London Road, Wendover HP22 6PN Petitions Numbered: 370 – Chisholm; 378 – Adam and Others; 600 – Dixon; 822 - Ansell Sara Dixon Roll B Agent

EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00600 Petitioner: Robert Dixon and Mrs Sara Dixon Published to Collaboration Area: Tuesday 01-Nov-2016

Page 1 of 240

No Exhibit Name Page

1 A496_2nd Nov Slides for London Road Wendover HoL.pdf (A496) 2 - 25

2 A497_Combined petition asks and location in hearing.pdf (A497) 26 - 27

3 A498_CML witness p48 onwards.pdf (A498) 28 - 119

4 A516_HOC_ Sara Dixon and Others 873.pdf (A516) 120 - 160

5 A517_Transcript_HOC_17 Sept Thurs Morning.pdf (A517) 161 - 240

HOL/00600/0001 London Road, Wendover HP22 6PN Petitions numbered: 370 – Chisholm; 378 – Adam and others; 600 – Dixon; 822 - Ansell Sara Dixon Roll B agent

A496 (1) HOL/00600/0002 Appendices/Evidence/How we’ve tried to save the court’s time in hearing… Overview of all 4 petition ‘asks’ and where they are in this presentation (attached) House of Commons transcript and slides from hearing on 17 September 2015 (attached) Assurance re Footway (HS2 doc) Assurance re Service Road (HS2 doc) Assurance re Viaduct Maintenance and Graffiti clearance (HS2 doc) 1st Special Report House of Commons December 2015 (extract included in these slides) Mortgage rejections (available if needed) 23rd November 2015 Council of Mortgage Lenders (attached) DfT Response to SC March 2016 (extract included in these slides)

A496 (2) HOL/00600/0003 3 main ‘asks’:

1. Minimise problems of being a ‘cut off community’ 2. Minimise the environmental impact of (1) the construction route and ‘compounds’ and (2) the railway line 3. Make the compensation scheme fit for purpose for us

Acknowledge: House of Commons Select Committee David Walker Clerk’s Office HS2 team Bucks County Council team

A496 (3) HOL/00600/0004 About Us A496 (4) HOL/00600/0005 Our situation – geographic and human

Wendover End – 285m from line Missenden • 3 - under 20; 2 - 40-50; end – 400m 8 – 50–60; 11 – 60-70; 14 – 70 + Garage side – excluding Vince and Mandy – 280m-300m range. • Self-employed; Retired; Volunteers Topographical impact… • Nurses, engineers, lawyers, consultants, builders, carpenters, Wendover End – 65m from Small Dean Launch teachers, charity workers, pub Satellite Compound landlords, football managers, metal Hawthorn – 325m Middle industry… ETC. Bottom Houses (4) – 310m from the Rocky Lane • 5 houses – 31-50 years Compound

About Us A496 (5) HOL/00600/0006 About Us A496 (6) HOL/00600/0007 ‘Construction site’

A496 (7)About Us HOL/00600/0008 Views post construction

8 A496 (8)About Us HOL/00600/0009 A: Cut off community

A496 (9) HOL/00600/0010 Time North To North To South To South To Wendover all Wendover Missenden all Missenden 13th August – brown vehicles excluding Emergency vehicles excluding Emergency Emergency vehicles vehicles Emergency vehicles vehicles 16,979 in total 1,415/hour 7.00 to 8.00 525/655 - - 1265/1532 - 1 24/minute 1 every 4 seconds 8.00 to 9.00 666/788 - 3 1155/1287 1/1 th 9.00 to 10.00 8 September - blue - 566/637 - - 744/890 - - 18,796 1,565/hour 26/minute 10.00 to 11.00 467/455 1/2 538/492 - - 1 every 2.30 seconds 11.00 to 12.00 506/532 -/2 535/534 - 1 12.00 to 1.00 589/512 3/3 527/477 3/2 HS2 predictions - green – 20,447 Add Rocky Lane combined 1.00 to 2.00 586/560 1/2 523/511 2/1 north and south (1271 in 2.00 to 3.00 582/540 1/- 579/700 1/2 and out of lane, assuming 3.00 to 4.00 678/774 -/2 478/626 - 2 not included by HS2 in A413 figures) 4.00 to 5.00 1003/1038 3/1 716/690 2/1 5.00 to 6.00 1340/1395 3/4 750/849 4/2 21,718 – predicted 6.00 to 7.00 1048/1203 1/1 582/616 5/2 growth of just over Total 8556/9080 13/20 8392/9671 18/15 1000 over 6 years.

HS2 2021 10,252 predictions 10,195 without haulage

Cut off 10 A496community (10) HOL/00600/0011 Histograms:

Please put up: P8144(1) P8144 (2) P8144 (3)

Cut off community A496 (11) HOL/00600/0012 How frequently we cross the road

Severa Severa Once a Every Every Less Activity l times Daily l times week two three Monthly often a day a week weeks weeks To visit neighbours 1 11111 1 111 1111 11 To use the bus service 1 1 111111 111111 To visit the garage for 1111111111 11 1 1 newspapers 1 To visit the garage for fuel 11111 11111 111 1 11 1

To visit the garage to shop 11111 1 1 11 11111 11

To use the postbox 11 11 111 111

In a car to travel to other 11111111111 1111 1 destinations 111

Cut off community A496 (12) HOL/00600/0013 Rocky Lane/Dunsmore Lane End

13 A496 (13)Cut off community HOL/00600/0014 As things are…

Cut off community A496 (14) HOL/00600/0015 A496 Cut(15) off community HOL/00600/0016 We have…. We would like…

Assurance – footway Accessibility measures as part of HS2 plan – e.g. route diversion

Assessment – cut off/severed From both sides – notices/traffic controls/pedestrian safety warnings To the road – pedestrian safety areas

Cut off community

A496 (16) HOL/00600/0017 B: Environmental factors

A496 (17) HOL/00600/0018 ‘Nuisances’ – it’s about trust and communication

Construction Operation Dust Noise Noise Light Light Vibration Vibration Visual – viaduct/embankment Visual (Assurance for viaduct)

Environmental Factors

A496 (18) HOL/00600/0019 C: Compensation

A496 (19) HOL/00600/0020 Compensation Schemes

Due to the road – construction focus Currently: -Code of Construction Practice Safeguarded – 1 in part -Right to litigate for general Express purchase – none nuisances Rural Support Zone (Cash/VP)Voluntary CP – none Homeowner Payment – 3 or 4? Due to the line – operation focus -LCA NTS: 1 (HofC supported); 5 more -Right to litigate for general nuisances Mortgage/security rejections – 2015 1 house (10); 1 house (H of C supported) - numerous; 2016 1 house (1) Compensation Scheme

A496 (20)Compensation HOL/00600/0021 We would like:

Basics of compensation Using our equity To be measured for compensation Underwrite/guarantee for those from the real nuisance – the seeking a charge road/the construction route and the various sites Or forced to seek NTS… unintended consequences? Reflecting actual loss not arbitrary focus

Compensation A496 (21) HOL/00600/0022 CML so far?

“Although some conversations have taken place between the Council and its members, and the CML Valuation Panel has confirmed that there is no blanket policy of refusing lending in cases of blight, we were disappointed not to have had more open and effective cooperation on this. We welcome the discussions that have taken place between the Council and HS2 to share information. We welcome too the Council’s recommendation to its members to review their policies. We hope that more will be forthcoming.”

The Promoter is committed to working with Council of Mortgage Lenders and its members on a long term basis to better share information on order to help minimise cases of lending refusals.’

HS2 Ltd say that they continue their dialogue with the CML and with individual mortgage providers and are looking to work collaboratively with them to ensure that decisions in respect of individual properties are made with the benefit of all the available information so as to minimise the instances of lending refusals.

A496 (22) HOL/00600/0023 NTS • Remove ‘compelling reason’ • To have our unique situation acknowledged and declared a • OR… While we recognise that the special case for Express Purchase scheme should not incentivise flight from an area, exposure to particularly intensive and prolonged construction may well provide another valid reason to want to move, or for there to be alternative alleviation.

Compensation A496 (23) HOL/00600/0024 In summary:

Help us continue as a community – part of Help us seek the reasonable compensation Wendover but also part of our little to which we believe we should be entitled community. Don’t cut us off either along or - Draw the right to compensation from the across. road as well as the line - Accessibility - Remove the ‘need’ to be proven for us – - Safety construction zone should be enough…. - Underwrite any need for security to be Help us live our daily lives safe from given over our homes construction and operational harm - Special case for Express Purchase because - Environmental factors of all our issues - Trust and communication – make us a Key Stakeholder where possible in Focus Groups/Consultation/Communication with contractors

A496 (24) HOL/00600/0025 Petitions:

370 Chisholm; 378 Adam and others; 600 Dixon; 822 Ansell

Hearing categories:

(A) Cut off community (B) Environmental factors (C) Compensation issues

370 Chisholm – all petition ‘asks’ are for a fully bored tunnel.

Focusing therefore on issues:

Property blight - C: compensation

Dust pollution – B: Environmental factors/Support Parish Council?

Noise Nuisance and vibration – Support The Wendover Society

Access to and from property – A: Cut off community

No personal benefits – not a focus for hearing

Disruption of power supply – Support Parish Council?

Management of Water System – Support Parish Council?

AONB – not a focus for the hearing

Wildlife sustainability and conservation – Support Bucks County Council

378/822 – Adam and others; Ansell (the petitions are the same as each other)

Construction traffic working hours limitation – accept already catered for but Assurance re key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

Limit number of construction vehicles – accept re already catered for but Assurance re key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

Arisings by rail not road – accept already catered for but Assurance re key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

Traffic Management Plan – accept already catered for so not a focus. However, key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

A497 (1) HOL/00600/0026 Restrict working hours – accept already catered for but Assurance re key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

Noise levels and independent monitoring – Support The Wendover Society

Artificial lighting limited to working hours – accept already catered for but Assurance re key stakeholder request as part of B: Environmental

Toxic emissions limited – accept already catered for so not a focus.

Funding for health services – support Wendover Parish Council

Full compensation for loss to property etc – accept already catered for so not a focus

CoCP enforceable – accept already catered for so not a focus

Modify scheme to allow Express Purchase for residents – C: Compensation

600: Dixon

Amend compensation based on nuisance caused by Road and not just railway line – C: Compensation

Amend Compensation scheme to be based on actual loss not arbitrary distance from line – C: Compensation

Treat area as special case for Express Purchase – C: Compensation

Remove requirement to show ‘compellable reason/Need’ from Need to Sell – C: Compensation

Declare area as Severance Community and provide associated support – A: Cut off Community

A497 (2) HOL/00600/0027

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Monday, 23 November 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby Mr Mark Hendrick ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Tim Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Joe Rukin, Stop HS2

WITNESSES

Mr Mark Longmore Ms Polly Buston Mr James Burton Ms Isobel Darby Ms Linda Smith Ms Anne Lines Ms Susan Woodcock Mr Robert and Anne Walther Ms Mary Phillips Mrs Rosamund Wall Mr Allen Salter Mrs Jane Penson Mr Paul Smee, Director General, Council of Mortgage Lenders ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

A498 (1) HOL/00600/0028

INDEX

Subject Page

Mark Longmore Introduction from Mr Mould 4 Submissions by Mr Longmore 5

Polly Buston Introduction from Mr Strachan 6 Submissions by Ms Buston 7 Response from Mr Strachan 10 Closing submissions by Ms Buston 11

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council Submissions by Mr Burton 13 Submissions by Ms Smith 15 Submissions by Mrs Darby 18 Further submissions by Ms Smith 23 Further submissions by Ms Darby 28 Further submissions by Ms Smith 31 Response by Mr Strachan 32 Closing submissions by Mr Burton 38

Anne Lines Submissions by Ms Lines 42 Response by Mr Strachan 44

Susan Woodcock Submissions by Ms Woodcock 45 Response from Mr Strachan 48

Witness for the Promoter: Council of Mortgage Lenders Mr Smee, questioned by the Committee 49

Robert and Anne Walther Submissions by Mr and Mrs Walther 57 Response from Mr Strachan 58

A498 (2) HOL/00600/0029

Chalfont St Giles Parish Council and others Submissions by Ms Phillips 62 Submissions by Mrs Wall 69 Further submissions by Ms Phillips 71 Response from Mr Strachan 75

Allen and Penelope Salter Submissions by Allen Salter 82 Response from Mr Strachan 83

Jane Penson Submissions by Mrs Penson 85 Response from Mr Strachan 87

Kirk Jones Submissions by Mr Rukin 88

A498 (3) HOL/00600/0030

(At 14.00)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee, another Monday afternoon session. We start with AP2 019 Mark Longmore, locus objection hearing.

Mark Longmore

2. CHAIR: Mr Mould, do you want to make a brief introduction?

3. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, thank you. Mr Longmore – on the screen is P11173. As you can see, Mr Longmore’s property is situated on the Sutton Road near Drayton Bassett in Staffordshire. His property is over 700 metres from the central line of the railway, which as it passes through this vicinity is passing in cutting, and we do not propose to route HGV construction traffic along the Sutton Road past the petitioner’s property. We are taking a locus objection on the basis that there is nothing in AP2 and nothing raised in his petition against AP2 that indicates that is claiming to be specially or directly affected by the AP proposals. And we are taking the same position as regards other locus challenges that we have run past you in recent weeks that there is no good reason to exercise your discretion in those circumstances to allow him a locus to petition against AP2.

4. CHAIR: Would you like to explain to us why you consider AP2 gives you additional problems?

5. MR LONGMORE: Well, as the line passes behind the property across our viewpoint it’s been raised in AP2 by 0.4 metres, which is raised – 0.4 metres.

6. MR HENDRICK: 40 centimetres?

7. MR LONGMORE: Pardon?

8. MR HENDRICK: 40 centimetres?

9. MR LONGMORE: Yes.

10. MR HENDRICK: Right.

11. MR LONGMORE: What I’m saying it’s a change which has raised concern about the lack of tree planting along that axial point that I’m discussing, because it’s just –

A498 (4) HOL/00600/0031

there’s a complete –

12. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Put your finger on the point on the screen please.

13. MR LONGMORE: Down here. Can you see? Yeah, so there’s a lack of tree planting along that point and that’s the point that you’re raising it. And it just raised concern that with the lack of tree planting and the raised line that – I’m just concerned that I’ve been trying to get HS2 to commit to more tree planting, which they are – said that they would look at and consider if that’s reasonable, but I can’t get any assurance from them that they will consider that. And as it is once the scheme is built I have got no retrospective way to go back to them and say, ‘Well, I was right. I could have done with some extra tree planting there.’ So I just want some assurance that if extra tree planting is required in that area that they will look at that, and that’s all I required.

14. The other points on the petition I don’t wish to raise because I accept that those are the – sort of void in some respects, so it’s just point six that I want to actually raise on that. So I say it is a – I’ve acknowledged it’s a small change. I’ve acknowledged I know the reason for the change. I’m not – it’s nothing against the change. I just want HS2 to look at the point that the tree planting I don’t think is sufficient, especially with the extra increase in – for visual impact, and not only visual impact for myself but for neighbours and also just the way it crosses the countryside at that point.

15. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would it be fair to ask – sorry?

16. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I was going to say if it helps to short circuit things we will look at that.

17. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I was going to say, I’m not sure we need to know now when the tree planting consideration will come to a conclusion one way or another, but on the basis that – if we don’t accept the challenge the locus challenge, it still might make it sensible if someone could have a word with Mr Longmore outside and talk about how the process goes and what’s likely to happen.

18. MR LONGMORE: Yeah, that’s all I want. I mean, I’ve been for four years going to every community forum, every bilateral meeting, every community meeting. I’ve tried to work with HS2 and I feel I have worked with HS2. It’s just that I can’t go back

A498 (5) HOL/00600/0032

to them and say, ‘Well, I can – I could have done with some extra trees.’ No one’s going to listen to me at that point. I need to take this at this stage in the process. I know it’s a simple and very small point. I just want to take the opportunity, as it says here, can I object to the AP, and when I did the consultation – I just want to take my opportunity to do that.

19. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What I will do is I will ask the area team to write an appropriate letter to Mr Longmore indicating that they will take on board his concerns about the need for tree planting here when the detailed design of this part of the railway is being considered.

20. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I also think it’d be quite good getting timely tree planting too, as soon as possible so that they can grow.

21. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. And as you recall I said that where the opportunity arises to accelerate landscaping and so forth, our commitment is to take that opportunity. Yes.

22. CHAIR: Right. Thank you very much.

23. MR LONGMORE: I’m happy with that. Thank you very much.

24. CHAIR: Right, we now move on to petitioner 650, Polly Buston.

Polly Buston

25. MS BUSTON: Good afternoon.

26. CHAIR: Good afternoon. Would you like to do a brief introduction, Mr Strachan, or…?

27. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. The petitioner lives at 3 Mill End Cottages in Little Missenden. I’ve just put up on the screen P10907 where you can see the property, and you may recall we’ve discussed Little Missenden in the past. The line of route is of course in twin bored tunnel. The closet work site is the Little Missenden vent shaft off the A414, broadly speaking in the vicinity of the arrow that I’ve just shown you. And through Little Missenden itself we’re not putting any works traffic or anything of that kind. I think 3 Mill End Cottages I think is approximately 230 metres from the line of

A498 (6) HOL/00600/0033

route, which of course is in tunnel at this point.

28. MS BUSTON: Thank you. My name is Polly Buston. I’m a Courtauld Institute trained art historian. I’ve been lecturing in Italy, so thank you for agreeing to let me present my petition this afternoon rather than at the time previously planned. Could I have 16542 please?

29. This just locates Little Missenden for those of you who don’t know where it is. It’s between Great Missenden and Amersham, and we have the River Misbourne and we have the A413, and could I have the next one please? We don’t really need that because yours was infinitely better, so 1654 please. I have lived in this house for 42 years. My husband died in this house five years ago and our two sons were brought up here. The house is mentioned in Pevsner’s Buckinghamshire. It dates from the latter half of the 16th century, and I like to think of myself as a temporary guardian of it with a duty of care for it, and with a desire to hand it on undamaged to future generations. It is a grade II listed building, one of 44 listed buildings in the village of Little Missenden.

30. Number 2 Mill End Cottages, which you can see adjoining my house, dates from the 13th century. The owners recently discovered a well, served by an aquifer which flows directly under my dining room. My house has no foundations. Could I have the next please, 1654? A second aquifer serves a spring which feeds the River Misbourne, of which I’m a riparian owner, in the corner of the millpond at the bottom of the garden. You can see here at the top left you can see a telephone wire. You saw on your image three grey extensions. The HS2 proposes to buy three telegraph poles coming very near my house. To the right of my house you can see more buildings. These are the far side of the A413, and the building for the vent shaft is now going to come right up against them, as you saw in your image. Could I have the next please?

31. The river flows through about 22 village gardens before reaching this point. My first concern is that throughout HS2 Ltd’s literature there is constant use of the words ‘mitigation’ and ‘monitoring’ with regard to the river. What I need is protection for my house against possible flooding from the aquifer which runs under my dining room, or possible subsidence if the water table is altered by a change in its flow. I would appreciate a clear undertaking that HS2 Ltd will put my house right if anything goes wrong. Indeed I feel that they should do an inspection of it before any work starts, in

A498 (7) HOL/00600/0034

accordance with page 5, paragraph 4 of my promoter’s response document, which declares, ‘Risk assessments appropriate structural or condition surveys and vibration monitoring will be undertaken at sites of archaeological or built heritage of interest adjacent to the construction site prior to, during and following construction work.’

32. My house is assessed as being 255 metres from the centre line of the route of the train, but it is not so much distance that’s relevant here as the state of the ground through which the boring machine will tunnel, the impact it will have on the aquifers under and around my house and the damage vibration from the construction work could cause to my house. Could I have 1654 please?

33. My second concern is that, uniquely in Little Missenden, I have wall paintings. These take the form of fictive panelling. That is to say they are painted to look like panelling in earth colours on wattle and daub walls. The wall paintings have been expertly examined by representatives from the Courtauld Institute and English Heritage and are considered to be of great importance as they include a painted date, which is very rare. Could I have 16548 please? To put them in a historical context, 1598, the date you see here – can you see in the middle, anno 1598? – is the date in which – the year in which Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet. I quote from a letter from Dr Kathryn Davies on English Heritage, 1654(8) please – (9), sorry: ‘The daub infill panels are over 400 years old and are not surprisingly very fragile. Avoiding any activity which might damage them is strongly recommended.’

34. How can HS2 Ltd ensure that during the tunnelling and excavation of the spoil there will be no resultant vibration which will damage this delicate art of its fragile wattle and daub walls, or indeed will damage the house itself? The Highways Agency, for instance, failed to anticipate the serious damage that was caused to many houses in one street in Chorleywood when pile driving work was done on the M25 in July 2009. One house owner is quoted in the Watford Observer of 20 August 2010 as saying, ‘In my daughter’s room you can lift the ceiling up because it has come apart from the wall.’ I don’t want that happening in my house.

35. My third concern is that I suffer from a lung condition called bronchiectasis and am a patient of Professor Robert Wilson at the Brompton Hospital who writes – could I have the next please? – ‘This lady is under my care because of a chronic respiratory

A498 (8) HOL/00600/0035

condition called bronchiectasis. Any increase in pollution and dust will adversely affect her health, and as a consequence she is more likely to catch lung infections.’ If red dust from the Sahara can cover cars in Little Missenden and smuts from the recent conflagration at a factory in Watford can envelop us in a black cloud, how is HS2 going to protect us from the pollution and dust caused by the construction work at the tunnel and vent shaft and the carrying away of the spoil? HS2 Ltd may be very powerful but even it cannot control wind direction. Is all the spoil going to be carted away in covered lorries? We need an absolute guarantee that air quality will be maintained at an optimal level throughout the construction period, in accordance with health and safety regulations. Next please.

36. My final concern is to do with the location and design of the vent shaft. It is sheer arrogance and ignorance of what our area of outstanding natural beauty stands for to state, as on page 17, paragraph 1 of the promoter’s response document, that the visual impact of the vent shaft is not considered to be significant. The vent shaft will rise eight to 10 feet above ground level, but its width on the surface is 80 feet and its length is 150 feet. It is an enormous building, which will be 200 feet in depth. It will be seen from the very many paths used by hundreds of walkers in the area round Little Missenden. The document further states in paragraph 2 that there are few residential receptors in the vicinity. I have counted 14 houses whose inhabitants are not going to be able to avoid the constant sight of it. HS2 Ltd says it will plant trees to screen it. Will they be native trees? How high will they be when they’re planted? Who will water them and ensure that they will grow? 1654 please.

37. We have no native stone here. When HS2 Ltd states on page 18 paragraph 7 of the response document that the shafts will be designed to be sympathetic to their context, environment and social setting, and that they will be approved by the relevant planning authority, does this mean that we can expect a low lying brick and flint construction? Is the local planning authority really going to have any power over the design or will it just have to accept what HS2 Ltd presents us with?

38. Finally, I would draw the attention of the Committee to European Directive 97/11/EC, which has a bearing on all these matters and sets out the principle that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source, and the polluter should pay. Thank you.

A498 (9) HOL/00600/0036

39. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

40. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Could I just show you, in relation to the vent shaft, P7169, just to remind the Committee. I think you’ve seen this before but the – if it comes up on screen, the vent shaft – the proposal of course for the vent shaft is to include landscaping and earthworks around the vent shaft to minimise the visual effects of it from the A413 and public vantage points. Hopefully you’ll see that in a moment when it comes up on screen. The detailed design with the vent shaft of course is something which was covered by the provisions in the Bill where we will have to submit proposals for the design. And of course the Committee’s familiar with design information paper D1, which identifies the things such as vent shaft buildings in sensitive areas such as this, the public engagement exercise that we’ll have to go through first before we submit our design proposals for approval by the local planning authority. So in answer to the petitioner’s question, the local planning authority will have a say over the design, and indeed the public will have a say in the designs as we work them up.

