parties’ interests would be affected by the adoption of the changes as requested.

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

Overall conclusion

8.93 I have considered this case on the basis of the Secretary of State’s comprehensive list of matters. For the most part I consider the Council’s case to be substantial and convincing. It is nevertheless recognised that some of the current users of Watford Met station would be disadvantaged, but I consider this effect would not be too serious. Any resultant hardship would be limited. I have also concluded that, because of its effect on openness, the scheme would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Similarly, I consider the location and size of the proposed viaduct would have an adverse effect on visual amenity in the Watford Road/Grand Union Canal area. However, although I attach substantial weight to this aggregate harm, I consider nevertheless that it would be clearly outweighed by other considerations as recorded below.

8.94 The scheme would considerably enhance local connectivity both within Watford and between Watford and its immediate neighbouring communities to the west and south. On a larger scale, it would facilitate commuting trips to central and other parts of London and complement the services available between Watford Junction and Euston. It would thus give effect to the Council’s objective of enhancing Watford’s role as a key transport hub. It would provide a considerable impetus to the proposals and policies of the development plan to promote regeneration at the Western Gateway, at Watford Health Campus, in the town centre, and at the Watford Junction development area. Finally, although it is predicted there would be adverse traffic effects at some locations, the overall impact would be beneficial in terms of reducing the number of trips by private cars. The scheme would thus result in a benefit in terms of emissions. It is by taking all these considerations into account that I conclude the benefits of the scheme would clearly outweigh the harm and comply with the presumption in the Framework in favour of sustainable development. I also conclude that, notwithstanding the aggregate harm I have identified in relation to the Green Belt, this is clearly outweighed by the benefits of the project. It follows that this amounts to the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt.

8.95 A submission was made during the inquiry relating to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and I recognise that, if the Order is confirmed and the scheme is implemented, it would result in additions to the noise environment along the route of the line. In some locations the increase would be mitigated by the works to which I have referred, and I have drawn attention to other locations where monitoring should be exercised. To the extent therefore of any interference with the homes and family lives of nearby residents, this must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others. In the light of the conclusions I have reached I am satisfied that if the development proceeds its effects would not be disproportionate.

8.96 For the reasons set out above, I conclude there is a compelling need for the draft Order works in the public interest. I also conclude that the public benefits of the scheme would substantially outweigh the residual adverse effects it would have. I conclude the grant of deemed planning permission for the draft Order works is justified, subject to the imposition of the

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10

conditions set out in Appendix F. Finally, I conclude there is a compelling case in the public interest for authorising the compulsory acquisition of the land and interests in land covered by the draft Order.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 I recommend that the Order should be made, subject to the amendments to the submitted Order sought by the Council in the Filled up Order (dated 19.10.12) in APP 2 2.2.2, subject to the deletion of sub-paragraph (3) in Article 17 and its addition to Article 16. I also recommend that deemed planning permission for the works covered by the Order should be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix F.

Andrew Pykett

INSPECTOR

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF:TWA/12/APP/01; DPI/M1900/12/10