41. Turning to the – I hope it will come on screen. No, it won’t.

42. MS BUSTON: I’m delighted to hear what you’re saying. I hope it happens.

43. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Good. Just turning to the other issues, the – in terms of vibration assessments the Committee’s heard an awful lot, I think, already about noise and vibration assessments which have already been carried out. Because of the distance of the petitioner’s property from the vent shaft site and indeed the twin bored tunnel, the environmental statement has already identified that there’s not likely to be any material impact to this property. And that’s unsurprising given the evidence you’ve heard about the way in which vibration works with a tunnel boring machine because it’s a long way from the tunnel itself or indeed the vent shaft. And of course in between there and the property is the A413, but there are of course controls on noise and vibration through the control of pollution, our exception 61, which we’ve identified for the petitioner in the petitioner response document.

44. I think there’s also a concern about health impacts, but bearing in mind the distance from the worksites, the measures which are set out in the code of construction practice, they are all there to control things such as dust arising from the work site, and

A498 (10) HOL/00600/0037

they will be heavily controlled, and we’re not anticipating any material detrimental impact to the petitioner or her property from dust, or indeed air quality, for the reasons that have been explored I think in the environmental statement.

45. And I think the aquifers or the concern about the aquifers, the Committee’s familiar – the Bill itself under Schedule 31 has inbuilt protective provisions under which we will have to have our – whatever we’re proposing in this area, insofar as it affects ground water or river flows, approved by the Environment Agency. And you’ve seen the letters from the Environment Agency already to date on that, both on what we’ve shown already and of course the way in which those protective provisions will continue to operate. So the petitioner can be assured by reference to that provision in the Bill that these things will remain subject to detailed control by, amongst others, the Environment Agency.

46. MS BUSTON: They are meeting at the bottom of my garden tomorrow, with Affinity Water, so I will report what you’ve said and hope that they are happy with it.

47. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Good. Well, there’s also a letter from Affinity Water I think, in which it’s explained that we’re continuing to work with them, but it sounds as if that process is ongoing as I would suspect it would be. So it doesn’t look like we’re going to be able to get the slide, but just to remind you, it showed the operational scheme of the Little Missenden vent shaft, which the Committee’s seen before. And around the vent shaft there are shown earthworks and landscape planting, and there was a photomontage in the environmental statement to show how well screened the vent shaft site will be once it’s constructed, with of course the detailed design of the building itself subject to approvals, as will the landscaping works around it. So that’s why we anticipate the vent shaft to be very well concealed in that location.

48. MS BUSTON: I hope you’re right. May I make a concluding statement please?

49. CHAIR: Yes.

50. MS BUSTON: I’ve deliberately presented a very personal petition because you’ve already heard very many petitions from experts of various kinds, but I share a general concern firstly for the River Misbourne, one of only five chalk rivers in this country where rainbow trout breed naturally, and which therefore deserves not just

A498 (11) HOL/00600/0038

mitigation and monitoring but real protection against any possible pollution the construction of HS2 might cause. Secondly, like everyone else I’m very much concerned about the fate of the Chiltern AONB. The Chilterns have been inhabited since the Stone Age. The Romans built villas here and they sent corn from here to feed the inhabitants of the important city of Verulamium. The Chilterns also feature significantly in Domesday Book. Successive generations of people have cared for and cared about the Chilterns. If this Government is hell bent on pursuing this project the least it can do is protect the Chiltern AONB for future generations by boring a tunnel all the way through it. Thank you.

51. CHAIR: Thank you. The key objective when dealing with a vent shaft is so that nobody knows there’s a vent shaft there is to camouflage it.

52. MS BUSTON: Oh, I do hope you’re right.

53. CHAIR: And that’s what they’ve done with Crossrail.

54. MS BUSTON: How old will the trees be? Who will look after the trees? What trees will there be?

55. CHAIR: They will be maintained by HS2 and that will be in concert –

56. MS BUSTON: By?

57. CHAIR: By HS2, and that – plant all these matters at –

58. MS BUSTON: There’s no mention in any of the literature about anybody looking after the trees once they’re planted.

59. CHAIR: They have to put in for a planning application from the local authority. The local authority no doubt will come back with a range of requirements which they have to meet.

60. MS BUSTON: Right. Good. Thank you very much.

61. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much for your contribution. Thank you.

62. MS BUSTON: Thank you.

A498 (12) HOL/00600/0039

63. CHAIR: Right, we go onto 672 Chalfont St Peter Parish Council, Jennifer Caprio.

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council

64. MR BURTON: Yes, good afternoon. Not Jennifer Caprio but James Burton. We’ve met before.

65. CHAIR: Yes, we have. I think we’ve met you all before, haven’t we? Have we seen you before? No. Okay. One new face. I think we know – we can see where the map is, where the parish council –

66. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I just put it up on screen.

67. CHAIR: We may as well kick straight off. Are you going to continue, Mr Burton? Are you –

68. MR BURTON: Yes I am, sir, yes.

69. CHAIR: Who’s Linda Smith and who’s Isobel?

70. MS SMITH: I’m Linda Smith.

71. CHAIR: You’re Isobel?

72. MS DARBY: Isobel Darby.

73. MR BURTON: I will introduce them both in just a moment.

74. CHAIR: Okay.

75. MR BURTON: Gentlemen, I appear on behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council. I believe it is right to say that ours is a village of which the Select Committee has heard relatively little so far, and also I understand that some of the Committee had the pleasure of our village on a site visit but not necessarily all of the Committee. We are here today hoping to fill in the gaps, and it’s necessary and important that we do so because at present the proposals will have severe impacts on our parishioners and will have those severe impacts needlessly. We believe that part of the problem may be that the promoter itself has not entirely understood the way that our village in particular works.

A498 (13) HOL/00600/0040

76. I will leave it to our two witnesses, who I’ll introduce in a minute, to properly introduce the village, but for present purposes it’s sufficient, I think, if we just note, and perhaps we could have the promoter’s exhibit 1080 up now – sorry, 10801, I do apologise, the next one. For present purposes it’s sufficient to note that here the line is in a fully bored tunnel. There is a vent shaft proposed to be constructed in a field that is in the greenbelt immediately outside the built form of the village, and you can see that towards the left hand side of your map, and in addition the main M25 or south portal construction compound that you can see over to the right sits partly within of course, partly against the parish boundary.

77. Now, the vent shaft construction route, which is one of our principle concerns, follows a line on narrow lanes, taking a rather roundabout route to get down to the A413 along Chesham Lane and then down through Denham Lane and down Joiners Lane, taking it past a great number of vulnerable users, including children, and you’ll hear more about that in a minute. The field in which it’s sited itself, this part of the greenbelt is a very narrow strip between the village of Chalfont St Peter and the village of Chalfont St Giles, and you can see the construction portal, as I say, over there. And I’ve highlighted those three features because that’s what we’ll be taking some time dealing with today.

78. Now, if we could please turn to our second slide in our pack please. As I say, I’ll be calling two witnesses, both of them parish councillors, in fact both Chiltern district councillors, Councillor Linda Smith, who’s the current chair of the parish council and district councillor, and Councillor Isobel Darby, who is presently the leader of Chiltern District Council, and also in addition a governor of Robertswood School, of which you will be hearing a deal more. Both have been councillors for Chalfont Common ward, which is the ward in which the vent shaft is situated, for many years. You also have on the slide there those petitioners who have formally associated themselves with our petition, and you will perhaps also be pleased to hear that Councillor Derby has put it to her – well, put her mind to it to ensure that that all of the Chalfont St Peter petitioners have been grouped to appear today immediately after us, so you’ll be having the village in a hopefully convenient chunk.

79. Next slide please, straight to our asks. We have asks that we say are very specific to our village that are eminently sensible and that we’ll be asking you to require of the

A498 (14) HOL/00600/0041

promoter. There are two asks in relation to the vent shaft itself. The first concerns the construction route, and we’re asking that that be placed on a temporary access road that goes directly to the A413 avoiding the serious risks presented by the present route. The second is that the vent shaft buildings and paraphernalia themselves be sunk into the ground in order to preserve this narrow greenbelt gap. In relation to the construction compounds, which is our third specific and principal ask, we’re asking for alternative access arrangements to cope with the closure of Chalfont Lane, and our evidence will explain all of those in greater detail.

80. We do have other asks and we will touch on those briefly, but we acknowledge that they’re shared by another – well, many other petitioners, and we’ll take relatively little time on those. It’s only right that I note at this stage how disappointed the parish council were, and indeed are, that the promoter’s response document, which was an extremely lengthy document, which cuts and pastes at length from the parish council’s petition, doesn’t actually respond substantively to the principal asks and requests in the parish council’s petition, and that is a source of real frustration. I’m very happy to give you examples but I don’t wish, unless you want me to, to take your time with them, but that is frustrating. We did have a meeting finally with the promoter on Thursday but I think nothing was achieved.

81. So without further ado I’ll turn now to Councillor Smith, who’s sitting to my far right, and perhaps she can introduce herself more fully, and you could probably turn up the next slide as she’s doing so.

82. MS SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon. As Mr Burton has already told you, I am a councillor for Chalfont St Peter both on the parish council and the district council. I’ve lived in Chalfont Common for – it’ll be 40 years next year, and I’ve been a councillor for 26 years. I’m currently chairman of the parish council, and I am a previous chairman and deputy leader of Chiltern District Council. Can we – have you – yes, slide 4. Thank you.

83. In its documents, including the environmental statement, it’s hard to imagine that HS2 are describing our village. I quote from paragraph 21.10 of the ES CFA8, ‘Chalfont St Peter has a limited range of facilities, but it does have a primary school and a village hall.’ You will see how inaccurate this is as I describe how it really is.

A498 (15) HOL/00600/0042

Chalfont St Peter is an ancient village mentioned in the Domesday Book. It’s one of the largest villages in England, with a population of approximately 13,000, and it has a vibrant village centre, and we are the third largest settlement in Chiltern District. For electoral purposes the village is split into four wards, one of which is Chalfont Common, which Councillor Mrs Derby and I both represent, and which is where the proposed vent shaft will be situated, and is therefore the ward most affected by HS2.

84. Can we have the next slide please? So to describe it further, the village – we have about 5,500 homes. We have seven primary schools careering for over 2,000 children, a very large secondary school for nearly 2,000 pupils, numerous nursery schools including a Montessori, and the effect of the HS2 proposals on children and young people is something that we will come back to later. We also have over 80 retail units and about 400 plus other businesses, ranging from those that employ large numbers of people to others that are run from people’s homes. We have a leisure centre, a community hospital with a range of outpatients’ clinics, doctors’ practices, and we also have five churches. Our village is fortunate to have many community and social groups, including a community library and an award winning youth centre, both run entirely by volunteers.

85. Now, one of the features of our village, and I know you’ve heard a lot about the 413, but residents in our side of the village in Chalfont Common have to cross the 413 to access all the village amenities. We have no station, the nearest being two miles away in Gerrards Cross, and there are very few buses, and consequently our residents are highly dependent on car ownership. So you will see that this is considerably more than just a primary school and a village hall. Can we have the next slide please?

86. So these are our two main concerns with the vent shaft site: the traffic routing during the construction phase and the visual impact of the shaft afterwards. And you will see in this slide a sign. When they were enlarging the M25 a sign was actually put at the end of the lane warning about large heavy vehicles. We have attended all the forums organised by HS2 Ltd and raised these issues with them to no avail. The promoter’s response document doesn’t address our concerns, as Mr Burton has already explained. Page 5 is supposed to reassure us that construction traffic won’t use a number of our local roads. They’ve mentioned School Lane, Chalfont Road, Longbottom Lane and Bottom Lane, which are not even in our village. We believe they

A498 (16) HOL/00600/0043

are all in Seer Green, some four miles away.

87. So we will deal with the routing of construction traffic first. Can I have the next slide please?

88. MR BURTON: Right, so, Councillor, you’re going to tackle first our first principal ask then?

89. MS SMITH: Yes, the route. Now, here you can see a map of the route. HS2 are proposing to run construction traffic down Chesham Lane, Denham Lane and Joiners Lane, which are marked in red on the slide, and Chesham Lane actually moves into Denham Lane. It’s just one straight road. These lanes are home to many important facilities used by a large number of young children as well as serving a very considerable residential population, all of which generate traffic. So HS2 traffic would come into conflict with these young children, vulnerable adults and lots of pedestrian movements. So we are asking for a temporary access road from the rear of the site down to the 413, which is shown in green at the top of the map.

90. I don’t know whether you can access the promoter’s Chiltern exhibit document O7611 – P7611. This document actually shows that Buckinghamshire County Council have raised this with HS2, and we’ve also seen the temporary haul road has been requested by Bucks County Council as an alternative, and we’ve also seen another HS2 document which actually lists benefits and dis-benefits. And we have included these in our evidence, and I will come back to these later, but I first want to talk to you about the people who use this route, and a very large number of them and their lives will be disrupted and endangered by the construction route. Highlighted on that map there are many important facilities, and we will go back and introduce all of these to you and why we consider that they are all very important and people will be disrupted and in danger, as I’ve said, by this route.

91. Can we have the next slide please? Thank you. So dealing with the construction traffic routing, Chesham Lane and Denham Lane are narrow country lanes with few pavements. They serve a primary school and other facilities with significant visitor throughput, including people suffering from epilepsy, the elderly and young children, and they are used by hikers, cyclists and horse riders.

A498 (17) HOL/00600/0044

92. MR BURTON: I should just ask, the primary school, is that Robertswood that you’re referring to?

93. MS SMITH: Yes. That’s Robertswood school and we will – as I say, we will be coming back to all these issues and explaining them in more detail. During rush hours this route is actually used by motorists seeking to avoid the congestion on the 413 between Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter, and I must admit I am one of those that use this route rather than the 413. Chesham Lane is also home to the Epilepsy Centre and again, right hand side of this slide, is the junction of Chesham Lane, Denham Lane and Rickmansworth Lane, and it is actually an accident blackspot. On the left of the picture the first two houses in Chesham Lane do not have off street parking so there are always vehicles parked there, and often people – it’s the construction of the roads. Rickmansworth Lane, you – from the right hand side there’s a staggered junction, and often cars coming from the left hand side and turning right cannot see round the corner.

94. Denham Lane itself has severe congestion problems around Robertswood School, and the Neighbourhood Action Group are concerned about this and the safety of the children attending the school, and again we will talk about this later. And there are also very, very many residential roads feeding into this route, and I will now hand over to my colleague, Councillor Mrs Derby, to carry on.

95. MS DARBY: Thank you very much. Could we have the next slide please? Good afternoon, gentlemen. As Mr Burton has explained, I’m a parish councillor and currently leader of Chiltern District Council. I’ve lived in Chalfont St Peter almost all of my life and I’ve lived in Chalfont Common ward for over 30 years and represented is as a parish councillor and latterly as a district councillor as well. I’ve been a governor at Robertswood School for 27 years, and it’s the school that I will start by telling you about today. I’ve known the school as a parent as well as as a governor, as my three children went there. And it’s probably just as well that when the Select Committee visited we didn’t actually go all the way along the proposed construction route and down by the school, because probably we would have been running behind time because any large vehicle there is an issue.

96. My first reaction when learning that HS2 proposed to take construction traffic past the school was one of absolute disbelief, and I alerted Martin Wells, who’s here this

A498 (18) HOL/00600/0045

afternoon, stakeholder manager for HS2, to my concerns at several community engagement events. Robertswood School sits on the corner of Denham and West Hyde Lanes, almost opposite the staggered junction with Copthall Lane. We have about 400 children, whose ages range from three to 11 years old. The nursey children have the option of attending the morning or the afternoon sessions or both. Our children come from a wide area and many arrive by car, and often those who live close by are dropped off and picked up by busy parents on their way to and from work. It may not be the ideal scenario but that is how it is.

97. Our exhibits, slides 35 to 37 give more detail. Could we possibly have slide 35 please? Thank you. This is a statement of Anthony Shinner. He’s the chairman of the local neighbourhood action group, or NAG as it is referred to, which is a partnership between the community and Thames Valley Police. NAG has done significant work over the years investigating parking issues outside most of our schools. Basically NAG asks the community for their concerns, and the concerns in Chalfont St Peter at that time were antisocial behaviour, which happily has gone away, speeding and parking. And parking was particularly noticed by communities around schools as having been identified as having caused problems. He states in paragraph 4, ‘Robertswood School stands out amongst all those schools as having the greatest potential for a serious accident. Paragraph 5: ‘Most of the schools have some, if limited, drop off facilities. Conspicuously, Robertswood has no such facilities.’ And paragraph 7: ‘One of NAG’s concerns was the inability of emergency vehicles to get through. Public service vehicles, such as buses, are repeatedly delayed by the traffic jams here.’ Can we have the next slide please, slide 36?

98. Paragraph 8: ‘That on average the cars at Robertswood were parked for 22 minutes. This compared with an average of just nine minutes for several other schools in the village.’ Paragraph 10: ‘NAG have found no other school with such potentially dangerous access.’ And paragraph 12: ‘NAG consider the existing level of traffic to be a threat to the safety of schoolchildren attending Robertswood School.’ And paragraph 13: ‘At a recent meeting of NAG there was unanimous agreement that adding construction traffic to an already overburdened route, past the front door of a 400 pupil school, would be highly irresponsible. NAG concluded the balance of probability is that an increase in traffic levels to include construction traffic raises the risk of accidents at

A498 (19) HOL/00600/0046

this point of the proposed route.’

99. Could we have the next slide, 37, please? Paragraph 18. NAG has grave concerns regarding the safety aspects of the proposal to route heavy construction traffic along Chesham Lane, Denham Lane and Joiners Lane. That is a route of 1.8 miles which crosses 28 road junctions between the proposed site of the vent shaft and the junction of Joiners Lane with the A413. NAG has checked the proposed route against street plans. Our best estimate is that these roads service approximately 2,200 houses.

100. Paragraph 19. Leaving aside the several institutions, including Robertswood School and the Montessori nursery school at the bottom of Joiners Lane, which the proposed construction route passes, the burden of heavy construction vehicles on these road junctions is unacceptable. The threat to the safety of children at Robertswood School is viewed by NAG as a high risk.

101. Could we return to slide 9, please? At school pick-up and drop-off times this whole area is very busy, with cars parked on both sides of Copthall Lane and along one side of West Hyde Lane and Denham Lane. Several years ago I was driving past the school and encountered gridlock as a refuse truck was attempting to empty bins at the same time children were timed to arrive at school. I have since arranged with Chiltern Waste Team for the waste collection route to be changed to avoid this area at peak times.

102. In order to mitigate this traffic chaos and encourage healthier lifestyles the school encourages our children to walk wherever possible. Children receive points for walking to school. Those who have to be driven can also earn points provided their parents park a fair distance from the school and walk the rest of the way. The school is trying very hard to make this problem as small as possible.

103. Gentlemen, I am sure you will be able to picture the scene: parents parking; car doors opening; small children being unbuckled from their seats and helped to the ground, hopefully on the pavement side; and, though not always, older children perhaps opening car doors themselves, which is quite scary.

104. The photograph in the bottom right of the slide shows exactly what happens when a large vehicle, in this case a cement mixer, is introduced into the equation. This is taken

A498 (20) HOL/00600/0047

looking north along Denham Lane. You have West Hyde Lane on the right. If you see the dark green hedge on the right, West Hyde Lane comes out in front of that and the school is just beyond it on the right-hand side. Copthall Lane is the junction coming in from the left by the lower brown-coloured hedge. You can see that it is a dangerous junction at that point as well.

105. The other three pictures on the slide were taken by the head teacher just last week and further indicate how busy and dangerous things can be. In the top left-hand picture we are now standing on the side of Denham Lane where the school is and looking across. We are looking at the junction of Copthall Lane. You will see in the middle of the picture a mother and child walking in the road. That is actually at the junction of Copthall Lane and Denham Lane. That happens quite often.

106. In the bottom picture in the middle you have a school transport van reversing into the school driveway. It is very dangerous. In the past few years there have been two minor accidents involving children who have come into contact with vehicles, despite the fact there is a school crossing patrol. There have also been numerous clashes of wing mirrors. The thought of any more traffic on this road, especially large construction vehicles, fills me with horror. It is only a matter of time before there will be a more serious accident.

107. It should also be noted that many of those children who walk to school will have to cross and re-cross Denham Lane due to the absence of pavement on both sides of the road. That is another hazard made more serious by large lorries going by. It is perfectly clear that children and large vehicles are not a good combination and should be avoided at all costs.

108. The main school day runs from 8.50 am until 3.30 pm, with pupils arriving from 8.45 am and leaving between 3.30 and 6.30 pm due to after-school clubs and activities. The nursery session runs from 8.30 am to 11.30 and from 12.30 to 3.30. During the whole time there are staff cars parked in the roads outside the school, in addition to the parental traffic coming and going at various times.

109. The school is also deeply concerned that the dust and fumes produced by the construction traffic will be detrimental to our children’s health and may mean that outdoor activities will have to be cancelled.

A498 (21) HOL/00600/0048

110. Could we have the next slide, please? We turn now to the bottom of Joiners Lane where the proposed construction route joins the A413. The photograph at the top of that slide shows Joiners Lane coming down to the A413 roundabout. We are looking at the Montessori nursery school, which was previously mentioned in Tony Shinna’s statement. The nursery school is located at the very bottom of Joiners Lane on the left-hand side. It runs two sessions for 60 tiny children aged two to four years old from nine o’clock in the morning to 12 noon, and from 12.30 until 3.30 pm. It has 10 staff, including Liz’s daughter.

111. As there is very little parking on site and access is a somewhat difficult route through a private estate with speed bumps, many parents park at the bottom of Joiners Lane and walk a short distance along the path to the school. You can see the parked cars in the photograph. It is usual for several vehicles to be parked there for 10 to 15 minutes either side of each session. As previously mentioned, HGVs and very young children do not mix well, and it is asked that this route be avoided.

112. Could we flick back to slide 7 for a moment, please? Right at the very bottom of the map you see something called Paccar just off the construction route. Go to slide 11, please. This is the Paccar scout camp. It was opened in 1938 by the Scouts Association and was taken over in 1970 by Greater London (Middlesex West) Scouts as their county camp site and training centre. It was renamed in 2008 after a generous donation from the Paccar Foundation. It is a national and international centre and receives 40,000 young visitors every year. It has 24 woodland campsites set in 44 acres, with an additional 16 acres of camping land. Indoor accommodation is also available for younger users and means that the camp is able to open all year round. All visitors arrive by Joiners Lane, the construction route.

113. The camp is now open to schools and corporate hire and is extensively used all year round. The list of offsite activities is comprehensive and all but one involve the use of Denham Lane and Joiners Lane. The major activities are hiking and orienteering. Most of the hikes use all three lanes proposed for the construction route. A visit to the Chiltern open air museum at Newland Park is advertised as a 30-minute walk right along the proposed construction route.

114. Could we return to the map on slide 7, please? I have just mentioned the open air

A498 (22) HOL/00600/0049

museum at Newland Park, which is way up here, so these hikers come all the way along this road off to Newland Park. This is a good time to hand back to Cllr Smith, who will speak about Newland Park and the open air museum as she knows it very well.

115. MS SMITH: While we are on this slide, I will talk about other facilities along the route. As well as Newland Park site at the top, you can see the epilepsy centre site and, at the bottom, Cheena Meadow and the Garden of Rest.

116. CHAIR: You do not have to go into too much detail. We get the point. You are building up a picture, and we can read the slides.

117. MS SMITH: I was just going to tell you a little about these facilities and the people who use them, if that is okay.

118. The Newland Park site is home to the Chiltern open air museum. I know this well because I have represented Chiltern District Council advisory committee on the museum for over 20 years. I was asked to become a trustee at one time but I declined because I have many other roles. This is an award-winning tourist attraction and also a charity that relies for much of its income on visitor numbers. This year it has received 50,000 visitors. Of those, over 16,000 are children taking part in school visits and activities associated with the school curriculum, so again we have lots of children using the construction route. They may be in vehicles, but a lot of children are encountering lorries on narrow lanes.

119. It is also a popular filming location. It has been used by ‘Downton Abbey’, ‘Midsomer Murders’, ‘Call the Midwife’, ‘Horrible Histories’ and ‘Country File’. The list is endless.

120. CHAIR: We do not need to know all of these things.

121. MS SMITH: All right; I will put it down. On the same site you also have a manor house which caters for weddings and corporate events, and a new school which opened this year – a SCOLA school – for international students. The main access to this site is Chesham Lane and it is not on a bus route.

122. MR BURTON: Shall we move to the National Centre for Excellence?

A498 (23) HOL/00600/0050

123. MS SMITH: Yes. Can we have the next slide, please? I will cut this down because, as you say, you can see exactly what it is about. This is a site I have known for many years. It was established in 1892 as a place for epilepsy sufferers to live and work in an open environment instead of being institutionalised. They are pioneers in care, diagnostics, treatments and assessments, and they do research on this site. They provide permanent residential care for people who are severely affected by epilepsy, as well as temporary residential care for those who are being assessed. It is important to know that the people from this centre also use these lanes. I know of one accident where somebody was run over and killed.

124. MR BURTON: Linked to their epilepsy?

125. MS SMITH: Yes. They had a seizure and fell on the road in the dark. They were not seen and run over.

126. Importantly, the site has sold some of its land recently. There are two organisations building homes for the elderly, both of which are due to be opened soon. One is an 85-unit retirement village and the other is a 64-bed care home. Again, all three of these facilities will have significant pedestrian movements. In Chiltern district’s core strategy it is stated that any redevelopment of this site must be compatible with the continuing occupation of parts of the site for care and medical use. Therefore, we can expect more of this type of development for the vulnerable.

127. Along the road, at the junction of Chesham Lane, Denham Lane and Rickmansworth Lane, there is a general store and post office. We know that people from this site will walk along the lane to the store and post office. Both Cllr Darby and I recently reopened the post office after refurbishment. While we were there we met a carer who had walked along with a patient in a wheelchair.

128. Can I have the next slide, please? I will touch briefly on these two, both of which are on the route of the construction vehicles. Cheena Meadow and the Garden of Rest are both owned and managed by the parish council. There is no pavement for either of these and residents have to cross Denham Lane for access. Cheena Meadow has a small area containing play equipment, and there is also a large unmarked play area for informal games, and our first community orchard. It has a small unmade car parking area, and often cars flow on to Denham Lane and there is no room in there. Very

A498 (24) HOL/00600/0051

similarly, the Garden of Rest has a very small parking area. It is now the final resting place for about 3,000 people. Once a week, when there is a funeral, cars will park all the way around the junction of Denham Lane and Joiners Lane. There are frequent visitors to this site. Can I have the last slide, please?

129. Chalfund is the ancient name of a village, and I was actually instrumental in setting up a heritage group for our village. The village has several listed buildings, one of which is in Chesham Lane, which is the Gott’s Monument, as you will see on this picture. We have erected plaques throughout the village evidencing its historic nature and created this walk. The Gott’s Walk takes walkers to the monument, where they have to cross Chesham Lane. It’s actually at the entrance of the epilepsy site. We are planning to put two more plaques in Chesham Lane as well. We know that these historic walks are extremely popular with groups such as the scouts and the guides. Can I have the next slide, please?

130. Just to recap briefly, I hope we have shown you that there are lots of vulnerable pedestrians and road users, many young children on the route, epilepsy sufferers who could be prone to seizures. It’s already heavily trafficked. Nearly, 1,000 visitors per year for the scout camp and the open-air museum. We are asking for a temporary road down the 413 from the rear of the vent-shaft site, which, at a stroke, will remove all the concerns we have described to you. This land is already marked by HS2 on the map

131. MR BURTON: Councillors, it’s this pink line strip down to A413.

132. MS SMITH: Yes, it is. I will now go back to the suggestions that have been made by Bucks County Council. Can I have slide 33, please?

133. MR BURTON: This is because Buckinghamshire put that proposal, or essentially that proposal, to the Promoter and the Promoter listed some benefits and disbenefits in the document.

134. MS SMITH: Yes, they have. The only benefits they saw were to the epilepsy centre and its playing fields. They hadn’t regarded Robertswood School, the scout camp and all of the other places and facilities we have just explained to you.

135. MR BURTON: They’re not mentioned anywhere in the document.

A498 (25) HOL/00600/0052

136. MS SMITH: No. We don’t feel they have understood the problems their present proposal will cause. They haven’t understood the benefits of our alternative. Can we have the next slide, please?

137. This slide shows the disbenefits of the proposed temporary road in HS2’s view. We don’t believe they would amount to anything that would outweigh the benefits. I will tackle them very briefly. The first one is the cost.

138. CHAIR: You can assume that we will read all this. Anyway, the Promoter will probably point out the disbenefits anyway.

139. MS SMITH: I do have some comments on what they are saying.

140. MR BURTON: Sir, obviously, if you are content, we can proceed on the basis that we can come back, should the Promoter suggest there are any disbenefits to our route. We will. Of course, the Promoter has intended to present matters has not always been along those lines.

141. MS DARBY: It’s a fair point.

142. MR BURTON: We’ll proceed on that basis.

143. CHAIR: Please make your comments.

144. MS SMITH: I will be brief, sir. Number 1 was the cost of the land take, highway works and reinstatement. We feel that it would be a modest sum in the scheme of things, when considering the safety of those we have outlined to you. We understand that maybe elsewhere on the route this has been taken into consideration. The second one is the additional vehicle movements needed to remove extra material.

145. Again, we feel this would be preferable to using the proposed lanes, because we would rather our children were spared the risk. The third is that they are talking about the adverse impact on the AONB, but this area is not in the AONB and the infrastructure is only temporary. The last one is adverse noise impact to nearby residents, but there are very few nearby residents and we feel that there is nothing in these disbenefits to outweigh the benefits we have outlined.

146. Thank you. I will now hand back to my colleague.

A498 (26) HOL/00600/0053

147. MS DARBY: Thank you very much. Can we please go back to slide 17? We will now turn to our second concern about the visual impact of the vent shaft head house and associated works around it. It can be seen by this map that the green belt gap between the settlements of Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont St Giles is at its narrowest part here. The red cross marks roughly the position of the vent shaft. Any large, built structure will have the effect of reducing that valuable green gap even further. That is why we are asking for the impact of the building to be as small as possible. Next slide, please.

148. HS2’s proposal makes no attempt to screen the proposed structure from Chesham Lane, where the views are currently of open countryside on either side of the lane. Short of finding an alternative location, we believe the only way this can be resolved is by sinking the mass of the proposed building into the ground. The PRD has not addressed this point at all. This is not a design matter to be determined by the planning authority at a later date. This is an engineering matter and it needs to be addressed now. Can we have slide 19, please?

149. MR BURTON: Of course, Councillor Darby, before you go on, obviously this is green belt and there a narrow gap. Would screening with trees address the problem? Is the problem just putting built form there?

150. MS DARBY: The problem is putting built form there. The amount of landscaping that HS2 are proposing to do actually puts a great big mound of earth there, which means you can’t look across the countryside. Of course, that won’t be required is the head house is sunk into the ground with a green roof.

151. To recap, the head house building would be detrimental to the openness of this narrow area of green belt. Therefore, we are asking that the head house should be sunk below ground level; it should have a green roof; it should be supplied by underground cables. If necessary, some additional low-level planting could be done at the Chesham Lane elevation. There should be minimal destruction of the ancient hedgerow. The concrete apron that is going to have to surround this building should be constructed in something similar to grasscrete – I’m quite sure there are engineering solutions for heavier vehicles – so that we don’t notice it at all. Could we have the next slide, please?

152. MR BURTON: That’s dealt with two or our three principle asks. We are now

A498 (27) HOL/00600/0054

coming to third; is that right?

153. MS DARBY: That’s correct. Our next concern is about the Chalfont Lane closure. We feel HS2’s proposals for traffic management here will absolutely be far too dangerous. Although not in our village or in Buckinghamshire, the closure of Chalfont Lane, which accesses the A412 North Orbital Road, will have a far greater impact for the residents of our village than any other. HS2 are proposing to construct a temporary road across the fields from West Hyde Lane to connect with Hornhill Road, a narrow, twisting lane with no pavement and only narrow passing places. HS2’s proposed access onto this lane will involve turning right across the traffic, if you are going down it in the mornings. We consider that to be extremely dangerous.

154. MR BURTON: Shall we just go to the next slide?

155. MS DARBY: Yes, certainly.

156. CHAIR: Carry on.

157. MS DARBY: We also believe traffic will use Roberts Lane, which traverses West Hyde Lane and Rickmansworth Lane – that is between G and B – to avoid this closure. My partner uses these roads daily and both Councillor Smith and myself use them regularly. Our personal experience confirms what common sense would suggest. This map here is HS2’s map from the environmental statement, showing the construction phase. HS2 need to close Chalfont Lane, which is this one down here, roughly where it meets West Hyde Lane and the overbridge, near point H, to enable the construction work for the southern tunnel portal and the compound. In order to understand the impact this will have, we need to look at the bigger picture.

158. Gentlemen, if I could ask you just to note the rough locations of B, C, G and H, hold that in your minds as we move across to the next slide. You will now see B, C, G and H in the middle of our map. This map indicates the main traffic flows. There are two routes that many of our residents regularly use to access the A412 North Orbital Road and onwards to the M25 Northbound, the M1, Watford, Rickmansworth and specialist hospitals: Harefield, which is cardiology, and Mount Vernon, which is oncology. These routes are also used in the opposite direction from residents from Hertfordshire coming into our village to go to school and to work.

A498 (28) HOL/00600/0055

159. Each starts on Denham Lane. I know you are very familiar with Denham Lane. A and F are the points on Denham Lane. The first route is the green route by Rickmansworth Lane. It goes from point A along Rickmansworth Lane, past the Dumb Bell Pub and it becomes Hornhill Road and then goes out through Maple Cross. That goes through A, B, C and to either D or E. There are two routes out through Maple Cross. The second is via West Hyde Lane and Chalfont Lane. That is point F. It starts at point F, down to G, H and I. That is the one which HS2 are going to have to close because the southern portal area is here and they have to close that lane.

160. HS2 are planning to join West Hyde Lane to Hornhill Road by building a temporary access road across the fields parallel to the M25. This is the red line, H to C. The new road – we are told – will not be ready for at least six months after Chalfont Lane is closed to through traffic. This will have a devastating effect on the residents of Roberts Lane, which is G to B. It is the blue line along there. We are not pointing anymore.

161. MR BURTON: Can you pick up the blue line? That is it.

162. MS DARBY: That is it. If we go to the next slide, please, we will turn to Roberts Lane. Roberts Lane is an attractive narrow country lane with no pavement and no streetlights. From West Hyde Lane there is a privately owned travellers’ site on the right-hand side and open farmland on the left. The first dwellings are a number of barn conversions around an open courtyard. There is a row of about a dozen of what were agricultural workers’ cottages and then some more substantial homes. There are about 25 in total. It really is a delightful lane, where the residents enjoy the peace and tranquillity of living in the heart of the countryside. When Chalfont Lane is closed, prior to the construction of the proposed temporary access road, traffic will naturally divert down Roberts Lane. We know this will happen because last winter West Hyde Lane became badly flooded and impassable – and the displaced traffic did exactly that.

163. Whilst this might be acceptable in an emergency situation for a couple of days, when the road is flooded or being resurfaced, it is not acceptable for a period of six months or more. We believe it will be even longer, because once drivers’ habits have been established they will be hard to break. We are therefore asking that Roberts Lane

A498 (29) HOL/00600/0056

be permanently closed to through traffic to ensure that the residents do not get inconvenienced by additional traffic using it as a rat run.

164. The residents of Roberts Lane live closest to the southern tunnel portal construction compound and site, where we understand there will be 24-hour working. There is no doubt that they will experience noise, dust and light pollution from this operation. It would be unfair for them to have to suffer from any other avoidable detrimental effects. The permanent closure of this road will be welcomed by them. Could we have the next slide, please?

165. Turning now to Hornhill Road, which will be on the proposed route, whichever way it goes. We know these roads and we use them on a regular basis. To introduce a road junction into this narrow lane will cause an unnecessary additional hazard. There is not a sufficiently long stretch of road past the M25 overbridge as you are coming up into Chalfont St Peter in which to place a junction. Currently, cars travel up or down the lane and have to give way and reverse up and down on a regular basis to get past each other. A junction would cause added confusion and turning right out of the junction towards the A412 would be a particularly dangerous manoeuvre – an absolute nightmare.

166. The bottom-right photograph, gentlemen, was taken just over a week ago. It shows what can happen. It was taken by an onboard camera. The driver of this vehicle had to reverse back from this lorry around a 90-degree bend to find a stretch of road wide enough to pass. This occurs when we only have traffic going up and down the lane. To introduce a third dimension to this would be inconceivable. Can we have the next slide, please?

167. In summary, we believe the proposed scheme to manage the traffic for the Chalfont Lane closure is dangerous and we ask: that Roberts Lane is closed to through traffic; that the proposed temporary road is not built; that all non-construction traffic is diverted via Rickmansworth Lane and Hornhill Road, which will happen naturally when those roads are closed off; and that construction traffic, including workforce, is banned from adding any extra traffic to this route. I will now hand back to Councillor Smith to speak very briefly about our other concerns.

168. MR BURTON: We are almost there now.

A498 (30) HOL/00600/0057

169. MS SMITH: Yes, could we have the next slide, please? I promise I will be brief. We do have traffic issues. I appreciate that you don’t want to hear any more about the A413, because I know many other petitioners in Buckinghamshire have already told you about this road, but what I will say – and I did say this earlier, but I’d like to reinforce it – is that we know it as the Amersham Road and it is our main route, whether up to Amersham, Aylesbury and beyond, in one direction, or in the other direction, to London and the M40 etc. As I have already said, this road actually cuts our community into two. Everybody from one side of the village has to go around and across the A413 to access the rest of the village.

170. All we are asking is that no construction vehicles should use it during peak times, i.e. mornings and evenings. It was very difficult to assess what sort of time we might be asking for. We are being quite conservative in saying between eight and nine o’clock in the morning and half past five to half past six in the evening. That is our ask on that.

171. The River Misbourne, again, is one you have heard a lot about – but it is a significant amenity to our village, particularly in its setting in the oldest part of the village, surrounded by four of our listed buildings. You can see that in the photograph on the right-hand side of this slide. Hard work by one of our many volunteer groups, the Misbourne River Action, has led to improved flow in recent years. There have been years when it has dried up through our village. This group monitor the flow for the Environment Agency and they also record the diversity of wildlife.

172. We share other petitioners’ concerns about the river and we would repeat their asks that more detailed work to understand the risks should be done in advance of construction – particularly with regard to the interruption of the flow and possible contamination. Can we have the next slide, please? This is our final slide.

173. Again, this is the AONB. While our village doesn’t lie within the boundaries of the AONB, obviously many of our residents use the area regularly for recreation. As the lady said earlier, we all treasure the AONB. It has been designated in recognition of its national importance. All we can do is to ask you to respect all the other wishes. The only way of keeping the AONB as it is is to construct a fully bored tunnel beneath the whole of it – and I know you have been asked by many other petitioners about this. In our village, we are simply staggered that the promoter is proposing anything but a tunnel

A498 (31) HOL/00600/0058

under the whole of the AONB.

174. Our final concern is about the draft Code of Construction Practice. Again, we align ourselves with many of the other petitioners and leading authorities, who have also raised this issue. I don’t intend to go into anything further on that one. Thank you for listening to me, and I will now hand back to Mr Burton to sum up for us.

175. MR BURTON: Sir, obviously, I will wait to hear what, if anything, my learned friend, Mr Strachan, has to say first. I will simply take us onto our final slide and note that I believe that we have demonstrated that which we set out to do, which is that we are making some very specific, very sensible and very achievable asks.

176. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Strachan?

177. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I will deal with the asks. There are seven asks. I will take them in turn as quickly as I can. P10808, first of all, is the question of the construction of the vent shaft. You’ll appreciate that through Chalfont St Peter itself there is the bored tunnel. The only surface work in Chalfont St Peter is the Chalfont St Peter vent shaft.

178. As you have heard described, the access to the vent shaft is taken from Joiners Lane, Denham Lane and Chesham Lane. It is important to appreciate the levels of activity that are associated with the construction of the vent shaft. The Committee is familiar with this from looking at it further up the line. It’s a very similar picture. What we’re talking about is a very limited period of construction activity for a limited period of time throughout the overall project period. I can illustrate that clearly for you here.

179. C, D, E and F represent flows of traffic along Joiners Lane and Denham Lane. If we take the HGVs, C and D are 12 HGVs each way per day at the maximum period. To give you an idea, that is obviously one HGV an hour each way. That is at the maximum period of activity when the main vent shaft activity is going on. There is the same picture, of course, along E and F. Other vehicles like cars can come in from other roads. That’s the level of activity we’re talking about.

180. If I show you P10809, you can see that in another form for the duration of the period. You will recall what I have called these histograms, which give you an idea of

A498 (32) HOL/00600/0059

when the activity is taking place. You can see the orange coding is effectively civils and systems HGVs with a few mass-haul HGVs when excavated material is removed. The mass-haul HGVs are only for a period of three months. You get these period of activity when the vent shaft is dug. Then there are some civil works to construct the buildings. Then, of course, there is a significant gap for some 3-4 years. After that, there is some activity – but it is not lorry activity – when the rail systems fit-out for the vent shaft. – What we are talking about for Chalfont St Peter on those roads is a very limited period of activity, where we are talking about slightly over one HGV per hour each way on those roads.

181. That said, we did consider, look at and examine the possibility of an alternative access road and we did that partly at the request of Buckinghamshire County Council, as you have heard, and we have illustrated why that wasn’t considered to be a sensible proposal. If we go back to the petitioners’ slides – they are also in the Chilterns standard pack – they were at 32. What you would have to do is build an access road that has been ordered to accommodate that level of construct traffic for that short period from the A413 – you would have to create a new access onto the A413 – and this is land which rises steeply. In order to do that, you end up having to construct a road with four metre cuttings – with all of the consequential excavated material that creates.

182. There would be two choices. One would be to store it on site in the green belt for a period of seven years whilst your road is there and then to put it back in; the other would be to move it after you have excavated it, which will generate even more HGVs on the A413 – in order to accommodate what is actually a very short period of construction activity. If you go to 34, though there are of course benefits in terms of short-term construction traffic, it is for all of those reasons that we identified a number of disbenefits. The cost is but one of them. The cost is £1 million. More significant here is the huge scale of the impact you create in order to create a temporary construction road, which would of course be in the green belt, as we heard previously, either stored on agricultural or moved it off site.

183. To complete the picture, Buckinghamshire County Council confirmed to us that they were not pursuing this as an alternative proposal they were supporting. That’s at P11170(1), the minutes of a meeting we had with Buckinghamshire County Council. They put it down to land-take requirements or land-ownership issues. I am sorry: it’s

A498 (33) HOL/00600/0060

11171(3). I apologise. That’s my fault. It’s 11171(3). It’s item five. ‘Chalfont St Peter vent shaft. BCC confirmed they will not be pursuing land ownership issues’ and they requested assurances regarding the school which relate to traffic impacts in AP2, which brings me onto the next point.

184. Indeed, we are taking forward our discussions with Buckinghamshire County Council on assurances for Robertswood School in particular, which of course is on that line the petitioners have talked about. We are discussing an assurance which deals with the examination of whether there is a need to introduce traffic-calming measures or anything appropriate to the levels of traffic we’re introducing there. That specific assurance, which is under discussion, would sit alongside what’s already in the Code of Construction Practice.

185. I know the Committee has heard this before, but site-specific measures for construction sites include a list of roads which may be used by construction traffic in the vicinity of the site and any restrictions, such as the avoidance of large goods vehicles operating adjacent to schools during drop-off and pick-up period. One of the things that will be looked at as part of the Code of Construction Practice is, where there is construction traffic running past the school, even though it is at relatively low volumes here, precisely when during the day that should occur. Given the scale of traffic we’re talking about, there obviously are considerable opportunities to regulate that flow of traffic. For all of those reasons, we don’t consider the alternative access road, which we have looked at, a sensible option at all for this location.

186. The second ask relates to the reduction of visual impact, and you will know that my answer is going to be very similar in relation to all of these vent shaft sites. The buildings themselves will be subject to the detailed design policy and require approval. Although this is outside the AONB, it is one that is going to be treated as within a sensitive area, because of its proximity to the AONB, for those purposes.

187. The question of putting the plant belowground Mr Smart has previously addressed, I think. It’s not possible to do that, because the fans and equipment need to be aboveground to operate to extract the heat from the tunnel both during operation and also, critically, during an emergency. There’s no reason for us to build them any higher than we actually have to, so our detailed design will seek to minimise the impact, but we

A498 (34) HOL/00600/0061

cannot site everything belowground. If you want more detail on that – I’m sure Mr Smart has already addressed it – we can address it again.

188. As to specific landscaping measures, we have already shown some, but those will be subject to detailed approvals in due course. You were shown a photo montage in year one, which again illustrates what we consider to be the worst-case time when it has just gone in. There will be opportunities to introduce planting earlier and, of course, there is an existing hedge alongside that road that we are not intended to remove as part of our proposals in additional to the planting we have shown illustratively around the site. We do anticipate that it will be a vent-shaft location that is properly mitigated in terms of its visual effects.

189. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: But I think previous petitioners in previous vent-shaft discussions described their vent shaft as being eight feet above ground. If it’s only that amount above ground, why does it need to be above ground at all? You do not want to get a vehicle inside. Why can it not finish at ground level?

190. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand that the fans themselves have to operate above ground to extract the air. There is also a need for some accommodation over the vent shaft. I did have some dimensions for it somewhere. Someone can give me the dimensions.

191. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Perhaps at some stage somebody could give us a little note as to why and how much above ground it needs to be.

192. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly. At the moment, we’re anticipating it being four metres high. That’s the figure I’ve got: 48 metres by 22 metres and 4 metres high.

193. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: That’s quite high. That’s 13 or 14 feet high.

194. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. As I understand it, the critical thing is to have fans that can operate to serve the railway beneath. As I said, there is no reason why we would want to put them any higher than they have to be operationally. Again, I can give you some more details on that from our engineering side, Mr Smart. I can do it perhaps by way of a note, if it’s easiest, and distribute it.

A498 (35) HOL/00600/0062

195. That is the look of the vent shaft. Could I then come on to the Chalfont Lane issue, which is a slightly different issue? Can I have P10801? To remind the Committee of what is going on in this location, if I take the cursor over to this area here, you will recall that just outside Chalfont St Peter we have the Colne Valley Viaduct main compound, which is sitting along the M25. We are creating temporary slip roads off the M25. There is a slip road off the M25 coming south on one side and then there is one on the other side of the M25, over here. That takes the traffic back onto the northbound M25. There is quite a considerable amount of HGV traffic there and, of course, we have to close Chalfont Lane in that location in order to regulate the construction traffic. These slip roads are intended to be for construction traffic only, not for public traffic. Therefore, we have to be able to control the traffic coming on and off. Chalfont Lane is therefore closed. That stops traffic going that way through to Chalfont St Peter.

196. For that reason, we created the temporary road that was referred to in the petitioners’ slides. Can we just zoom in there? As part of our proposal, we create a temporary road alongside the M25 to link up the two roads. Vehicles can then pass through Maple Cross to get to the A412. Chalfont Lane, accordingly, is blocked for the period whilst this site is operational. I think it’s just over five years. That is actually an area within Hertfordshire County Council’s domain.

197. If we go back to the petitioners’ slides, on A1630(22) you can see our road is from C to H, because there is no route through from Chalfont Lane down in this location here. That is just down here. That is Chalfont Lane. That means traffic that was coming from F to G to H to I will travel up F, G, H and C. Then it will continue up across to the A412. Traffic travelling from A to D to E will obviously continue to do that.

198. There is no reason why Roberts Lane, which is B to G, would become a rat run as a result of our proposal. As you can see, traffic at F travels from F, G and H to C, which is the more direct route, and traffic at A or B will no longer be looking to down to go down to point H, because that is closed off. We construct our C to H as a route through before we shut off Chalfont Lane. I can understand there being existing concerns about how B to G, Roberts Lane, will operate – but they are not ones our proposal will affect in terms of anything going on in the area.

A498 (36) HOL/00600/0063

199. As to the roads C to H, as I said, that is primarily a Hertfordshire County Council issue. There is the orchard site just below H, which will need access. For them, without H to C, their access to the A412 would become a very much longer route. They would have to go H, G, F, A, B, C and D – hence the need for our alternative road, as well as serving residents coming from F.

200. I am sure you will understand that our access road CH will obviously have to be subject to road safety audits and the junction we are proposing at point C, onto Hornhill Road, will have to be a safe one. It will be subject to safety and compliance. I appreciate the concerns being expressed, but we will design it to make it safe in order to provide that continued access across.

201. That all said, of course, this is anything to do with construction traffic. This is to provide access for residents in the area and, certainly, we can speak to Hertfordshire County Council to see whether they think the route C to H is unnecessary. If everyone thought it was unnecessary, there is no reason for us to provide it – because, clearly, it is not serving our purposes, but we understand from Hertfordshire County Council, who have not rejected the proposal, that they do regard it as necessary. It shouldn’t have any of the undesirable effects that have been expressed by the petitioners.

202. As to the final three or four asks, there was an ask for no construction traffic at peak times. You’ve heard about our ongoing discussions with Buckinghamshire County Council. All of those things will be considered in more detail in terms of controlling traffic generally. On greater protection for the River Misbourne, it is difficult to see what greater protection there could be provided than already exists in the protective provisions in the Bill, under which anything we do to it is subject to control by the Environment Agency.

203. You have already heard our case on the protection of the AONB with a fully bored tunnel. There was also the issue of more robust assurances in the Code of Construction Practices. I am not sure what is being asked for in terms of more robust assurances, but there is a considerable amount of detail in the Code of Construction Practice and it is based on a tried and tested methodology which has been used in previous projects. In the absence of anything more specific, I cannot respond further.

204. In summary, that is the response to the seven asks put forward at the beginning.

A498 (37) HOL/00600/0064

205. CHAIR: Mr Burton, do you have any final comments?

206. MR BURTON: Yes. I will try to be brief, but I do have a little bit to get through, actually.

207. CHAIR: You will be brief.

208. MR BURTON: I will be. Sir, could I take us back to A1630, which is on our slide 33, please? My learned friend has given you an account that has been heard before about the short time period that construction traffic will affect these narrow lanes. Given what is on these lanes, any time period is too much; any time period is wholly unacceptable for the primary schoolchildren of Robertswood School; it is wholly unacceptable for the epilepsy sufferers at the Centre. When we come to the histogram, which we will, it’s not a short period in any event – but I would invite you, please, to look carefully at this slide, which shows the benefits of our proposal as identified by the Promoter. You will see that they do not mention Robertswood School; they do not mention the Montessori Nursery. They have simply failed to understand what is at stake here.

209. If we look briefly at the histogram my learned friend took you to, sir, that is the Promoter’s exhibit 10809. As we do so, hopefully you will recall what Councillor Darby told you about the impact that just one lorry has on this lane. What we can see there is that there will be HGVs – which are orange coloured, as my colour sense tells me – running for a period of a year, from January year 2 to January year 3.

210. There will be a period of a number of months which are months in which mass-haul HGVs will use the route. I think my learned friend, Mr Strachan, said there will be 12 HGVs each day each way. I make that 24. It’s too much. Even a few weeks in a school term would be too much. We can trace this through and we can see that the period that HGVs will be present extends all the way to year 4. That’s two years.

211. You will recall the picture that we showed you of the school minibus. We then have a period of another two years, I think, where there will be LGVs, which are the green light goods vehicles. It’s precisely because the Promoter has not taken account of the vulnerable users on this road that we are going to ask – and keep asking – for the temporary haul road. That temporary haul road, as you will see, occupies land that the

A498 (38) HOL/00600/0065

Promoter has already allocated for its use.

212. With great respect to Mr Strachan, it’s not for him – or it’s not easy for him, in any event, as Counsel – to tell you what is going to be difficult in terms of gradient, which he mentioned. My understanding is that the gradient this road would perhaps not even be 8%. It’s a minimal figure for our proposed route, straight down to the 413. It’s well worth it for the risk it will remove.

213. That’s the first one. As regards Buckinghamshire County Council, just before I leave that, we have not seen slide 11713 before, which Mr Strachan showed you, but we have discussed the matter with Buckinghamshire County Council very recently, in the last few days. They certainly don’t oppose our proposal. Remember that this road is a very minor issue for them. They don’t appreciate, in the way that we do, quite how important it is – because they have a list of things to be getting on with.

214. CHAIR: Are you saying Buckinghamshire County Council don’t know their jobs?

215. MR BURTON: No, I’m not saying that, sir. I’m telling you, because Councillor Darby made a specific point of discussing it with them in the last couple of days and they have told her they do not object to our proposal. As I said, the slide you were shown is one we have not seen before, but I’m pretty confident it predates the discussion Councillor Darby has had with Buckinghamshire in the last few days.

216. Because this is important, Councillor Darby would like to say something on this point. I really don’t want you to be left with the impression that we are in conflict with the highway authority on this ask – because we’re not.

217. CHAIR: Please be brief.

218. MS DARBY: Thank you, sir. My understanding is that Buckinghamshire County Council are taking various transport elements offline with HS2 Ltd. I believe that those haven’t been fully agreed at this stage. I think the mitigation around the school was possibly going to be a zebra crossing and also that construction vehicles would avoid the peak hours.

219. I have told you earlier this afternoon that the peak hours for the school when

A498 (39) HOL/00600/0066

children are coming and going are many and varied throughout the day. If I refer to a previous discussion I had with HS2 about the traffic on the A413, HS2 said, ‘If we take out all these peak times, we haven’t got any time to get our vehicles on the roads.’ That is exactly the position on Denham Lane outside Robertswood School. If you remove all of the times when you have danger, i.e. parents and children coming and crossing roads, you end up with very little time in the rest of the day for HS2 to put their HGV construction traffic through. On that basis, we do not believe that the mitigation that potentially is being discussed at the moment will work.

220. MR BURTON: Nothing in daylight hours, in the working day, is the position one is left with. It is all very well to explore it with the Promoter, but it’s not going to work.

221. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: ‘Buckinghamshire County Council, the highway authority, don’t object to the proposal,’ is a passive statement.

222. MR BURTON: They don’t object to our proposal.

223. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: An active statement would be that they could ask for it. Have you had discussions and are they likely to do that?

224. MR BURTON: You have seen that they did ask for it. They told us they support us today.

225. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: That is one thing. Actually asking for it, having done the assessments on traffic flows and the effects on institutions you have discussed, is a different thing.

226. MR BURTON: They did ask for it. They asked the Promoter to look at it. That’s why we’ve got that document we’ve exhibited, because that was Buckinghamshire putting that forward as their proposal. HS2 then produced their list of benefits they were also proposing, which was that HS2 use the land they’d already earmarked and drop the road straight down to the 413.

227. CHAIR: Carry on, Mr Burton, please.

228. MR BURTON: Yes. On the second specific ask, which is of course the vent-shaft building itself, there is simply no way to square the manifest inconsistency

A498 (40) HOL/00600/0067

between the Promoter’s position in relation to the height, which we have just heard today, of the vent shaft at Little Missenden, which is said to be eight feet above ground level, and our vent shaft, about which it has been said that it must be double that, essentially: 4 metres.

229. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: 4 metres is 12.9 feet exactly.

230. MR BURTON: That makes no sense. We can all understand that fans need to be a certain level above flooding areas, but, beyond that, there can be no need to stop the flooding of the shafts. We are here today. If the Promoter wants to call a technical witness to address our concerns, it should do so today. It has had our petition for ages. I am here today to cross-examination Mr Smart; he’s not here. There’s nothing we can do about that, but it shouldn’t count against us.

231. On the final point, the Chalfont Lane closure, we know our roads. We know where problems will occur. It’s as simple as that: we know that people will dart up a wholly unsuitable road, which is Roberts Lane. We would ask the Promoter to reflect very carefully on that, in conjunction with Hertfordshire’s highway authority. We’re grateful for your time, and we do urge you to require undertakings as appropriate.

232. CHAIR: Thank you very much to both councillors. We will reflect on what you have to say. Thank you, Mr Burton.

233. We will now move on to 1904, Anne Lines. Do you want to do an introduction, Mr Strachan?

Anne Lines

234. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Ms Lines lives at Cross Lanes, which is in Chalfont St Peter. I’ve put up a plan showing the location of her property. She can tell me if I’ve got it wrong, but you’ll see it’s within the community of Chalfont St Peter.

235. MS LINES: This is Chesham Lane, is it, here?

236. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

237. MS LINES: I am here, just off Chesham Lane, the other end of that road.

A498 (41) HOL/00600/0068

238. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Right, you are on Cross Lanes, which is this road that turns at a right angle.

239. MS LINES: Yes, I am the second house off Chesham Lane. I can see and hear the traffic going up and down.

240. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I see.

241. CHAIR: Carry on, please.

242. MS LINES: I’ve got some overheads. You can put up my first one, if you’d like. My house is, as I said, just off Chesham Lane. I’ve lived there for 46 years. For me, the location is perfect. I love our vibrant community. I live in a position where I can be in open country within a few minutes’ walk. It’s what my husband and I wanted when we bought it.

243. Since its inception, I have been a member of the Chalfont St Peter Traffic and Transport Committee. This is one of a number of voluntary community groups set up in 2002 mainly to list to the concerns of residents and to liaise with our Parish and District Councils to try to overcome any issues that arise. I and the other members of the Committee made an agreement with and endorsed the request made by Chalfont St Peter Parish Council, as you have just heard. Could you turn to the next slide, please?

244. When I try to exit my road, it is just on a bit of a curve. Although it a 30 mile per hour limit, traffic tends to travel a little faster. The faster they go, the further they are away from the curb. Many times my neighbours and myself have nearly been in head-on collisions just turning around the corner, because the traffic does see us. There’s a turning and it just comes on our side of the road.

245. As I said, where the footpaths exist, they are on one side only. It is particularly bad at the staggered crossing, where Chesham and Denham Lanes meet, Rickmansworth Lane. The staggered crossing has already been discussed, where the mini post office is. You have to cross the road at that point to get to a footpath and, in fact, on one side it is a steep piece of grass and you can’t walk along it.

246. I’ve actually seen schoolchildren trying to cross there in the mornings when people are going along Rickmansworth Lane, coming up and doing the staggering

A498 (42) HOL/00600/0069

crossing. I have actually seen a woman with a phone to one ear trying to drive and there with all of these people trying to cross. In fact, I did try to help one young child one day, because with the cars parked as well I thought it was very dangerous. I said, ‘Do you want some help crossing?’ and of course young children nowadays are told not to talk to strangers, so he cowed away from me. But this is the sort of position we come across every day just walking along there.

247. As the councillors said, there is also the Centre for Epilepsy and my road is the first road beyond the Centre for Epilepsy. We get patients from there all the time coming along there – and I have seen them fall over in the road. Fortunately, they have not been run over – because usually, if we’re around, we’ll go and help them as much as we can.

248. The staggered junction at Rickmansworth Lane is a real danger black spot. I’ve seen a number of accidents there. There was a wonderful one where a care actually came down the road and ended up jammed between a telephone box and a tree. How they did that, we don’t know. In fact, one of my friends has been run into on that corner. The other problem, as mentioned, was the Centre for Epilepsy. My Committee, in particular, was worried about the extra building there, as it’s for old and vulnerable people. Again, these people may well be wandering around this road with all this heavy traffic going up and down.

249. As has been rightly pointed out, a major concern is the school. The traffic there in the morning is absolutely horrendous. You know what parents are like. They drive up to the school and their main thought is to get as close to school as they can and drop their children there. It doesn’t matter whether you’re behind them or in front of them; they just stop. There’s a school keeper there. I pass that spot every morning, as the schoolchildren are arriving. You can go onto the next slide, please.

250. The Committee is particularly worried about the construction traffic generally, not only going along Chesham and Denham Lanes, but down Joiners Lane and even going along the A413 – which is already a very busy road. It always has hold-ups and busy periods in the mornings and in the evenings; in fact, it is busy any time after quarter to three in the afternoon, when the parents start going out to pick their child up from school.

A498 (43) HOL/00600/0070

251. Finally, I would like to say in summary, in our view, Buckinghamshire needs a bored tunnel under the whole of the AONB. We think that very great care is needed in any construction work to avoid damage to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Colne Valley Regional Park. Throughout, very careful attention has to be paid to the impact of the construction traffic generally in the whole of the Chilterns area.

252. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much. You’ve answered most of the points.

253. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, sir. This is the same line of construction traffic that I have indicated with the same volumes and the same answer.

254. CHAIR: A park and ride scheme for construction workers is part of the plan to take them off the road.

255. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Green travel plans are part of the Code of Construction Practice to manage the flows of workers. As the Committee has heard, though, the environmental statement shows a realistic worst-case scenario, assuming people all generally coming predominantly by car. We anticipate the volumes of worker traffic to be lower by car.

256. MS LINES: I add that there are two construction sites related to the centre for epilepsy. In our road we have cars from the construction site parked all day, every day, all week, at the moment. A huge site probably has its own parking, but they still park in our road. Therefore, all of them will come by car and add to the traffic we already have.

257. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): To be clear, parking controls is another matter in the itemised list in the code of construction practice for precisely that reason.

258. CHAIR: But the point is that they have to take as much traffic off the road that they are generating through their construction workers in order that their vehicles and other things on quite challenging lanes can get about, so there is an interest for HS2 to try to ensure that most of their people travel together rather than in separate cars. It will not be possible to do it for everyone but it will be planned. Thank you very much for your contribution.

Susan Woodcock

A498 (44) HOL/00600/0071

259. CHAIR: Ms Woodcock, are you from the same area?

260. MS WOODCOCK: I am.

261. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I have just put up P10912 which shows Ms Woodcock’s property in Roberts Lane, assuming the red dot is in the right place.

262. MS WOODCOCK: It is.

263. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Roberts Lane was the one you heard the parish councillor talk about earlier.

264. MS WOODCOCK: My name is Susan Mary Woodcock. I was born in Buckinghamshire and educated in Bucks. I have lived in Chalfont St Peter for 40 years. For eight years I lived in the centre of the village and for the subsequent 32 years in Roberts Lane in the property identified by the red dot.

265. My husband Terry and I chose to move to Roberts Lane, which is in the hamlet of Horn Hill, with our two children and dog to enjoy the countryside that surrounds this area. The hamlet of Horn Hill, though part of Chalfont St Peter village, has a unique identity that is family-oriented with a strong community spirit and residents enjoy the peace and tranquillity of the countryside and country pursuits.

266. I have been an active member of this community. Within the hamlet we have a village hall, a small church and local pub. I became treasurer of the village hall for 11 years. It is a regular meeting place for a number of groups and is frequently used for children’s parties and is also used by the church for christenings and other events.

267. Could I go to my main concerns in my second slide, please? Horn Hill has approximately 40 homes, over 50% of which are located in Roberts Lane. You have seen pictures of it already. It is appropriately named because it was the access to Roberts Barn. It has now been converted to dwellings. This area is criss-crossed with footpaths and bridle ways, and provides access to the countryside for hikers, runners, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. To access this network of paths one has to use the single- track local lanes which have no pavements and very few passing places, and all are unlit unlit. My daughters and I have hacked, dog walked and run along these lanes for many years with caution and, thankfully, have done it safely, as these lanes are primarily

A498 (45) HOL/00600/0072

driven by local drivers who have an understanding of what might be around the next corner.

268. The closure of Chalfont Lane will inevitably lead to traffic seeking alternative routes to the A412, which is a route for Mount Vernon and Harefield Hospital. Roberts Lane would naturally be a cut-through for them.

269. I take your point about your temporary road. What is the timing of that road? When would it be built prior to any construction taking place in the area?

270. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I will find out exactly when it is meant to be built.

271. MS WOODCOCK: I do not have an understanding of the point at which that road would be constructed. On that basis, we do not have a definite time for the construction of that road. I am not sure you can construct that road because we think it is far too dangerous with its access into Thornhill Road, which is a single track road, and traffic turning right into that road.

272. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): To clarify it, we will build the temporary road before we shut Chalfont Lane, so it is there to provide the connection before Chalfont Lane is shut and for the operation of the main compound with the slip roads.

273. MS WOODCOCK: It definitely would be? Is it possible to bring up slide A1630(22)? A picture speaks a thousand words. I reside on the lane at B to G. You can see the surrounding countryside and the road we are talking about. The temporary road is C to H. You are assuring me that that will be constructed before any other construction takes place?

274. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No. It is to be built before we shut Chalfont Lane.

275. MS WOODCOCK: But some construction would be taking place prior to the closure of Chalfont Lane?

276. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There may be construction activity in other locations, but the point is to put the road in before the closure.

277. MS WOODCOCK: You are saying you would construct that road before you closed Chalfont Lane?

A498 (46) HOL/00600/0073

278. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That is what I am saying.

279. MS WOODCOCK: But there will be other construction traffic and movement of workers in that area prior to that closure?

280. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I do not think there is anything that is going to affect these roads. We do not anticipate any construction traffic along these roads, save for that which is necessary to construct the road. For example, there is no HGV traffic along these roads. I cannot tell you all the construction that is going on in the wider area, but certainly we build this before shutting Chalfont Lane.

281. MS WOODCOCK: That is a statement. Nevertheless, Roberts Lane could potentially become a cut-through. Once this is established as an alternative route, it would be difficult to dissuade drivers from using it. This is a single-track lane with no pavement, no lighting and very few parking places, and with numerous residents of all ages.

282. The junction of Roberts Lane with Rickmansworth Lane, which is point B on the slide, is a crossroads. It crosses Rickmansworth Lane into Brawlings Lane. Unfortunately, this has been the site of a number of motor accidents over the years. Just three weeks ago the M25 was closed in both directions at junction 17. The local lanes became gridlocked. It was quite obvious that a number of the drivers were totally bemused and their satnavs were directing them through totally unsuitable roads. We perceive the junction of the new temporary road on to Horn Hill Road to be dangerous, and I know that the parish council made representation on this. I just concur with what they have to say.

283. Could I have slide 3, please? The proposed route for Chesham vent shaft traffic is unsuitable and dangerous. I agree with the comments made by the parish council. As to congestion on the A413, most of the local facilities I use are located on the other side of that road: my doctor; the local hospital; shops, schools; library and so on. All of those are located on the other side of the A413, so further congestion on that road would have a major impact on my ability to access these facilities.

284. Regarding damage by the proposed scheme to the Chiltern area of natural beauty, I concur with the comments already made.

A498 (47) HOL/00600/0074

285. In addition, I am extremely anxious regarding the impact on the local area of the existence of the construction compound with regard to light pollution, noise and dust. The thought that this may be a 24-hour operation is beyond my realm of experience, which can only be detrimental to the environment and residents.

286. With regard to local residents, I hope my petition and concerns reflect many of those of my fellow petitioner neighbour Mrs Helen Watson, who sadly died earlier this year.

287. Slide 4, please. My asks are as they appear. I will not amplify them but just repeat what is on the slide: Roberts Lane should be closed permanently; there should not be a temporary road built to Horn Hill Road; a temporary construction road should be built from Chesham Lane vent shaft to the A413; restriction of all HS2 construction traffic to avoid peak times; park and ride for construction workers; and a fully-bored tunnel under the area of natural beauty.

288. CHAIR: Apart from the reassurances you have already given the petitioner, is there anything else you want to add, Mr Strachan?

289. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): To add to the reassurance I have given, there is no reason why Roberts Lane would be a cut-through with Chalfont Lane closed because it is then no longer a desired line, which is why our proposed additional road connects the two, but, as I have shown you in slide 22, there is no reason anybody would want to go down Roberts Lane, any more than they do so now, as a result of what we are doing. We are reducing the opportunities by shutting Chalfont Lane. I think the petitioner recognised that in seeking the assurance I have given. I have already told you that we will shut Chalfont Lane only once we have constructed our alternative road.

290. CHAIR: Do you have any final comment?

291. MS WOODCOCK: No, thank you.

Witness for the Promoter: Council of Mortgage Lenders

292. CHAIR: We are now going to call the Council of Mortgage Lenders as a witness for HS2.

A498 (48) HOL/00600/0075

293. MR MOULD QC (DfT): To my right is Mr Paul Smee, the director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. He has very kindly agreed to attend today to answer any questions that the Committee may have for him on behalf of his members. He has produced a note, which I believe was submitted to the Committee via Mr Caulfield. I am going to assume that members have had a chance to look at that note and, therefore, will not take up time by going through it.

294. CHAIR: I would be quite happy for Mr Smee, who is familiar to us from various meetings with the CML over the years, to talk briefly to the note to start us off, and we will then ask questions, if you wish.

295. MR SMEE: The key points to arise from the note is that lenders take a great interest in major infrastructure projects and are aware of how they are developing. There is no set industry line covering all lenders about how they should approach properties near a national infrastructure project. Their approach will be determined very much by their own perceptions of the risks and opportunities of a particular property and particular site. They will take into account the existence of compensation schemes, as appropriate, and also the difference between permanent and temporary blight in their assessment of the property.

296. CHAIR: Having heard various witnesses, we are not quite sure where the problem is, or whether it is valuers being very cautious. We have had a little evidence from petitioners that they are having difficulties when they want to increase a mortgage or trying to sell to third parties. Suddenly, they find it is much more difficult to mortgage properties near the line. Should there be a policy? You say there is no policy for your members at the moment. Effectively, they can do what they want. Should CML be issuing a practice note?

297. MR SMEE: The problem with this is that each lender will have a different perception of the issues.

298. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Suppose I bought a house 40 years ago for £100,000 and it is now worth £1 million. The prospect of HS2, or some other infrastructure project, might, during the period of construction, reduce it to £800,000. I want to increase my mortgage from £80,000 to £200,000 for various reasons. The mortgage lender says that its value is diminished by this infrastructure project and won’t lend.

A498 (49) HOL/00600/0076

That is the problem. Each of your members and those who are not members can have their own policy, but it leaves people stuck in a way that is unjustifiable either in commercial terms or in fairness.

299. MR SMEE: First, a considerable number of factors would be taken into account by any individual lender in those circumstances.

300. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But if they say, ‘We will not mortgage it at all’, or, ‘We won’t increase the mortgage’, that is a problem.

301. MR SMEE: It is very difficult to comment on an individual case, because the lender will be assessing the individual and property concerned and the overall state of their book.

302. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We can take that for granted. They will not entertain it, full stop, or they will not increase it or get involved, or they choose not to.

303. MR HENDRICK: In the case Sir Peter gives it is not a question of looking at an individual lender; it is a blanket policy that they will not entertain mortgages on houses outside the need-to-sell scheme.

304. MR SMEE: There are a lot of mortgage lenders out there, and one lender may have a particular view of an area which may be determined by factors additional to rather than –

305. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We understand all that.

306. CHAIR: Let Mr Smee answer.

307. MR SMEE: The lender may take a view for a variety of different reasons, not all to do with HS2. There will be other lenders in the market who may well take an entirely different view and have a different risk appetite and approach to that particular property.

308. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Those who think they are affected by HS2 report to us that mortgage providers will not deal with them. It is not a question of whether they will drop the value, or whether somebody is otherwise mortgageable or have earnings or assets; they have just been getting, ‘Won’t do it.’ We understand that there is a range of mortgage providers, and one person may say no and another may say yes. What I would

A498 (50) HOL/00600/0077

like to know is whether it is justifiable for anyone to have a blanket policy saying they will not provide any kind of mortgage whatsoever to any home that might be affected by an infrastructure project like HS2. That is the issue.

309. MR SMEE: Some lenders will take a particular view because either because of concentration risk, in terms of where they have lent money, or a particular aspect to do with the property or individual concerned. What I do believe is that there is no industry- wide policy on the subject and that within a competitive market, which is what the mortgage market is, there will be members who will offer facilities in these sorts of circumstances.

310. MR HENDRICK: But is there an industry-wide policy? Maybe your members do not want one. As a reasonable person, do you not think it would be understandable if you, as a representative of the industry as a whole, gave some guidance about the problems faced by property owners in that particular area near to HS2, and said something along the lines of, ‘Please find some mechanism to accommodate this’, rather than this blanket approach – almost a cartel – by some, namely they will not entertain anybody who is within a certain distance of the line?

311. MR SMEE: What I am not clear about is that this is a market-wide issue. There will be individual lenders whose lending policy will have effects in particular areas of the country. What I do not believe, because we have a competitive market, is that all lenders will be taking a similar view. If people are in that place, they should see what other lenders are available. They might want to go to a mortgage broker, for example.

312. MR HENDRICK: If you look at some of the evidence we have taken over the past months, you will find that some people cannot get a mortgage anywhere. Valuers are saying that properties are worth zero, and clearly they are not.

313. MR SMEE: Can I pick up the point about people saying they are worth zero? That is an unfortunate consequence of the way in which valuers are inputting into members’ systems. In effect they are saying that the valuer has taken a view that the property, because of its location, is not suitable for a first charge residential mortgage. The way they communicate that to the lender, which is to do with the lenders’ systems, is to ascribe to it nil value.

A498 (51) HOL/00600/0078

314. I can appreciate that for many borrowers in that situation that is quite a hurtful and unfortunate term. I will take back to the industry the suggestion that in communicating any decision of this nature they do not use that pejorative term, because clearly on the open market a property will always have value. I suspect that when a nil value is ascribed it is shorthand between the valuer and the lender which ought not to be communicated to the borrower.

315. MR HENDRICK: What about the other point about where somebody cannot find a mortgage anywhere? If you are saying that it is an open and competitive market, surely some mortgage lenders would come forward to offer their services. If there is a market out there and they can make money out of it, why are they not doing it?

316. MR SMEE: There are many people who cannot get a mortgage and that is because there are restrictions about affordability and concern about an individual’s financial history applied by the regulator.

317. MR HENDRICK: In many cases we have heard of people who have successful businesses that want to expand but cannot because they cannot borrow against their property.

318. MR SMEE: It is very difficult for me to comment on individual cases because there is always a variety of factors.

319. MR HENDRICK: It is a general view we have come across.

320. MR SMEE: Lenders will have their policy. I am not sure I can comment on why they take particular views in particular cases.

321. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I take another tack? I put it to you and everybody else that there is a problem. The problem is that when in the national interest there is going to be a national infrastructure project, which will take some time to get going, people are affected. Either they cannot easily move or they want to raise more money. They find that the valuations given to them, or possibly to their lender, are not right; they are not just marginally incorrect; they are not right. Let’s assume that during a period of uncertainty the value of a home has gone down by, say, 30%. If it is sold on the open market there will be a 30% discount. How can one get providers and the

A498 (52) HOL/00600/0079

surveyors, because the two come together, to say, ‘During this period of uncertainty the valuation of the home is going to be about 30% less than what would otherwise be the market value, and we are prepared to work on that’? Do you know whether the CML have had discussions with the RICS as the representative body for surveyors and perhaps government who are interested in infrastructure projects to find a way to make the market work more effectively? Is there anything else that anybody else needs to do to make this happen?

322. MR SMEE: I think the genesis of that sort of project would have to lie with the RICS. They are the people who will issue guidance to their members about how they should value properties in this situation.

323. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you know of any of your members who have a known policy on properties affected by infrastructure projects?

324. MR SMEE: I am not aware of any blanket policies on infrastructure projects.

325. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is it possible for you to say you have been asked by this Committee whether any of them have policies on this, and whether they would like to offer illustrative examples of how lenders can responsibly approach what is an issue that should not be an overwhelming problem?

326. MR SMEE: I am happy to put out the request for them to come forward. They would probably do it directly to you, because these are commercially sensitive issues.

327. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That is fine. If there are people who say that on anything touched by an infrastructure project they will not do any lending, that is a matter of public interest. If there are those who say, ‘We are prepared, on reasonable commercial grounds, to make provision’, I suspect they would not want to keep that a secret because potentially they will get extra business because they are offering something in the markets that others are not. If we can get lenders to explain what they think the problems are, and surveyors to explain what they think the pressures are from the lenders – because surveyors do what their clients require of them – we might find a way forward which would be useful both to those people affected by HS2, phases 1 and 2, and other infrastructure projects which are around.

A498 (53) HOL/00600/0080

328. MR SMEE: I would respond by saying that I think the valuers do take their own independent view. I do not think they are professionally constrained in the way you might have suggested.

329. MR HENDRICK: Have you had any discussions with your members about lending policy in the context of HS2?

330. MR SMEE: There have been conversations about whether there are policies in place, which led to my saying at the beginning of this hearing that there were not. I have to be quite careful, for reasons of competition law, about the extent to which I attempt to interrogate individuals about their lending policies. I do not get into the individual details of lenders’ policies because that is not the role of a trade body.

331. MR HENDRICK: Some of your members are building societies and mutuals, and by nature they are not necessarily driven purely by the profit motive. I would have thought they would have taken a more socially responsible attitude towards this. Have they not voiced any concerns about the plight faced by some home owners in the vicinity of HS2?

332. MR SMEE: They will have to balance their social interests, which you are right to identify, against considerations about how their capital is deployed, concentration risk and about the general regulatory regime within which all financial institutions have to operate to demonstrate prudent management.

333. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I rebut Sir Peter’s insinuation that somehow valuers and chartered surveyors are manipulated by their clients? They have to do it according to very strict rules; they have to do it as if the property was going to be put on the market tomorrow. It seems to me that part of the question is this. A valuer will, surely, take blight into account. Having done that, would you be prepared to put on the record that it would be wholly wrong for a lender to apply harsher lending criteria than they might otherwise apply on account of the fact that a property may be blighted, albeit it has been written down? That is what seems to be happening. If that is happening, you know perfectly well that it is more difficult for people to shop around these days because there are very difficult and high charges for swapping lenders. If somebody wants to re-mortgage their property these days they are more likely to have to do it with their existing lender. If an existing lender is applying harsher lending criteria than would

A498 (54) HOL/00600/0081

otherwise be the case if HS2 were not there, that would be causing hardship and it would be unacceptable.

334. MR SMEE: I am unaware of that happening, but I understand your point.

335. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Would you put on public record that, if it did happen, it would be unacceptable?

336. MR SMEE: It should not happen.

337. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be this is something we can come back to if the RICS, CML and possibly government just work through some of these issues themselves. We understand your point that it is a competitive market and that you cannot have cartels in an industry. What has been put to us is that on a number of occasions people have not been getting the opportunity to borrow or re-borrow, because the process, if you combine the surveyor and mortgage lender together, is, ‘We won’t do it because in effect there is no value.’ You are not responsible for what each person does, but I think you are in a position to get over to the industry that this is not the first or last infrastructure project, and the majority or minority of those in this position should not be affected in a way that is unjustifiable, leaving aside their income, age and health. It is a straightforward variable; the property appears to be blighted. What then happens in a sensible mortgage market? Perhaps we can leave it as it is at the moment, but expect the surveyors and lenders to get together. We ought to be able to get a greater understanding when they have talked with each other about the public and private interests of those affected by this railway.

338. MR SMEE: Yes, Sir Peter. I also take the point about the phrase ‘nil value’, which is unhelpful and needs to be changed. I will take that back.

339. CHAIR: We are talking of a 30 or 40-year project, so it is quite important to iron out how people deal with some of these issues now. Even before it has Royal Assent, it is having an impact on people’s lives.

340. MR SMEE: I entirely accept that.

341. CHAIR: Mr Mould, Mr Smee is your witness. Are there any questions that you particularly want to pick up with him?

A498 (55) HOL/00600/0082

342. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I simply say that I am very grateful to him for taking the time to come and answer your questions today. I know that the Committee has been interested in these matters, and I am sure it has found his appearance and answers today of assistance. I am grateful to him for that.

343. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We are just trying to identify and overcome what has an unfair impact on a number of people who are the innocent victims of a scheme of national importance.

344. MR MOULD QC (DfT): CML has been speaking to us and looking to see whether we can provide information to valuers so that, if they are uncertain themselves about the impacts of the project in a particular area, there is a route through which they can seek further information, if they wish it. There is a desk which enables valuers to get in touch with the project, should they find that helpful. That has arisen through joint work which we have been conducting with the CML in recent months. I mention it on the record today so that, if there are valuers in this field of professional practice who are unaware of that and would find it helpful, they can get in touch with the project and make use of that facility.

345. CHAIR: Can I thank CML for the paper they have produced and for turning up today? I think we will consider where we are as work in progress. There is a little more work to do to see if we can iron out a few of these problems affecting lenders.

346. We now move to the next petitioners: Robert and Anne Walther.

Robert and Anne Walther

347. CHAIR: Welcome to you both. We need not ask you questions on the mortgage market.

348. MR WALTHER: Chair, since my last day job was as deputy chairman of Nationwide, I am so glad I have retired. I promise to be brief. Can I have slide A16251?

349. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I have put this up on the screen first to show where you live, which is off Chesham Lane. The area to the south is the vent shaft we are talking about at Chalfont St Peter.

A498 (56) HOL/00600/0083

350. CHAIR: I think Nationwide got through the economic problems rather better than many other organisations, so you have left quite a good legacy. Well done!

351. MR WALTHER: That slide is, I regret to say, entirely accurate. We are alive that long and have been there for that long. I am also a trustee of Horn Hill. The only thing I would say regarding Sue Woodcock’s evidence is that, if there is any serious chance of Roberts Lane becoming a rat run – we cannot comment on that – it would be very bad news. It is totally unsuitable.

352. MRS WALTHER: And it does get used.

353. MR WALTHER: To put things in perspective, my wife was riding along that road, Chesham Lane, for 15 to 20 years before she gave up. I walked the dog every day of my life, usually along there. We are probably the people closest to the shaft.

354. I would also like to comment on the epileptics centre. There is a chicane within about 200 yards of the shaft. When I went riding there was no escape route from that chicane. As regards the epileptics centre, since we have been living there we must have experienced half a dozen individuals who have suffered fits. We are some way from that centre. What bothered me was how poorly they were. They were not capable of looking after themselves. We would have to take them back, but I was surprised just how serious it was. There were only a small number of cases, but neither the riding nor the epileptics centres in my view matches the real problem, which is the school. Before Cllr Darby was successful in getting the rubbish van removed, I used to follow it on Friday morning going to the golf course. The chaos at that school and where the rubbish van was going was abysmal. I hope the Committee will look at this very seriously.

355. I have no idea whether the route which has been suggested is too expensive or whether you can do it by traffic calming, or by hours, but somewhere along the line I would feel worried if you do not protect that school in some way. It may well be that traffic calming is the right thing. I do not know; I am not an expert in these things, but, driving past it on a regular basis, it would worry me.

356. MR HENDRICK: Have you raised that point with the local council?

357. MRS WALTHER: Well, currently it is okay.

A498 (57) HOL/00600/0084

358. MR WALTHER: It is a problem. My concern would be about it getting worse. No, we have not raised it.

359. My last real point is about the volume of traffic. Sir Peter, when we had the visit we were told that it was eight lorries per day. I immediately relaxed; I thought, ‘We can cope with eight.’ Then when I got all the papers it was 24. If I am wrong I apologise, but I thought that when the shaft is being built it will be for only eight hours a day, not 24 hours. If it is a 24-hour operation, I am very worried about it. I thought we were going to get respite. You said it was one an hour. I think 24 in eight hours is more like it, and that is three an hour. Whenever we talk to HS2 and their representatives that sort of confusion worries me, because honesty on every side is a jolly good idea. I was worried about that. One per hour is manageable; if it is three per hour you start to worry. The concern is about the extent of the traffic, and I hope the Committee will take that seriously.

360. If I can end with a marginal element of humour, I was delighted to receive out of the blue a letter from HS2 giving £1,000 to inspect our newts. It has gone up since then; I have had more money than that. It struck me that this means a large amount of paper. If they had simply said, ‘Could we come and inspect your newts and wildlife, and here’s £50 for charity’, it might have been a better idea. What I am really interested in is that we have five hives of bees. Bees are sensitive things. They will be 200 yards away from the shaft and they will tell me what they think about it.

361. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

362. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): First, can I clarify what I said? I was referring to the expected maximum amount of HGV traffic when it occurs. I identified that it was 12 each way, which is 24 in total, and I said that for a 10-hour-day – may I did not say ‘10-hour-day’, but I was assuming it – it is slightly over one HGV an hour during that period. Twelve divided by 10 is 1.2 each way, so it is 2.4 both ways. That is the volume of HGV traffic I was identifying would occur when HS2 activity was at its greatest, which is a relatively short period. That is the scale. I talked about each way. I am happy to talk about it as both ways: it is 2.4 spread over the day. That is why I said that that level of HGV traffic for that limited duration is capable of being managed in conjunction with our discussions with Buckinghamshire County Council and

A498 (58) HOL/00600/0085

consideration of the school, in terms of both what is actually there physically and, if it is necessary, avoiding certain times of the day when there is peak drop-off and pick-up activities.

363. CHAIR: Is there not discussion with Bucks County Council about school pick-ups? How that is dealt with when there is traffic is one of the assurances they are after.

364. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I believe that a specific assurance is being discussed at the moment. It relates to a number of schools, including Robertswood School specifically because it is on a construction traffic route. That is about looking at what management measures would be necessary. I do not think it will into the detail at this stage, but it will be about identifying Robertswood School, among others, as being a school where that needs to be examined. We will come back to you as soon as any assurance is either agreed, or there is at least one we are putting forward as capable of meeting the problem, but it is specific to Robertswood School as well as a number of others in the locality.

365. CHAIR: With a vent shaft, there should be little noise, unless they are running the ventilation machinery. It will be run if there is a train in the tunnel, or a maintenance engineer simply operates it to make sure the machinery is running correctly, in which case there would be a low hum.

366. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That is exactly right, and it is minus 5db to the ambient background level, to be technical about it. There is a specific policy we need to comply with on the vent shaft site.

367. Mr and Mrs Walther referred to their location. There is a considerable amount of screening for their particular property from the vent shaft site. I appreciate that they are close to it, but both screening and existing vegetation in the area should ensure they are visually screened. For the reasons you have just identified, they should not have any sound effects from the vent shaft.

368. MRS WALTHER: It is still going to be very high. I realise you have to have a certain amount above ground for the ventilation. They are going to bank it up because they are going to make it even higher. It is big.

A498 (59) HOL/00600/0086

369. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The idea of the landscaping and planting is to ensure that it is not intrusive. What might otherwise be feared to be intrusive will, with the benefit of landscaping and planting, blend into the background. We have shown some montages – I know people view them with a degree of scepticism – indicating how, once planting occurs, the effect is minimised.

370. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is there a protective fence?

371. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There is protective fencing. That is shown in one of the montages in year one. Obviously, there is fencing to keep people out of the site.

372. MR WALTHER: It makes you think, ‘Why adopt that?’

373. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Although, I hasten to add, this is a matter for detailed design, it is currently set back from the existing hedgerow vegetation which is retained.

374. MR WALTHER: It is very important that that is maintained.

375. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, I have not quite got the answer to Mr Walther’s question. Working on this vent shaft, will it be an eight-hour or 10-hour day?

376. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is forecast that there will be a 10-hour working day. It is not anticipated that there will be any 24-hour working at this vent shaft site. There is the ability to apply for extensions to working hours through the local authority. Potentially, that might be done where, for example, it is advantageous to move materials at a particular time of day, or exceptional loads. That would have to be agreed. If it is are agreed, it is generally intended to be helpful, because you try to reduce the amount of activity going on. Sometimes it is advantageous to do that outside the other workings hours, but, generally speaking, in answer to the question, the working day 8 am to 6 pm would apply to this site.

377. CHAIR: Are there any brief final comments?

378. MR WALTHER: My wife has one. If I may jump in first, I do think that discussions with the epileptics centre and school are important as regards measures to be

A498 (60) HOL/00600/0087

taken with good will on both sides to try to deal with this. I very much hope that HS2 is constructive in that dialogue, because it worries me.

379. MRS WALTHER: Those lanes are used by a lot of people for leisure. Because they cannot use the A413 and cannot use the motorway they use all the lanes, so we have a lot of cyclists, hikers and dog walkers. There is quite a lot of pedestrian traffic around there. In particular, just past the site is the chicane, which is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Two cars can pass but certainly not two big ones. It is quite a blind corner; you cannot see what is coming. There are dangerous places along those lanes.

380. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: My wife has a favourite joke about the difference between microscopic and minute. Microscopic is very small and minute is what you have expensively in the back of your garden.

381. CHAIR: Thank you very much. We now move to Chalfont St Giles Parish Council, Katherine and Peter Sognamillo and Nigel and Valerie Hamilton. They are represented by Cllr Mary Phillips.

Chalfont St Giles Parish Council, Catherine and Peter Sognamillo and Nigel and Valerie Hamilton

382. CHAIR: Are you Chiltern District Council as well?

383. MS PHILLIPS: Goodness me, no; just the parish council.

384. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I have had the regional plan put up on the screen: P10823. That show the parish boundary for Chalfont St Giles. As the Committee will know, it is a twin bored tunnel throughout the parish. What is called the Chalfont St Giles vent shaft site is just outside the parish boundary. The access road to it is Bottom House Farm Lane, which goes up this way. That is just on the border of the parish council boundary.

385. MS PHILLIPS: My name is Mary Phillips, and I have lived in Chalfont St Giles since 1991. I have been a member of the parish council since July 2010, and I am currently vice-chair.

386. Our petition was originally submitted by our then chair, Mr William Warren.

A498 (61) HOL/00600/0088

Sadly, he died in January of this year, and I took over responsibility for presenting the petition. On the day he died I took his wife to the hospital to visit him. I saw him 20 minutes before his passing, and he was worrying about HS2 and the effect it would have on our village. That is why I am here.

387. You will see from our petition that there are a number of concerns that I know have been reflected already to this Committee a number of times. I do not propose to go into them again, but I stand by the comments that have been made.

388. What I would like to do is use a few slides just to give you a flavour of what the village is like. I am aware that, unless you have been on a private visit, you have not seen it. I will then move to our two specific concerns, one of which is damage to the Misbourne aquifer and the second is general traffic congestion in the area.

389. If I could have the first slide, please, this is the view of the village centre. It is taken with the photographer’s back to the River Misbourne and the A413 looking towards the village green.

390. Next slide, please. This is the village green. You will see that we have won Best Kept Village in the past. Last year we were runners up.

391. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Was that because you had signs about HS2?

392. MS PHILLIPS: I am pleased you noticed that. Parish councillors encouraged villagers to come out and have a proper clear-up campaign before the judges came round, which included weeding and collecting litter. People do take a lot of pride in the village.

393. In the background of the picture you can see the church tower. I will show you another picture of that in a moment.

394. Next slide, please. This shows the view in the other direction. You can see the sort of age of the properties, and the gentle feel of the place.

395. Next slide, please. This is Milton’s cottage. As representatives of Chalfont St Peter said, their village is very old and so is ours. I gather that Milton wrote ‘Paradise Lost’ when he was living in this cottage to escape the plague. That is just along the high

A498 (62) HOL/00600/0089

street, slightly higher up from the views in the pictures I have shown you already. It is visited by tourists from probably all the different countries of the world. It has an amazing visitors’ book.

396. Moving on to the next one, this is the medieval parish church which contains wall paintings similar to the ones found in the house of the lady who spoke first today.

397. Next slide, please. Chalfont St Giles is not just a village of history; it is a village of tradition. This slide shows the entry of the procession for the village show, which is an event held every year. It is run entirely by volunteers and it attracts in excess of 6,000 people and 100 traders to the village, and is run to benefit voluntary organisations in the village. It benefits the scouts, brownies, youth club and some of the charities for older people in the village.

398. The regular venue for the show is called Stone Meadow. There is a second meadow called Silsden Meadow at the heart of the village.

399. Could we go to slide 8, please? If you orient yourselves, here you can see Pheasant Hill going down the middle of the map. That is the hill which comes down from the A413 to the River Misbourne. The blue line is the River Misbourne. Below that is the high street. The village green is off the high street; the church is off the village green; and what we are looking at is the centre of the village.

400. The main food shop for people is the Co-op store. There are others. There is an independent butcher, baker and what have you, but for supermarket shopping, unless you are able to take the hourly bus service out of the village towards Tesco, that is where you would regularly do your shopping.

401. The reason I have put that slide in is that it shows the line of the River Misbourne and the pink shading on both sides of that. It also shows its proximity to the village centre off the HS2 tunnel, which is planned to run underneath the river Misbourne. It will run underneath our pond and our Co-op.

402. Could we go to the next slide, please? This is a quote from the November 2013 environmental statement. It talks about the River Misbourne, in particular it says that the river loses water to groundwater in some stretches through seepage into the chalk

A498 (63) HOL/00600/0090

aquifer, and can dry out completely in reaches between Amersham and Chalfont St Peter. It also says that the 1997-98 abstractions had such a marked impact on river flow that an alleviation of a low flow scheme was put in place, and there were cuts in abstraction to recover the flow of the river.

403. Next slide, please. Again, the environmental statement says that no monitoring of ground water levels has been undertaken as part of this assessment. Maximum ground water levels have been used where appropriate. They were observed in early 2001.

404. I would like to show you in the next slide how important it is that 2001 data are out of date. This was the summer of 2008. It was admittedly the result of a bout of heavy rain and it did not last more than a few days, but because the groundwater levels are so high the water could not drain away.

405. Can I have the next one, please? This is August 2012. Again, this was following bouts of heavy rain. I have highlighted for you the access to the Co-op. Bear in mind that half of the village is behind us, if you like, and the other half is on the other side of the A413. Therefore, people from the other side of the A413 could come down but then they could not park anywhere because the car park was under water. They had difficulty getting through this water, and pedestrians stood no chance. I was probably not the only one who decided to put on my wellies and walk down the middle of the road. It was the only way I could ensure the traffic stopped to let me do it.

406. Can we have the next slide, please? I mentioned the country show. This is a view of Silsden Meadow with Stone Meadow in the foreground as it is when it is not under water. The previous slide was taken in August 2012. This was taken slightly higher up, but essentially it is the same view. On that occasion the land recovered and we were able to hold the show.

407. If we could go to the next slide, I will indicate the show ground in 2014. It is the same piece of land. In the foreground is the River Misbourne. The fence runs along a walkway which was paid for by lottery funding. It is designed to be wheelchair-friendly, and it goes along the Misbourne to the back of the church and round in a circular walk, but it was completely under water at that stage. All of the fields were under water in both directions.

A498 (64) HOL/00600/0091

408. If we go to slide 16, this was the effect on the village centre. It is taken from that point where we looked towards the pond. If we had our back to the pond, this is what we would see. You see the library; the access to sheltered housing; and in the distance is the telephone exchange. The flooding lasted for some nine weeks, during which time the telephone exchange was flooded. In order to maintain telephone services, internet and everything else to the entire village they had to pump out the telephone exchange. That is what you can see here. Business has suffered greatly. The florist permanently closed because customers could not get to her shop for nearly three months.

409. Can we have the next slide, please? This is the car park, so you can see that it was a completely no-go area. Chiltern District Council lost a fortune because nobody could pay to park there.

410. The next slide, please. One of the things we seek is that there is no construction work started until there has been a thorough geological survey, because the Environment Agency data are old and, frankly, given the fact they do not have any recent data, their history of anticipating flooding and being able to prevent it is not good.

411. Can we have the next slide, please? I will move on to traffic congestion. This is the same little plan. It just reminds you of how it sits. The River Misbourne is shaded pink; the A413 is the green line down it. One of the things we are concerned about is the area marked in pink on the map. That is described as an area potentially required during construction. This includes the banks of the River Misbourne and parts of Stone Meadow, the riverside walk and part of the village car park.

412. On 18 March of this year, which was Budget Day, I attended this room to view the flyover. Martin Wells and Neil Cowie from HS2 were here to answer my questions. I specifically asked them whether there was any intention on the part of HS2 Ltd to fence these areas. To do so would have a serious and detrimental effect on the economy of the village, as it includes the village car park and land where the fund-raising events take place.

413. They gave me verbal assurances that the pink shading on the map indicated the area around the River Misbourne over which they had sought rights to enter in the event that the aquifer was damaged by drilling, causing the river water to leak into the tunnel. And they explained that in such a scenario it would be necessary for HS2 Ltd to have

A498 (65) HOL/00600/0092

the right for immediate access in order to remedy the situation and that there was no intention to fence the area of concern, or in fact to take any action at all in relation to it unless such a situation arose.

414. So having received those assurances, on 25 March I wrote to Simon Knight of HS2 requesting that this assurance be given in writing to save the time of this Committee. I suggested that the assurance might be given in a PRD. I did not actually receive a PRD until I complained to Derrick Morris of HS2 by email on the 23rd of October. He assured me that it had been sent to Mr Warren, who prepared this petition, but his wife was looking for it and it never arrived. And consequently I received my only copy of the PRD by email on the 26th of October and it gives no such assurances. The covering letter states, ‘The undertakings that you have requested in your email are not included in the PRD as such commitments would normally be offered to the local highway authority,’ and I was given a copy of traffic assurances which didn’t cover the point at all. I’ve tried to get some information on this from Bucks County Council but so far I haven’t had any replies.

415. This situation is not satisfactory. We need to know whether we will be able to use our car park and whether the events that fund all of the activities of particularly the young people in the village will be able to continue. As the services are increasingly being devolved by county to parish council level, we consider that we should at least be consulted on matters like that. So next slide, please.

416. What do we want? We want that the area in pink won’t be fenced unless for public safety reasons and then for the minimum time possible, because if we don’t have a village car park we’ve got much reduced trade to village businesses and none of the other things. Can we go to slide 22 please?

417. So back to this little map again and you’ll see that I’ve highlighted two areas: one in orange and one in brown. I’ll deal with the orange one first. The orange one shows the point where the Chiltern Way crosses the A413. The Chiltern Way is a very popular footpath used by dog-walkers from the estates north of the A413 to access the fields and it’s also used as a shortcut to and from the village. The nearest pedestrian crossing is at the junction with Pheasant Hill, which is where the brown circle is.

418. The parish council have received many complaints that it’s dangerous trying to

A498 (66) HOL/00600/0093

cross the A413 at the junction with the footpath because of the speed of traffic. And obviously in the rush hour, it’s the amount of traffic as well. Requests have been made to Transport for Bucks for the installation of a traffic island which would facilitate crossing the road, but the local area technicians tell us that the road is not wide enough to support an island at that location. If HS2 construction related traffic uses the A413 through Chalfont St Giles, this situation will get worse. We ask that an alternative route for construction related traffic be found.

419. The second ring on that map is the A413 junction with Pheasant Hill. And we note that the dashed green line on the map, which depicts the route for HS2 construction traffic, comes down into Pheasant Hill. So we seek assurances that no HS2 construction traffic will use the village centre, because that line kind of finishes just north of the car park and we don’t know what happens to it after that. So can you move on to the next slide, please?

420. That’s just a reprise of what I’ve just said, apart from the fact that Pheasant Hill has an incredibly steep camber. It’s very steep. In fact, sometimes in the winter it’s impassable, so if there were to be construction traffic attempting to go up and down that hill, what is already difficult, doing a hill-start on to the 413, would be made much more difficult and dangerous, especially in peak periods. Moving on, please.

421. So this is building up into a list of things that we want. The most recent one is that HS2 construction related traffic be routed otherwise than along 413 through Chalfont St Giles and it will definitely not use the village centre. Can we move to the next one please?

422. Now we’ve moved along the road from Pheasant Hill in the direction of Amersham. This is still the 413 and this is the junction with Bottom House Farm Lane. You will get to know Bottom House Farm Lane very well because that is – or will be, I believe – the location for the Chalfont St Giles vent shaft. As you can see, it’s not a particularly easy to see junction and the speed limit on the 413 at that point is 50 miles an hour. Next one, please.

423. Now this was taken with my back to Amersham, coming along the 413 going towards Chalfont St Giles, waiting for a slow vehicle to turn from the 413 into Bottom House Farm Lane. And as you can see, the 413 is completely blocked. If you go to the

A498 (67) HOL/00600/0094

next slide, this was taken obviously by me risking life and limb standing by the side of the road, but you can start to see the slope going down into Bottom House Farm Lane. What I would argue is that because of the width of the 413 and because of the narrow entrance to Bottom House Farm Lane and because of camber, that is a very dangerous junction. And what we are talking about is that lane being used by construction traffic and workers to and from work. Could we have the next slide, please?

424. Now, you’ll appreciate it’s very difficult to show in a photograph what a camber looks like, but this is taken in Bottom House Farm Lane looking up towards the 413. And obligingly, there’s a blue van on the 413. This photograph was taken outside of the house of the lady to my right, Mrs Wall, who lives at Elmtree Cottage. I’d like her just to say a few words about how she feels about having construction traffic going along this road and then I’ll come back. Thank you.

425. MR HENDRICK: Just before she does, could you tell us how wide that lane is?

426. MRS WALL: It’s a single-track farm lane. There are few passing places. We do have movements of horse boxes and farm vehicles along the lane, but there is no room for two normal vehicles to pass each other.

427. MR HENDRICK: It’s one way. Well, it can be either way but only one at any moment in time.

428. MRS WALL: As I understand it, it is going to be widened along the length of the lane as far as the vent shaft site.

429. MR HENDRICK: It will be widened into two lanes?

430. MS PHILLIPS: Well, it may be or it may not be. We’ll move on to that.

431. MR HENDRICK: Okay.

432. MRS WALL: Shall I continue?

433. MS PHILLIPS: Yes, please.

434. MRS WALL: My name is Mrs Rosamund Janey Wall and I live in Elmtree Cottage, which is the first house in Bottom House Farm Lane and close to the junction

A498 (68) HOL/00600/0095

with the A413. I work full-time, I’m also trustee of a charity, and I have two children aged nine and 12. Now, I might have petitioned myself but I am generally flat-out and I do not feel that the deadline for petitioning was sufficiently well publicised.

435. My primary concern is the increase in traffic, particularly HGVs, using Bottom House Farm Lane. As we’ve seen, it’s currently a single-track farm lane with the occasional movement of tractors and horse boxes, but at a very slow speed because it is so narrow. We estimate that currently an average of five vehicles in total will pass our house every hour. The environment statement anticipates that up to 100 extra two-way trips daily by cars and light goods vehicles, and an additional 40 HGV two-way trips per day. Now, in a 10-hour day, 10-hour working day, that’s an average of 20 cars per hour and eight HGVs per hour. So that represents a sevenfold increase in the number of vehicles passing our house. This is a massive surge in noise, in dust and traffic fumes. Our son has asthma. He is nine years old.

436. HS2 construction traffic represents a double-whammy for us because in May this year Bucks County Council approved construction of a waste transfer station at London Road East. That’s just a few hundred yards from our house. This was despite fierce local opposition. So we now face HS2 construction traffic and countless extra rubbish lorries using the A413. And of course you know this is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Our kids currently potter off on their bikes to go and pick blackberries or play pooh sticks in Bottom House Farm Lane. Will we want them to do so during the construction of HS2?

437. Another concern is the proposed widening of the lane and the speed of the extra traffic turning off the A413 into the lane. At the moment, vehicles have to slow to a virtual halt, as we’ve seen, because the width doesn’t allow room to pass any oncoming vehicles. There’s also the steep camber, as Mary has pointed out. Widening of the lane will mean HGVs careering off the A413, which has a 50 miles per hour limit, down the steep slope past our house, radically changing the nature of the place we live. I fear for our children and for our pets. We’ve already lost two cats on the A413. If Bottom House Farm Lane has to be used, I would urge HS2 to ensure a strict speed limit is observed.

438. I’m also concerned about the increase in local congestion, particularly on the

A498 (69) HOL/00600/0096

A413, caused by traffic turning into Bottom House Farm Lane. Vehicles turning right into the lane will have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, which will cause tailbacks, delays and obviously an increase in local pollution. There’s often stationary traffic outside our home during rush hour at the moment. Now, the HS2 Bill talks about improvements to the junction but as yet we don’t know whether this is going to involve a roundabout or a feeder lane and how that steep camber is going to be addressed.

439. On a different note, I’m anxious also about the impact on local wildlife. I’m a keen runner and I’ve had local encounters with a variety of animals, including a brown hare. The removal of ancient hedgerows bordering Bottom House Farm Lane when it is widened will destroy habitat and disturb local wildlife, as well of course as the ventilation shaft compound. In the summer months, bats skim along the vegetation opposite our house. I wonder if they will continue to do so when the hedgerow has been removed and the lane widened. As for the compound itself, I will be personally heartbroken at the huge scar that is going to leave in our beautiful Chiltern Hills.

440. Finally, I’m also alarmed by the implications for my family of the blight to our home. We moved to Bottom House Farm Lane for the space, the peace and the unspoiled views of the Chiltern Hills. Despite the proximity of the A413 it is a tranquil corner of Buckinghamshire. With hundreds of HS2 construction vehicles passing feet from our house for years to come and the lane widened permanently, which is what we believe, its character will change irrevocably. If and when we should want to sell, it’s clear that the price we ask will be negatively impacted by HS2, yet we are not eligible for any compensation.

441. Now, I understand the proposals for an alternative dedicated access road from the A335 Beaconsfield Road across the fields to the ventilation shaft compound has been dismissed by Bucks County Council. I believe this would be across land already owned by the county council. I would appeal to you and to HS2 to ensure that this alternative to Bottom House Farm Lane is reconsidered as a matter of urgency. That’s all I’ve got to say.

442. MS PHILLIPS: Thank you, Janey. So if I can just come back, obviously it was appropriate to ask Janey to speak then because this was taken outside her house. Could you show the next slide please? On this map you can see, again marked in pink, again

A498 (70) HOL/00600/0097

land potentially required during the construction phase. This is the section of the road nearest to the 413. There is a second map which covers further up towards where the vent shaft site actually is. But the environmental statement – could you go to the next slide? – indicates that Bottom House Farm Lane will be permanently widened from the junction with the A413 to –

443. CHAIR: We can read it faster than you can read it.

444. MS PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you. Okay. The point is that when I came up here on Budget Day and spoke with Messrs Wells and Cowie from HS2, they verbally assured me that this plan had changed and there was no intention to permanently widen the lane, but simply to put in passing places.

445. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The question is: which is right?

446. MS PHILLIPS: Exactly.

447. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay. There’s no need to say more about it. We’ll ask them if they know.

448. MS PHILLIPS: Thank you. Well, that is my question: which one is correct? I was also verbally assured that the vehicles used for construction would not be longer or wider than the milk tanker that currently serves the farm. I was also told that there is no intention to demolish or move or in any way disrupt the ancient field barn or granary that stands on the east side of the road. Could you go to the next slide please?

449. Now, in this map book the table on the contents page says there are no heritage assets within our area – next one, please – but there are. Because on the right you will see this granary, which is directly opposite Lower Bottom House Farm, and the next slide will show you that it’s a grade two listed building. So if the road is going to be permanently widened, there’s going to be a problem. Could you go to slide 34, please?

450. Now, this photo was taken with me sitting in my car in the gateway which forms the entrance to the vent shaft site, looking towards the A413. As you can see, it almost isn’t wide enough for a single car. If you take your car along there, it gets scratched on both sides. To be honest, it isn’t any wonder that the minibus carrying you and your colleagues, sir, when you came to visit the various parts of Buckinghamshire, could not

A498 (71) HOL/00600/0098

get up this lane. If people in the local area had been asked, we could have told you that and saved you some time. It’s just not possible.

451. CHAIR: Right. Okay, carry on.

452. MS PHILLIPS: Next one, please. So clearly Bottom House Farm Lane is not suitable for this road. And what we would like is to support the view of Bucks County Council that they have said in the past, that there should be an access road, a vent shaft – a haul road from the rear of the vent shaft going straight across the fields and joining with the A355. That would solve both the problems on the A413 and the problems in Bottom House Farm Lane.

453. Now, please bear with me because there’s one other thing that I need to talk about. Next one, yeah. The environmental statement describes… I think they call it a diversion. And what I’m not clear about is what this diversion is for, because it goes from the top end of Bottom House Farm Lane right down to the village, which takes us right back to where we started, our concern for the village centre as well. Those roads all highlighted in orange, all of them are unsuitable for construction traffic, if that’s what the plan is – I don’t know. Could you go to the next one please?

454. This photograph was taken in Bottom House Farm Lane near the junction with Bottrells Lane. Bottrells Lane, which is the road that goes from Hodgemoor Woods, from the junction with Bottom House Farm Lane, right the way down to the village, is not much wider. Most of it is a single car width. Within that stretch there are two completely blind right-angle bends with very high hedges on either side. Lower down it becomes a residential road with driveways on both sides. Could you go to the next one please?

455. Taking it a bit further, we get down to the junction with School Lane. At this point Bottrells Lane becomes Silver Hill. It’s one road but it changes its name. On the very right, in the bottom right-hand corner of that photograph, you can see School Lane. School Lane is really the only vehicle access to the local village nursery and first school. It’s one-way and they have to go up a steep hill on the other side and come out this way. So that goes down a really steep hill. And I admit I’ve put this picture on to show you what it can be like, but this is not unusual. This road goes down around a bend and comes out in the village centre. It already suffers from congestion caused by parents

A498 (72) HOL/00600/0099

dropping off their children and, as you’ve seen, when you get to the bottom it frequently floods.

456. So I’m at the end really, but I was given verbal assurances again when I was here on Budget Day that no construction related traffic will use that diversion route and I would like that to be properly recorded, because otherwise we don’t know what we’re doing. It’s not a bus route, this one, and it just is not suitable.

457. So just to conclude, it seems to me that – forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think the role of the Select Committee is quite similar to the role of juries in a Crown Court. You’re asked to listen to the evidence from both sides, weigh it up, and then come to a judgement based on basically common sense. And surely common sense dictates that this is not suitable for construction traffic. And I would ask you to really think about what I have said. Thank you very much.

458. CHAIR: The attached petitions I presume are just for us to read because there’s nothing particularly new in the ones which –

459. MS PHILLIPS: Actually, I have got a short statement from each of the petitioners.

460. CHAIR: Are they here or…?

461. MS PHILLIPS: They are not. They’ve asked me to –

462. CHAIR: Okay. How long?

463. MS PHILLIPS: Minutes. Seconds. Not long at all.

464. CHAIR: Okay. You can read them then.

465. MS PHILLIPS: The first one is Catherine Elizabeth and Peter Ralph Scognamillo. Can I please ask that the spelling is corrected? It should be ‘Sc’ at the beginning. I’m aware that all of their petition contains items that you’ve seen many times before, but I would just say that they live in Stratton Chase Drive in Chalfont St Giles. The HS2 tunnel will go directly beneath their property. And apart from reaffirming their concerns as shown in their petition, they wanted to stress that they’re very distressed and already losing sleep because of HS2, partly because of its impact on our locality and

A498 (73) HOL/00600/0100

partly because of their own financial position. I know from personal experience that houses in the road where they live, even five or six years ago, probably were worth about £1.5 million. What they ought to be worth now I don’t know, but the gentleman from the mortgage lenders just highlights that there is a problem and I’ll leave it there. That’s their concern. Thank you.

466. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. And the Hamiltons?

467. MS PHILLIPS: The Hamiltons… These are his words. He says he’s a retired Chartered Accountant. He spent most of his professional years investigating and helping companies who in many cases, because of overestimating their projections, had got themselves into a financial mess. After retiring from Ernst & Young, he was recruited to help set up the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which he then ran for the first six years of its existence.

468. He would like to mention the following six points. He has looked at the costs for construction and operating, and for his liking there are far too many estimates and assumptions which cannot be proven. The extra traffic in the area during construction will totally swamp roads that were never designed or intended to accommodate vast increases in heavy traffic. How is the area going to accommodate the vast army of construction workers who will be required on the project? It does not appear that much has been taken of the possibility for upgrading the Chiltern line, thus taking pressure off the main line for increasing capacity and speed. The various parties who suffer most from the construction phase will get no actual benefit from the new line. They will still have to go into London to get on to HS2. It does not appear to me – Mr Hamilton – that the line will actually go into central Birmingham. Passengers will have to get off and get another train into Birmingham New Street Station in the centre. I’m also concerned that the bulk of the traffic will be coming south, which will not help the northern powerhouse.

469. I specifically asked Mr Hamilton if he had received a PRD so that I could comment on it. He said he would like to add, ‘I have definitely not received a PRD. And more to the point, I have tried to get in touch with David Walker on a number of occasions, including leaving voicemails, but have received no response.’ So he’s not very impressed, I’m afraid. That concludes it. Thank you.

A498 (74) HOL/00600/0101

470. CHAIR: All right. Thank you. Mr Strachan?

471. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Could I just take the Committee back to P10824, just to show you what’s going on in this area? As you’ve already heard, the line itself of course is in a bored tunnel passing under the area of Chalfont St Giles and therefore the only construction worksites are those of the vent shafts and, in this case, the Chalfont St Giles vent shaft off to the left. And the area shown in pink here, if I just take the area here, this is an area surrounding the River Misbourne. And we’ve shown it identified, this is the River Misbourne monitoring area. As the Committee has already heard, the tunnel itself as it passes underneath the River Misbourne will be at least two tunnel diameter depths below the River Misbourne. And that has been the subject of discussion with the Environment Agency already. However, as part of the measures in this location we are monitoring the River Misbourne. The area in pink allows both upstream and downstream monitoring to take place. And in the event of any measures being required as a result of tunnelling at that depth, the land shown in pink enables HS2 to go in and do appropriate works to the River Misbourne, if it were to be necessary, which – I hasten to add – we don’t think is likely. That’s the purpose of the pink area in this location.

472. It’s also the purpose of the dotted green line along Pheasant Hill that the petitioners were referring to. That would be a construction route only in the event of works being required to the River Misbourne as a result of the tunnelling. Again, we don’t think that’s likely but it’s shown here as a precautionary measure. So what the petitioner has already been told is accurate. These aren’t construction traffic routes we anticipate being used and we don’t anticipate fencing around the pink areas. The only circumstances in which one might require fencing is if you are having to do works to the River Misbourne which required the construction works to be fenced off, which I don’t think is a problem. Not a problem. So I can confirm that situation. I think the Committee has already seen the Environment Agency letter, but I can go –

473. CHAIR: No, no, no, no. We’ve been through these matters.

474. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So there’s no routing of traffic through the centre of Chalfont St Giles, no construction traffic routing, which I think was of concern. That brings me on to Bottom House Farm Lane. You can see from this plan itself that the

A498 (75) HOL/00600/0102

proposal takes sufficient land in pink along Bottom House Farm Lane to widen it for the construction traffic necessary to construct the Chalfont St Giles vent shaft. And that also, if I can take the cursor back up to the A413, you’ll see there’s land either side of the junction on to the A413. So we’ve taken sufficient land to provide a safe junction for the construction traffic whilst it’s operating along Bottom House Farm Lane.

475. MR HENDRICK: How does it get past the granary?

476. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The granary, the pink land goes either side of the granary so that there’s the ability for the construction traffic to run traffic around the granary if necessary. There is in fact, I think we believe, sufficient width currently –

477. MR HENDRICK: So the granary’s going to be isolated between two tracks.

478. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If it’s necessary to take construction traffic, we can take it either side. To say it’s isolated, I don’t think it would be isolated. It would just be construction traffic

479. MR HENDRICK: Well, from the photograph it was clear that there is only enough for one track going past the granary on one side.

480. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

481. MR HENDRICK: Are you saying that you’re going to put another track around it to enable two-track operation?

482. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

483. MR HENDRICK: Or are you going to leave a pinch-point there that maybe you can negotiate when traffic is coming up the lane?

484. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely. Currently it’s the latter, which we think is sufficient because there’s sufficient width between the granary, in the road, to get our traffic through it. But we have the ability, if that’s necessary, to take a wider road.

485. That brings me on to the next point, which is: what levels of traffic are we talking about? It goes back to the point I have made about vent shafts already. This is not a long activity over a long period of time. This is a relatively short duration in terms of

A498 (76) HOL/00600/0103

the major HGV traffic that we are talking about. I’ve got a slide just to illustrate that for you, P10831. The maximum sort of HGV activity for that area is 22 vehicles each way – when it comes up – so that’s 44 in a day for the maximum, when things are operating at their peak.

486. MRS WALL: I’m sorry, is that HGVs?

487. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): HGVs.

488. MRS WALL: And then what about light goods vehicles?

489. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And 57 cars and LGVs each way. And as the Committee has seen, I’m not going to put up another histogram but you’ll be aware from the histogram the way it separates out. There’s the construction period, then there’s a gap, and then there’s rail systems fit-out. Sorry, you need to go back up. It’s further up. Yes, I and J are the figures and that’s on Bottom House Farm Lane. So we’re taking sufficient land to provide an access road which is wide enough. We don’t anticipate necessarily having to put a track around the granary, but we have the ability to do it if it’s thought necessary.

490. And on the issue of what happens to Bottom House Farm Lane afterwards, that is already the subject of a response we gave to Chiltern District Council on heritage issues, which the Committee may recall but I’ll just put it up on the screen. P11211, which is a letter to Catherine Murray of Chiltern District Council of the 7th of October, we set out in some detail. She is a heritage officer who was concerned about the granary and we set out in some detail about Bottom House Farm Lane. She wanted it restored to a width no greater than four metres. In fact, we do a little bit better than that, because whilst we temporarily widen it to potentially 5.5 metres, you see at the bottom of the page: ‘Once usage of the compound ceases, the current intention is the road would be narrowed again to provide a minimum 3.5-metre-wide carriageway with intervisible passing’ – you need to go over the page – ‘bays at intervals not exceeding 200 metres, in accordance with the rural road design criteria,’ which have already been discussed. We’ve dealt with the issue of kerbing – only in limited areas – and you’ll see in the paragraph: ‘The renarrowed Bottom House Farm Lane will be designed to the minimum appropriate standards, consistent with the public use and limited numbers of vehicles accessing it, and the highway authority will have the powers, under paragraph 11 of

A498 (77) HOL/00600/0104

Schedule 4, to approve plans and sections for the realignment of highways.’ So, there is, yet again, a process for agreeing the details of this road in its restored state. You also see the heritage agreement issue dealt with below with the heritage officer, and then design – you will see an issue about where new roads are constructed, and these comprise a carriageway. They’re subject to the highway authority consent that I’ve just explained. So, it has been looked at in some detail, Bottom House Farm Lane. Obviously – I’m terribly sorry, but I didn’t catch –

491. MRS WALL: Mrs Wall.

492. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mrs Wall was not a petitioner to the scheme. She’s come along today to present what she’s concerned about, but we haven’t responded to her in the past because she didn’t petition in this process. That said, we have responded to others, and there’s quite a lot of detail. I’m very happy to point her in the right direction of that letter, which explains what’s happening to Bottom House Farm Lane and the way we control it.

493. Can I just then touch on Mr and Mrs Sognamillo, who are at Stratton Chase Drive? They are below the area where the tunnel goes, although it’s at, I think, a 50- metre depth in that location. The settlement policy will apply in relation to those properties that are within the relevant 10 mm contour. There will be further assessments for their properties under stage 2, as set out in information paper C3, although I’m not sure that’s particularly what they were worried about. I will just make it clear they’ll be covered by that. Mr Nigel and Valerie Hamilton – can I just show up P10909? Mr and Mrs Hamilton live in Little Chalfont, some 3 km away from the bore tunnel and vent shaft site.

494. MR HENDRICK: Could I just ask, coming back to the Granary, have you looked at the foundations there and looked into the likely impact of HGVs trundling up and down either side of it?

495. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I imagine it has been examined, but certainly the heritage officer has been looking at it, as we’ve just seen, in conjunction with Chiltern District Council, and we’ve addressed her concern, so I don’t believe there are concerns of that kind in relation to this volume of traffic going past the building.

A498 (78) HOL/00600/0105

496. MR HENDRICK: Well, it’s the nature of the traffic rather than the volume.

497. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I meant this volume of HGV traffic, because we’re talking about a relatively small flow of additional HGV traffic on that road.

498. MR HENDRICK: You say ‘additional HGV’. I would imagine there’s no HGV traffic –

499. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I don’t know; there may be farm vehicles that pass down it. I don’t know, but –

500. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: It might be sensible to provide –

501. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I imagine it must be an area –

502. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: P10831.

503. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry?

504. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: There’s one at J apparently, and you propose 22, which gives a 2,041% increase.

505. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Well, in the nature of these percentages, if you move from one to 22, it gives a very high percentage.

506. MR HENDRICK: 22 sounds worse.

507. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Nevertheless, Mr Hendrick’s point is very relevant – pertinent.

508. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, currently, I think it’s a milk lorry that goes down past the Granary to serve the farm. As far as I’m aware, there are no concerns about the structure to the property from levels of HGVs of that number passing it, but I’ll find out what –

509. MR HENDRICK: A JCB is a bit different from a milk lorry, though, isn’t it?

510. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’m not sure it is, in terms of weight or, indeed, vibration effects. My own experience of traffic of that level going past

A498 (79) HOL/00600/0106

buildings is very little vibration effects to properties. You get more from closing your front door or turning on a washing machine than you do from a road.

511. MR HENDRICK: Well, I think you’re talking about an ordinary property, but this is a Grade II listed building.

512. MS PHILLIPS: Please, may I come in here?

513. MR HENDRICK: What are the foundations like?

514. MS PHILLIPS: This is very relevant – there are no foundations. This photograph that I showed unfortunately doesn’t show it, but if you could – could you go back to –

515. CHAIR: No, no. No – let’s have the Promoters first. Have you finished, Mr Strachan?

516. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No. I was going to say there are actually protective measures in Schedule 17 of the bill for heritage assets, so I don’t know off the hand what specific investigations have been looked at, but I’d be very surprised if that level of HGV movements alongside this sort of building would have any material effect on the building, whether or not it has foundations. But I’m happy to look at that. Schedule 17 certainly has protective provisions.

517. CHAIR: Okay – brief final comments.

518. MS PHILLIPS: Please – I have to tell you: this building finishes at the height of the weeds that you can see in the picture, and it stands on stone mushrooms. It doesn’t have any foundations, because you can walk underneath it. My fear is that, when those stone mushrooms get vibrated, the whole building will shake up and down. It’s bound to.

519. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry – there was one other thing. The alternative route that was suggested has been looked at and was shown to Buckinghamshire County Council for this road, and you’ll find that at P10828(1) and the reasons why an alternative route was rejected. I’ll just show you. The route is shown as the dotted red line – quite a long route. We would have to go out to the A355 at Gore Hill. You’ll recall other petitioners came along and didn’t want this alternative route on to the A355.

A498 (80) HOL/00600/0107

They were very concerned about the A355 and further tie-ins, but we’ve looked at it nonetheless, and you can see the relative merits and demerits of that discussed at P10828(2). The two alternative tie-ins on to the A355 were looked at, and then the list of merits at the next slide, 3, and you can see either option costs £4 million to £5 million more, but the other features of it are the loss of hedgerow along Bottom House Farm Lane, additional land required for road and storage of excavated materials, haul road closer to two ancient woodlands, further visual impacts and impacts on the AONB, and of course the consequences of excavating a road through the AONB for that level of construction activity that we identified in the histograms earlier.

520. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I suggest a possible alternative alternative, Mr Strachan?

521. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly.

522. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: If you’re contemplating doing works to Bottom House Farm Lane anyway, why not leave the existing ancient hedge as it is and put the track the other side of the hedge? You could build a single track to accommodate traffic one way and leave the existing Bottom Farm House Lane to accommodate traffic going the other way, and put two very steep sleeping policemen in the road to slow traffic down to almost zero going past the listed buildings.

523. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly, going past listed buildings, if it’s necessary to slow traffic down, one can do that. Whether one chooses to do it with a sleeping policeman – because that may itself cause vibrations – there are measures to control traffic if it’s necessary, and I said I would go and find out what measures have been looked at in terms of the vibration effects. The access road that’s proposed – I’m not sure it does take out any ancient hedgerows. The ancient hedgerows that we were concerned to protect are the ones that would be otherwise affected by this alternative haul road, if I go back to slide P10828(1).

524. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: No. I think the petitioner was concerned that, if you did work on Bottom House Farm Lane, you would be taking out the hedge. I’m suggesting that you build the road –

525. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A dual carriageway with a central reservation of a

A498 (81) HOL/00600/0108

hedge.

526. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Correct. And you could then take the temporary road out afterwards if it was deemed not to be necessary.

527. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly, as I understand it, the intention is to try not to disturb the hedge, and I haven’t got the details of the road design and don’t think they’re done yet, but the intention would be to try to keep as much vegetation as possible. But, as I’ve indicated, for the restoration period, you put back a design of road with vegetation and screening consistent with the rural road design criteria. If hedgerow is taken, then an appropriate design will be put back in place to restore the look and feel of the road, with those additional passing places, so we end up with a road of 3.5 metres with appropriate landscaping down it. But I don’t have the detail of the design of the road. I note obviously the points you’re making are sensible ones to be taken into account in that design, and I’m sure they will be, coupled with our desire not to take out any more vegetation than we have to.

528. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Strachan. Brief final comments?

529. MS PHILLIPS: That’s it, thank you.

530. CHAIR: Thank you. I now call 1847, Susan Masters. I now call 1905. Kathryn Todd. 1823, Salter?

Allen and Penelope Salter

531. MR SALTER: Yes, sir.

532. CHAIR: Okay.

533. MR SALTER: Good afternoon. Allen Salter. I’m resident in Mill Lane, Chalfont St Giles. I’ve lived there for 11 years and we’re within 100 metres of the proposed tunnel. I have to say that the proposal to drive a tunnel through the centre of Chalfont St Giles has created a lot of anxiety with the whole of the community. I’m not going to repeat everything that has been said, but I just want to mention HS2 compensation. In fact, that drawing looks as if we’re even closer than 100 metres, so we’re not entitled to any compensation, but friends of ours in Chalfont St Giles, this tunnel goes directly

A498 (82) HOL/00600/0109

under their property, and they are entitled to compensation. The value of their property, as you’ve heard, has probably reduced by something like 25%. There’s a total blight on the property – in fact, all our properties. They have been offered compensation by HS2 and the value is £50. I would like to know what the Committee think about the compensation amounts.

534. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or whether you should get it too?

535. MR SALTER: No, I’m not expecting it. I’m saying that a high-speed train running directly under your property, and the compensation offered by HS2 – it has put a blight on your property to that extent – £50 is an insult.

536. CHAIR: Okay. Is that your final point as a petition?

537. MR SALTER: Yes. I don’t want repeat what everybody has said. Sir, I thought the point you made about putting a temporary road on the other side of Bottom House Farm Lane is a very good one, because there is no way HS2 can widen that road without destroying those hedges that are already there.

538. CHAIR: We have discussed the issue of the £50 before, where the tunnel goes underneath and homeowners above get a £50 payment. I rather agree with you. I think it’s a double-edged sword. Do you want to comment at all on that, Mr Strachan?

539. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. There are two things that are in issue. The first is compensation for an interference with your property right, and this is compensation for an interference with a property right some – I think we’re at 50 metres down or thereabouts in this location. So, it’s the element of a tunnel interfering with a subsurface property right, which for most people, and certainly for these people, wouldn’t be a property right that was ever realised. That’s why it has a notional value of £50 for that sort of right.

540. As to compensation for blight, the Need to Sell scheme is not limited in terms of geographical area. So, for those who are eligible under the Need to Sell scheme in terms of blight caused by the scheme, that remains open as a property scheme, subject to the criteria. That said, given the depth of the line in this location at 50 metres, and the nature of the tunnelling that occurs, we wouldn’t anticipate any material effects on the

A498 (83) HOL/00600/0110

property, but it’s notionally there as a scheme.

541. CHAIR: Okay.

542. MR SALTER: Well, I can tell you there’s a significant blight on the value of the property.

543. MR HENDRICK: Are you saying your property is 100 metres away from the line if it were on the surface, or 100 metres away from where the line actually is, 50 metres below the surface?

544. MR SALTER: There’s a current blight on any property that’s as close as we are to the tunnel. The point I’m trying to make is that for the loss of people in our area, in the value in their properties – and even when the tunnel goes directly under their property – to be offered £50 compensation is an insult.

545. MR HENDRICK: I would accept that and I agree with you, but what I’m trying to get at is that, if it’s 50 metres below the surface and you’re 100 metres away from where it would have been if it were on the surface, then it’s more than 100 metres down to where it actually is underground.

546. MR SALTER: It’s having a direct effect on the properties and prices within that area.

547. MR HENDRICK: I’m not disputing that, and I’ve already agreed with you.

548. CHAIR: We have heard in the past – we’ve talked to people about that. Anyway, thank you for making your views clear and thank you for sitting patiently in the Committee. We now go to Jane Penson, which is 1889. Welcome. You’ve been sitting here all day patiently.

Jane Penson

549. MRS PENSON: Thank you. I’ve been enjoying all that I’ve heard. Thank you very much. I will be extremely brief, because you’ve heard an awful lot about the things that I’m concerned about, but I’ve been completely amazed about the amount of information we’ve heard about Bottom House Farm Lane with one little word not having been mentioned once. Can I have my first slide? That shows where I live –

A498 (84) HOL/00600/0111

that’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about that. Next one. Okay – that’s me. That’s who I am. Next one. Okay. This is Bottom House Farm Lane. There’s the A413. You’ve seen all this. There’s the river going past. There’s Bottom House Farm Lane. There’s a ring around a very important little thing that nobody has mentioned at all so far this afternoon. There is a bridge on Bottom House Farm Lane. I’m extremely concerned about this bridge – next slide please – because – there’s yours truly in the middle of the picture – I am a riverfly monitor. What that means is that I use an Environment Agency approved method for measuring the quality of the water by counting the riverfly larvae that live in the water. We – the people in that picture – measure 12 sites every month, which cover the entirety of the Misbourne River, and send our results to the Environment Agency to show the health of the river. It’s an early-warning system, because the very first things to suffer are the riverfly larvae. This is visual context; you probably understand all of that already. This is standing on the South Bucks Way looking towards the river. Next slide.

550. Here is a picture – you’ve seen almost exactly the same picture before. This is Bottom House Farm, looking up towards the A413. There’s a van running along the A413. Next. Again, I’m showing something you’ve been told many times already today – that Bottom House Farm Lane is narrow and steep. The result is that vehicles, when they turn into this lane, slow right down. They have to. Next please. And this is what they see when they turn. So, they stay dead slow, because they can’t see what’s around the next corner. It’s leafy; it’s very, very narrow. Next, please. This demonstrates the width of the lane, and in fact just behind the blue lorry is the house of Janey Wall, whose words you heard just recently. So, you were asking how wide the lane is. I think that shows you. It’s the only lorry I’ve ever seen on the lane as it happens – and I had my camera with me, so there you go: I took a picture of it. Whether or not there’s permanent widening of the lane, I still have concerns. If there are passing places, however, I believe that the vehicles will travel more slowly, because they’ll have to wait for each other. So, the speed of the traffic and the amount of traffic and heavy goods traffic really concerns me, because – next slide – this is a bridge. You can’t just widen a bridge. You’ll end up in the water. I went to talk to Bucks County Council about my petition, and it turned out I was informing them that there was a bridge on Bottom House Farm Lane, which surprised me. Nobody so far has mentioned it today. I’m very, very concerned that, if the road is widened, this bridge is going to have to be

A498 (85) HOL/00600/0112

properly reconstructed. I don’t know what the deal is; I don’t know how it’s done, but please can we have the bridge properly checked to see whether it’s strong enough to withstand all this traffic? In fact, as Polly Buston said earlier on this afternoon, monitoring I’m not worried about – we do that – but protection; we really want the river to be properly protected. Next slide.

551. This is what you see from the river. It’s not a pretty bridge, but I have no idea whether it’s strong enough to maintain this amount of extra traffic, and that’s really what I want assurance of. Will it, please, be tested to check that it is capable of taking this amount of extra traffic? I’m not going to go into the number of vehicles, because obviously we’ve discussed all that already, but heavier and faster traffic, it seems to me, potentially could crack the bridge, and then that would mean that bits of masonry were going to start falling into the water, and then that would completely ruin my beloved riverflies. Next.

552. It’s a healthy river. It does occasionally dry up but it hasn’t done for some years. It’s a very peaceful place to be. It’s a flowing, healthy river. Let me show you how healthy it is. Next. Okay. Just concentrate on the top part of this slide. That is a graph that shows you the red line, which is the Environment Agency’s trigger level. That is the level at which they consider the life in the river should be. That’s the point; if it goes below that, they get worried about it. This is the last 12 months’ data. We’ve been above, as you can see, that line always. It shows a combination of the number of riverflies and the variety, so it demonstrates both the health of the river and also the diversity of the creatures living in the river. There are 24 of these that are done every month up and down the River Misbourne. My particular concern is at this bridge. We monitor the river every month. My concern is to make sure that we don’t have a situation where the quality of the river drops below the red line, because, by that time, it’s too late.

553. MR HENDRICK: Are you saying that a stronger bridge that wouldn’t collapse and cause the problems you’ve talked about would still be acceptable and you could maintain the sorts of levels that you’re talking about above the red line?

554. MRS PENSON: All I’m concerned about is that the river is looked after. So, if the road has to be widened, then the bridge would be properly built so that the river

A498 (86) HOL/00600/0113

doesn’t get damaged.

555. MR HENDRICK: Yes, but are you saying the traffic over the bridge won’t affect the population of the –

556. MRS PENSON: I’m unhappy about the potential pollution as well, but that wasn’t my particular remit at the moment. Pollution has –

557. MR HENDRICK: Right. So, you’re just concerned about the condition of the bridge and its potential impact if it collapses?

558. MRS PENSON: That it’s properly checked to make sure that it is strong enough to take all the extra traffic, yes. Next slide. A place to be at peace – yes. Masses of wildlife: goldfinches, osprey, red kites, butterflies, weasels, reed warblers, yellow wagtails – I won’t go on. And then the next slide just shows you what carries on after the bridge. It’s peaceful – there’s very, very little traffic. So, my requests, on the last slide, are: please test the strength of the bridge before you start driving all this extra traffic over it; please maintain my access to the river, because I don’t know what you might do if you’re going to strengthen or widen the bridge, but I do need to be able to get to the river at that point; please protect the quality of the water; and I’ve added an extra bullet point of my own, which says, ‘But better still, don’t even use Bottom House Farm Lane at all.’ That would make me very happy.

559. CHAIR: Okay – thank you very much indeed. Mr Strachan?

560. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think I can answer the Petitioner by reference to this slide. HS2 will test the strength of the bridge or assess the bridge before it’s used as part of its proposals for using it for construction. It’s obviously important that the bridge can carry the traffic that we’re proposing, which is of the order I indicated, and so that will be a process we do as part of our continued design work. If the bridge were not sufficiently strong to carry our traffic, we would have to strengthen it to make it sufficiently robust, but at the moment that remains to be a subject of assessment. We will maintain the access to the river, and of course both in terms of what we’re proposing in terms of traffic along there, or any strengthening works, we can’t interfere with the quality of the water, because that’s subject to the protective provisions under the bill. If we were to do anything affecting the quality of the water or the flow of the

A498 (87) HOL/00600/0114

water, we would require the approval of the relevant authorities.

561. MR HENDRICK: Is it your intention to widen the bridge?

562. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s not, no – not currently. We don’t intend to widen it.

563. MR HENDRICK: So, it’s just a question of –

564. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The widening is making sure it’s sufficiently robust. Obviously, as you can imagine, there is a mutual interest here: we want the bridge to be sufficiently strong to carry our traffic.

565. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Strachan. Any final comments? Thank you. Right, 646, Amelia Beddoe. 1874, Kirk Jones, represented by Joe Rukin. Welcome.

Kirk Jones

566. MR RUKIN: Afternoon again.

567. CHAIR: Can we just put up where the Petitioner lives?

568. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I’m just getting it up: P10836 is the Petitioner’s property, and P10837 – sorry, this is Chalfont St Giles again, but I’ll just show: you the area of pink that was shown in the previous slide is the area for the River Misbourne monitoring area that I spoke to you about earlier, part of which is in the Petitioner’s ownership.

569. MR RUKIN: If we just go back to the previous map, please, I was just saying that it’s slightly inaccurate now. Obviously this is an overhead view – not overground view. This would have been taken prior to 2013, with the permission of the necessary heritage agencies. The original drive as it was in 1810 was restored, and that actually goes in through the green hatched area, not that that should be of significance in perhaps the drive itself – well, the original Georgian carriageway, I suppose, is the proper way to describe it – but it does mean that that little indent in the right-hand corner isn’t there anymore, because that’s what was being used.

570. First off, I’d like to make it clear – or Mr Jones would make it clear – that he’s not

A498 (88) HOL/00600/0115

here in person not because he doesn’t want to be but – and I suspect he is watching a transatlantic stream of the Committee – because of the nature of his work, he’s simply not in the country. And he very much wanted me to say that he didn’t want his absence to diminish how strongly he feels about his petition. Slide 1, please.

571. Mr Jones and his family have lived in Chalfont St Giles –

572. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: May I ask, first, what the issue is, before you talk about the other things?

573. MR RUKIN: Well, I was going to get to the issue –

574. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It always helps us to know what the issue is before you start taking us through.

575. MR RUKIN: The issue is going to be mostly about the Misbourne again, and flooding to the village, and the vibrations and a couple of other things, but mainly the Misbourne.

576. Mr Jones and his family have lived in Chalfont St Giles for the last 40 years and are very proud of their thriving, peaceful, historic community. He feels that the Grade I listed Normal church, as shown, with the medieval wall paintings is a perfect example of the entire ethos of this rustic village. Slide 2, please. This rural idyll, with duck pond and village green, was recently voted the best village is Britain by Channel 5.

577. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are there more slides before we get to his letter?

578. MR RUKIN: There is a lot of serious information before that. The letter is evidence but it’s not the entire substance of it by any means. Sorry – slide 3, please. It also won the Pushman Cup for the best-kept village in Buckinghamshire in 2002, 2006 and 2010. The next slide, please. It has a junior school, library, which the community saved from closure, and – next slide, please – is perhaps best known as the place where John Milton wrote Paradise Lost in 1667.

579. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You heard us being told this before.

580. MR RUKIN: Sir Peter, I’m that far through before I get on to – it’s about one sentence a photo until we get to slide 9. Slide 6: that building – the Cottage – as shown

A498 (89) HOL/00600/0116

on the previous slide now houses a museum. Slide 7, to bring us slightly more up to date – as Mr Jones is involved in the film industry, he would be very annoyed if this wanted mentioned – it doubled as Walmington-on-Sea in the 1973 movie version of Dad’s Army, despite being completely landlocked – or at least most of the time. And slide 8: it has since then been used by many other TV and film producers, including a recent updating of The Canterbury Tales, this being The Miller’s Tale, with a very grainy and unfortunately pixelated Dennis Waterman in that shot. We’ll go to slide 9, please.

581. In May 2011, the HS2 roadshow came to Chalfont St Giles. Mr Jones discovered it mainly by accident, as he complains, as many other people have up and down the line, that these things have been poorly advertised. I can’t say how well advertised the Chalfont St Giles roadshow was in Buckinghamshire, but it was advertised in the local press in Kenilworth despite the Warwickshire event not being published in our local papers. Mr Jones asked at the roadshow how this would affect the community, and he was immediately given a set of headphones to listen through. His response was, ‘I can’t hear a thing,’ and the representative of HS2 Ltd said this was proof it would be no noise, no vibration – no noticeable effect on Chalfont St Giles at all. Mr Jones took this as a reassurance that this has been thought through in terms of at least avoiding Chalfont St Giles. Now, before we’d like to move on, I’d like to point out the specifics on that map. Not only did the original proposal that went in the 2011 consultation tunnel under 300 fewer properties but it was at a depth of 100 metres and across the Misbourne, in farmland. Slide 10, please. Whilst that was the route that went to consultation, what the public in Chalfont St Giles did not know was that there was an alternative tunnel proposal that sought to extend the tunnel length but for some reason also change completely the route of the tunnel and, besides changing the route, would raise the tunnel depth from 100 metres to 20 metres, making it much shallower. You may also notice that, while the original blue line is reasonably bendy, the tunnel that replaced it – the orange one – especially to the northern end, where the two separate, is exceptionally straight. We believe that, if it had started to curve as it passes the roundabout at Old Amersham, then it would be able to realign itself further south with the original alignment of the proposed deep-bore tunnel and completely miss so many sensitive areas around Chalfont St Giles, specifically going under the village itself and, of course, where the tunnel would cross the Misbourne.

A498 (90) HOL/00600/0117

582. Instead of going to my slide 11, because as always is the case in these circumstances the Promoter’s map is much better, it’s P10834, please. This is where we are now. Just zoom in a bit for the Chairman – that’s fine. Now, after the consultation reported back, Mr Jones and his neighbours started getting letters saying their homes may experience vibrations. Now, it didn’t actually say the route had moved. It said that they may experience vibrations post-2026, hence when the railway is in operation. Oddly, while they’re expected to potentially experience vibrations once the railway is in operation, they’re not necessarily meant to experience them while it’s being bored out by the tunnelling machines. People weren’t informed about the change of route per se, simply that there was this chance of vibrations, and obviously many of them thought they’d seen a proposal whereby the tunnels would go in further north of the village and at a 100-metre depth they’re potentially not too worried about. It also oddly enough in the environmental statement says that the new tunnel proposal would reduce the noise that the village would be exposed to, which, bearing in mind it has gone from a tunnel further away that was deeper to a tunnel that is closer and shallower, seems a quite bizarre statement. Mr Jones feels that there is a substantially worse effect between the two proposals, the first of which bypasses the village at a 100-metre depth and a new one that goes directly under it at 20 metres. My slide 12, please.

583. I also feel I might as well point out at this juncture that there’s been a lot of mention of the PRD – the Promoter’s response documents – or the lack of them in today’s session. Oddly enough, Mr Jones did receive a PRD. However, it said that, because he was talking about potentially moving the tunnel back to its original alignment, this was against the principle of the bill, which just seems bizarre, to say the least. Now, this photo – you see the wall right on the right of the photo. That’s actually the new driveway to the Promoter’s property.

584. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Petitioner’s.

585. MR RUKIN: Sorry – did I say Promoter? I did, didn’t I? The wall on the right is the Petitioner’s property, the new entrance to their house. If we can move to the next slide. We can see that’s the bridge that’s in the middle of the village. This is simply to show how easily the village can flood with just a moderate increase in water levels. If we can move again to slide 14. You can see that the river isn’t particularly wide, but the bridge is just about starting to become a dam. This is almost exactly the point at which

A498 (91) HOL/00600/0118

HS2 Ltd want to tunnel under an exceptionally sensitive chalk river bed. If we move to slide 16. Now, there’s recently been flooding as Councillor Phillips mentioned, and I’m sorry, I did miss just the start of what he said, so I might repeat some of it.

586. There was extensive flooding in both 2008, 2012, but this is 2014. This is Stone Meadow, which he mentions it’s directly above the proposed tunnel. The next slide, please, gives an indication of how heavy and sustained the flooding was. Next slide, please. Sir, we’ll go through these rather quickly. This is outside the community-run library, which is the building with the black timber on it in the background, and slide 19.

587. CHAIR: Order, order. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

A498 (92) HOL/00600/0119

Residents of London Road, Wendover

HP22 6PN Select Committee Hearing Thursday 17th September 2015 Sara Dixon Roll B Agent and Petitioner Witnesses/Petitioners: Our community and why I like it here (Margaret Cole) Impact of ‘Compensation’ Scheme (Julie Lue)

1 Final SD 12/9/2016 1 A516 (1) HOL/00600/0120 Who are we?

2 A516 (2) HOL/00600/0121 Wendover end of the road

3 A516 (3) HOL/00600/0122 Middle of the road

4 A516 (4) HOL/00600/0123 Rocky Lane/Dunsmore Lane End

5 A516 (5) HOL/00600/0124 The railway impact

6 A516 (6) HOL/00600/0125 Back views

7 A516 (7) HOL/00600/0126 They’re just numbers

Top End – 285m from line Bottom end – 400m Opposite Side – excluding Vince and Mandy – 280m-300m range. Topographical impact… ‘Compensation’ Scheme

Top End – 65m from Small Dean Launch Satellite Compound Hawthorn – 325m Middle Bottom Houses (4) – 310m from the Rocky Lane Compound Nuisance impact….

8 A516 (8) HOL/00600/0127 Who are we? 5 - under 20 2 – under 5 0 – 20-30 We are not 4 51 years 14-87 years 7 - 40-50 4 – 6-10 years 6 – 50–60 against change 5 – 10-20 9 – 60-70 years 7 – 70-80 2 – 20-30 9 – 80-90 years School – 4 5 – 30-51 Employed – 8 If it’s coming, years Self-employed – 12 let’s tackle it. Retired – 12 Carers – 4 4 teams Volunteers – 7 Nurses, engineers, lawyers, consultants, builders, carpenters, teachers, charity workers, pub landlords, football managers, metal industry… ETC.

9 A516 (9) HOL/00600/0128 We are A Community

Who has mentioned us? Our amenities: DL quote: “This area is one of Kumar the worst affected areas of the Wendover/Great Missenden entire phase one route…”

(Resp to ES) Our health: Asthma, paralysed diaphragm, Absent from CFA 10… chronic kidney disease, What HS2 says: There’s only a asbestosis, heart problems, mobility problems. little bit… We need and support each other. Are we ‘just people?’ And more will be needed during Dunsmore, construction and operation…. Wendover, Wendover Dean… 10 A516 (10) HOL/00600/0129

How are we affected during construction?

11 A516 (11) HOL/00600/0130 12 A516 (12) HOL/00600/0131 13 A516 (13) HOL/00600/0132 Time North To North To South To South To Wendover all Wendover Missenden all Missenden 13th August – brown vehicles excluding Emergency vehicles excluding Emergency Emergency vehicles vehicles Emergency vehicles vehicles 16,979 in total 1,415/hour 7.00 to 8.00 525/655 - - 1265/1532 - 1 24/minute 1 every 4 seconds 8.00 to 9.00 666/788 - 3 1155/1287 1/1 th 9.00 to 10.00 8 September - blue - 566/637 - - 744/890 - - 18,796 1,565/hour 26/minute 10.00 to 11.00 467/455 1/2 538/492 - - 1 every 2.30 seconds 11.00 to 12.00 506/532 -/2 535/534 - 1 12.00 to 1.00 589/512 3/3 527/477 3/2 HS2 predictions - green – 20,447 Add Rocky Lane combined 1.00 to 2.00 586/560 1/2 523/511 2/1 north and south (1271 in 2.00 to 3.00 582/540 1/- 579/700 1/2 and out of lane, assuming 3.00 to 4.00 678/774 -/2 478/626 - 2 not included by HS2 in A413 figures) 4.00 to 5.00 1003/1038 3/1 716/690 2/1 5.00 to 6.00 1340/1395 3/4 750/849 4/2 21,718 – predicted 6.00 to 7.00 1048/1203 1/1 582/616 5/2 growth of just over Total 8556/9080 13/20 8392/9671 18/15 1000 over 6 years.

HS2 2021 10,252 predictions 10,195 without haulage

14 A516 (14) HOL/00600/0133 The Service Road

15 A516 (15) HOL/00600/0134 Our service road

• Insert photos

16 A516 (16) HOL/00600/0135 The lie of the road

17 A516 (17) HOL/00600/0136 The drainage problems – not forgetting Rocky Lane…

18 A516 (18) HOL/00600/0137 Smalldean Lane and Rocky Lane

19 A516 (19) HOL/00600/0138

20 A516 (20) HOL/00600/0139 21 A516 (21) HOL/00600/0140 Dunsmore Lane

22 A516 (22) HOL/00600/0141 Small Dean Lane

23 A516 (23) HOL/00600/0142 Nuisances

Being able to enter and exit our homes safely – risk factors Access elsewhere during road closures/delays – risk factors Protection of service road – for our safety/sight lines – risk factors Air quality Noise – during construction – line AND compounds? COCP reliance only? View Lighting from construction sites Flooding Our house values ( the impact of the nuisances)

24 A516 (24) HOL/00600/0143 Air quality

Known unknowns? Wind behaviours? Will the construction buildings affect wind behaviours? Measures from now…

25 A516 (25) HOL/00600/0144 More unknowns

Views during construction – hoarding design? Noise during construction – night time MUST be banned AND weekends Lighting during construction?

26 A516 (26) HOL/00600/0145 27 A516 (27) HOL/00600/0146 How are we affected post construction? Views

Noise

Assets

28 A516 (28) HOL/00600/0147 Views post construction

29 A516 (29) HOL/00600/0148 Train only noise effect – it’s about the TYPE of noise pattern

30 A516 (30) HOL/00600/0149 Train only noise effect – it’s about the TYPE of noise pattern

31 A516 (31) HOL/00600/0150 Balancing ponds

Unknown

How will they differ from the old toxic ponds?

32 A516 (32) HOL/00600/0151 What do we want to happen?

1. ‘Aesthetics’ 2. Being part of a construction site 3. Continuing to live as a community 4. Compensation scheme

33 A516 (33) HOL/00600/0152 What do we want to happen – the aesthetics? 1. Underground tunnel – still an unknown impact though but we’ll take it! 2. Viaduct and Embankment - Noise reduction vs View. Involvement in our right AS A COMMUNITY. 3. Balancing ponds – involvement in our own right AS A COMMUNITY. We must be considered in EVERY relevant impact statement by HS2.

34 A516 (34) HOL/00600/0153 What do we want to happen – ‘being in the middle of a construction site’ nuisances?

In return for the CoCP… In order to minimize the clear risks AND therefore to avoid numerous litigation claims… 1. Monitors in place from now re air and noise levels. 2. Monthly meetings regarding the next month’s plans – with construction leads for all 3 construction sites around us. PLUS traffic flow predictions from broader afield. So we can plan and work together… 3. Use of Chiltern Rail – NEVER at night. NO INCREASE on current proposals. It is our only peaceful area and our only view. 4. Use of Existing A413 – NEVER at night. Weekend break. 5. Construction work – NEVER at night. Weekend break. 6. Haul road/New A413 7. Relocate us… DESPITE promises in CoCP. UNLESS agreed with us as a community…

35 A516 (35) HOL/00600/0154 What do we want to happen – the community that we want to remain… Support to live in our community: (a) Haul road/New A413 (b) Access out of and across the Existing A413 on foot/transport ( c ) Protect our ability to cycle/walk via Existing A413 and Small Dean even if cannot protect right to drive (d) Risk assessment of Existing A413 dangers, in particular, Dunsmore/Rocky Lane junctions, and action to protect us/users of the road.

(e) Worth a shot…

36 A516 (36) HOL/00600/0155 Compensation Scheme problems

Home, Pension, Investment in the future, Reward for the past, Ability to generate funds for business growth

37 A516 (37) HOL/00600/0156 What are our plans/problems?

Compensation Scheme: I want to stay (if life is made realistically One part CP/Vol CP (October petitioner) bearable but I will give it a go): CP - none 8 Rural Support Zone (Cash/VP)Voluntary I want to stay but all of this is making me CP – none re-think right now and I am not sure : Homeowner Payment – 3 or 4? 6 Can we have a summary according to I am being forced to move because of HS2? compensation scheme: Need To Sell – who knows?! 2 Need to Sell Complete: 2 Need to Sell Agreed subject to completion: 1 Need to Sell Application made: 2 (1 is being forced)

38 A516 (38) HOL/00600/0157 Compensate us according to distance from the Nuisance The Existing A413 – during Full compensation – including hidden construction it becomes ‘Our losses already suffered Railway Equivalent’ Fairly recognised as being The Compounds or even the Existing compensatable – based on A413 loss/nuisance actually suffered

Top End – 285m from line Friendly process Opposite Side – excluding Vince and Mandy – 280m-300m range.

Top End – 65m from Small Dean Launch Satellite Compound Hawthorn – 325m Bottom Houses (4) – 310m from the Rocky Lane Compound

39 A516 (39) HOL/00600/0158 Give us the same rights as anybody else Need To Sell? Right/Freedom To Sell Why do we need a Compelling Reason? You don’t! It is SO obvious. Make us a specific zone which is exempt. 41 drafts….

Why do we need to market it in a ‘You must be joking’ area? It is SO obvious. Make us a specific zone which is exempt. It makes the pain worse…

Property bond/Underwritten/Guarantee – examples re mge/remge

40 A516 (40) HOL/00600/0159 Representing the human side of our community… Margaret Cole Julie Lue

41 A516 (41) HOL/00600/0160

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Thursday, 17 September 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby Mr Mark Hendrick ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Ms Sara Dixon Ms Margaret Cole Ms Julie Lue Mr Oswald De Sybel Dr James Conboy

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

A517 (1) HOL/00600/0161 INDEX

Subject Page

Sara Dixon et al Submissions by Ms Dixon 3 Submissions by Margaret Cole 21 Further Submissions by Ms Dixon 22 Submissions by Julie Lue 27 Response from Mr Strachan 29

Oswald De Sybel Submissions by Mr De Sybel 46 Response from Mr Strachan 51

James Conboy Submissions by Dr Conboy 56 Response from Mr Strachan 68 Closing submissions by Dr Conboy 77

Statement from the Promoter 78

A517 (2) HOL/00600/0162

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Good morning, welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. We start off with petitioners, represented by Sara Dixon, and that’s 873, 887, 888, 875, 876, 877, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 889, 890, 892, 893, 894 and 895, 898 and 891, which is a nice spread. We’ll have the update after we have Sara’s – you go first, carry on?

Sara Dixon et al.

2. MS DIXON: Alright, thank you very much for having us. You’ve already listed us all. There are just two or three people from the road who are not here, two will be heard in October and two didn’t put in a petition, but basically you’ve got our entire road here, all listening at home on the camera thing.

3. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It would be helpful if we just briefly saw where London Road went – we know but many of those who are not local may not know.

4. MS DIXON: Yes, do you want to see it on a bigger screen?

5. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the promoters may have a…?

6. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Would you like to see traffic in particular or just the scheme, because I can give you either, I suspect?

7. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just to give a context?

8. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. If we go to P7552, I’m afraid we may need to zoom in? If we can zoom in on the area just over here on the right? A bit more detail. London Road is coming here, the A413, and Ms Dixon is dealing with residents along London Road in these properties along here; and as you can see, the line’s coming in towards Wendover at this point, towards the Small Dean viaduct –

9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So coming from London, you’ve come over the big viaduct -

10. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Exactly –

A517 (3) HOL/00600/0163 11. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Through the cutting, over the main viaduct –

12. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Wendover Dean viaduct, then back into false cutting; and then Rocky Lane – if we move the cursor to the right – overbridge here, coming down onto the A413 London Road; and then we’re coming towards the Small Dean –

13. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it’s one of the really close interactions of the railway line and local residents?

14. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is, it is fairly close to this confluence –

15. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Forgive me –

16. MS DIXON: No, it’s fine. Can I first of all, say thank you to David Walker, because he put our hearing back so that we have a meeting with Bucks County Council, but they didn’t turn up, so I haven’t been able to knock off quite of the few of the issues that we were hoping to knock away with them.

17. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We hope to become impressed by Buckinghamshire getting involved with the local residents!

18. MS DIXON: I am simply going to go through who we are, how we’re affected briefly, and what we want – because I suspect you probably know more about our road than we do by now. Our approach today – and in fact leading up to this is a very collaborative approach. I don’t think that’s us – so we have put this set of slides together, all of us; we’ve all worked on it – on the basis that if this is going to happen, we’re going to deal with it. So it’s very collaborative. That does not mean we’re not going to reserve our right to perhaps become a little bit more, appropriately litigious if we need to as and when things happen down the road, but for the moment, this is how best we think that we can move forward with things.

19. If I could just say that we support all of those who so far have spoken about strain on community services, businesses; health problems; damage to the AONB; damage to wildlife habitat, heritage, footpaths; visual blight; property blight; noise and vibration; and light pollution. So we support everyone so far who has had concerns over that. In relation to an underground tunnel, we support in particular the short tunnel that was

A517 (4) HOL/00600/0164 proposed by Wendover Society – I think that was last Monday? – petition 605. Like them, we would like HS2 to revisit their cost estimates. But of all of the various tunnels that are floating around – to the extent that they float – we like that one the best.

20. If I could have the first slide please? This is us: not using a drone, it’s using Google. Excuse the white lines, that’s simply where I’ve stuck the papers together, not very well. If I tap with this, do you see it all? Here, is our railway line. On the left of the picture, that is the Wendover end, and on the right of the picture, that is the Great Missenden, Aylesbury, London end. This is our railway line, by which we refer to the Chiltern Line. Then, this is our local road, which is the A413. You’ll be hearing later, it’s almost two roads – it’s like we’re living on two roads: peak time, bumper to bumper; middle of the day, we can cross it, it’s almost two roads. Then these are our houses here, from Caroline and Shaun at the top, all the way to John and Nancy at the bottom. Then we have these three houses here; and we have the smallholding here. The smallholding here, I’ll be back with Vince and Mandy in October. There is a house up here that will be demolished, but essentially, this is us. Then there are two houses here, one is shortly to be purchased by HS2 under the Need to Sell, and one already has been. So that’s who we are. You’ll see that the people who live here will have construction traffic coming down Rocky Lane – this is Rocky Lane – construction traffic going along London Road, which they’ll share with us over this side; and they will also obviously have the railway construction at the back.

21. Can I have the next slide please? Just briefly, three slides to show you that we do have a view. Many people think we don’t, but some people do have a view. This is the Wendover end of the road, and when you came to visit, you stood on the service road. Sort of straight ahead, almost above this tree, that’s where you saw that black balloon which was the height of the embankment. I don’t know if it was the height with all of the paraphernalia and ‘gubbins’ on top of it, or whether it was where the embankment stopped, but it was pretty high. The second picture is looking towards Wendover, and it’s still quite a nice view, and that’s the service road that I’ll be speaking about later. The sort of rather damaged looking bit.

22. Can I have the next slide please? Those of us who live in the middle, we do still have a nice view; we have – Kumar has the service station, the petrol station opposite, from where we get our alcohol, our tea, our coffee, and everything else. It’s our local

A517 (5) HOL/00600/0165 store. Then we have the houses opposite there, the ones I’ve just referred to. They are the ones that Rocky Lane goes next to. This is Rocky Lane on the other picture, coming down. So that’s what we see the middle of the road, and you can see over there in the distance on the right hand side, that’s where we’re going over, further towards Missenden.

23. Can I have the next slide please? Then the people who live at the far end of the road, there’s Rocky Lane straight ahead; you’ll see it’s not huge and yet that’s the construction traffic area. Look at the thinness, the narrowness of the main road area. Then, just to point out to you, this photograph on the right was taken from Rocky Lane. So that’s looking towards the houses opposite, and the people who live on the train side, the HS2 side, see that hedge, but also houses in front. But the point of this photograph is to see, if you want to get up towards Dunsmore, it’s a really horrible turning. You come out of Rocky Lane, you turn left and then you have to turn right. Those of us who work from home, it’s one of those areas where sometimes, you know, you hear the screech of vehicles and you just wait for the crash. Sometimes there’s a crash, sometimes there isn’t, but it’s nasty – it’s not a nice place.

24. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What’s the speed limit along the A413 road?

25. MS DIXON: This part, it’s supposed to be 40. Sometimes you can’t do more than 10 in peak, but in the middle of the day, they do more than that. We also have at weekends, the people on the motorbikes use it, and people on normal bikes use it. Everybody uses it. So there’s lots of different speed limits going along there.

26. Can I have the next slide please? People say, you know, ‘What’s your problem, you’ve got a railway?’ We love our railway, our little one. I’ve just taken this – Margaret took these photos. You can see that this is our railway; it’s our Chiltern line; and there’s about six an hour maximum at peak, I think. They range from 2 to 10 carriages. The railway sort of gently rumbles; it’s not a whoosh. HS2 will whoosh, we think. This is quite a gentle rumble and we quite like and you almost don’t notice it after a while. It’s a very different sound to not notice than HS2 we feel. You can see that there’s all the greenery on the right-hand side, and our houses are behind that. Then, I took that standing up, on our pergola – you’ll have to excuse all the nettles there – but that’s about 20 to 30 feet down. So it’s down. We can maybe see the top of it.

A517 (6) HOL/00600/0166 People who have hedging all the way at the back don’t see at it at all. So, we don’t mind a railway, we’re not fussed about a railway like that. It’s rather nice, we like it.

27. Can I have the next one please? I’m not suggesting HS2 is like that, but it would be nice. These are our back views; because they are our views and we protect them. So, the one on the left-hand side goes up towards Small Dean, and ‘Os’ will be talking later, and he lives up there. Then the one on the right, basically, is looking over towards Dunsmore, that’s Dunsmore at the top.

28. Next slide please? People keep asking us how far we are from the line and these numbers are wrong in terms of the impact that it makes on people, and I will come back to this, but at the top end, that is the left-hand side – that’s the Wendover end – we’re 285 miles –

29. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Metres?

30. MS DIXON: Metres – that would be great. 285 metres from the line, let’s make that a law now! At the bottom end, that is Great Missenden, and that’s 400 metres from the line. Opposite side – that’s excluding Vince and Mandy – they’re the ones with the smallholding, and we’re back with them in October – they’re 280-300 metres. So that’s on the railway side of the A413, the HS2 side. That distance completely excludes the topographical impact. It’s very different if there’s a great big thundering hill between you and the 285 metres. But when it’s pretty much flat or slope, that’s quite different. When I was a trainee solicitor, if I’d drafted the compensation scheme in the way that it’s been done, I’d have had it sent back – I was an articled clerk, it was a long time ago – but basically, a compensation scheme should compensate people for the actual loss, not a line down the centre of a page that someone’s drawn. For us, the nuisance is what’s significant. For us the nuisance is going to not just be the line; the road and the satellite compounds are the railway line, pre-construction. So, if you look at the nuisance impact, again, at the top end, that’s Wendover. Caroline and Shaun are only 65 metres from the Small Dean launch satellite compound. Hawthorn, in the middle, is about 325 metres; and the bottom houses, four of them, that’s towards the Great Missenden end, on each side of the road, are roughly about 310 metres from the Rocky Lane compound. Obviously, if you look at Rocky Lane itself, and the A413, our local road, we are on it. So these numbers mean nothing if you look at the context of them.

A517 (7) HOL/00600/0167 31. Can I have the next slide please? So this is about us, who are we? Well, if you look at us – and I’m very sorry to my friends, neighbours behind me – but they have a walking stick some of them. Look how many people are over 60. There’s a lot of wisdom there and it was actually them who really have pointed out the need for a collaborative approach to this. Because as they said, in the early days, we all wanted to move, but actually, the more you look at it, and the more you try and think about it, why should the hell should we be moved because of a train? So it’s very much about listening to them and trying to make it work so that they can stay there, and we can all stay there. That’s been our approach to this. So we have a lot of people who are elderly who do not want to move from where they are. So we have to make this work for them.

32. Also, look at how many of us are self-employed. Self-employed people don’t put their hands up in the air, or their heads in the sand and say, ‘Woe is us’. We tend to say, ‘Right, this is going to happen, how are we going to deal with it?’ That is very much what we as an entire road have decided to do. Look at the variety of people that we’ve got: we’re all sorts, all sorts of incomes, all sorts of political views – although they keep changing a lot at the moment – all sorts of things going on there. Again, if it’s coming, let’s tackle it. We are the sort of people who are used to trying to get on with life. Look at how long people stay in that road. Most of us – the large part of us have been there for between 10 and 51 years. The man with the cricket bat is to remind me that Peter, behind me, was born in his house. It was his grandmother’s house, and he used to play cricket on the A413 – that’s to remind me to tell you that we’re not against change.

33. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s a baseball bat.

34. MS DIXON: Is it a baseball bat? Is it really? Did you play baseball? He played baseball! Thank you for that!

35. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the other one!

36. MS DIXON: That’s who we are, that’s how we’ve approached this. Can I have the next slide please? We are a community; nobody seems to realise that. Our postal address is Wendover, but nobody knows that; we are not included and are really included in anything to do with Wendover. People think we’re Wendover Dean, as well, which is further down the road, not us; that longer collection of houses – I think you’ve already heard from them. So when people think they’ve covered us, they

A517 (8) HOL/00600/0168 haven’t. They think, ‘Wendover, that’s us’. It isn’t. We have a Wendover postcode. And we are not Dunsmore; we are a little road in the middle of all of this – HP22 6PN – and we are connected by our postcode. Who has mentioned us? The only person, really who has mentioned us, is David Lidington, when he said we were one of the worst affected areas on the entire route. We’re completely absent from the CFA: we’re not mentioned in any of their assessments of communities. There’s that film, Passport to Pimlico, well we should do that quite frankly because then we might get a bit more noticed! HS2 sort of refers to us when they say – and this is not a quote – where they say, ‘There’s only a little bit that’s not under a tunnel, what are you worried about?’ We are that little bit.

37. We can’t bring you beautiful trees, we can’t bring you a wood to be protected, we can’t bring you – we do have glis glis but they’re not protected. They’re annoying but they’re not protected. We can’t bring you beautiful, Grade II listed buildings. We are only people, that’s all we can bring you, but that ought to be enough to be treated and taken as care of as trees and buildings. Our amenities, we do have amenities. We have to use that road to get into Wendover or Great Missenden, and we use the car. If we want to walk or cycle, you have to go up via Small Dean because it’s a dangerous road. You can do it sometimes but it’s dangerous. So we have medical appointments, etc. either of us – Wendover, Great Missenden – for which we need a car.

38. Opposite is Kumar, we need to get across that road. In the middle of the day we can get across the road, the elderly can get across the road. That’s where they get their papers from; that’s where I get my alcohol from. It’s very important. If that were a shop – a proper shop, and we were a community – we would have a crossing and that would be protected.

39. And our health: we have a range of health problems, as you would expect with the age that we’ve got, but we need and we support each other. That need and support is going to be more and greater as the construction starts. Therefore, we have to be able to get across that road. We’re not all on one side; we must be able to get across that road.

40. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The only safe way to do that is with light-controlled crossing?

41. MS DIXON: Yes, yes. I mean, you can, in the middle of the day, it’s not so bad,

A517 (9) HOL/00600/0169 but peak hours – and those peak hours may well grow, as we can see.

42. If we could have the next slide please? I’ve taken this from this map which – HS2 came to visit us and it’s the first time anyone has given us anything that puts us in the centre. I couldn’t find this map online because at that stage when Martin came, they were – only just thought of this electricity substation, what was it called – ‘Additional land required for utility works and access’. This was the first time anyone had put us in the centre of a map. We’re always on the edge, whenever they’re big and fixed. So I have taken that from that version, your version of this.

43. So, how we’re affected during construction? In essence, we’re in the middle of a construction site, particularly the people on the other side, who are the nearest side to HS2. So, on the left you’ll see the yellow – there’s a construction compound. Here is a construction compound. Here’s another one, and I haven’t even started to put in the ones in Wendover or the other side further down the road. The green is obviously the construction route, and here’s another one here. The pink is obviously the compulsory purchased land, bypassing all of us, except for Vince and Mandy which we’ll talk about in October.

44. The distance of this road, the green construction road here, our local A413, we reckon is about 20 to 30 feet. So that’s the distance that we’d have to get across, roughly, I think. We have real problems with the road already. We have had examples of – I’ll refer to the service road in a minute, but we have had examples of cars undertaking on the service roads, skidding and going into houses along here, and ended up in the front of the houses.

45. Can I have the next slide please? The only reason I’ve put that on is because I’m not going to read them out, all of them, but if you look at the figures for operation of Small Dean Viaduct main compound, Rocky Lane underbridge satellite compound, Small Dean Viaduct launch satellite compound, they are the nearest; but obviously we’ll pick up traffic and noise and everything from Wendover Dean Viaduct compound, Risborough Road and Wendover green tunnel. So we are in the middle of a construction site that will carry on for – I mean, at the longest it looks like it will be six years, nine months, with everything that that entails. I’m not going to read through all of that, because you can actually see it for yourself. But not many people are living in

A517 (10) HOL/00600/0170 the middle of a construction site these days; we will be.

46. Could I have the next slide please? The purpose of this slide is to refer you to HS2’s traffic figures. If you could then go onto the next slide, I’ll tell you what I’ve done with them. Anyone in business looks at trends, first, before they do anything. Aylesbury is growing. There will be an increase in traffic without HS2, purely as Aylesbury. People leave Aylesbury to go to London, either by the A40 – is it the A40? A41, thank you; or our road. That is it. So, even without HS2, these figures will grow. So we thought, have a look at the local transport plans, see if there’s anything that could give us any idea of trends, because you can’t just plonk new figures on top of something that’s not a firm foundation. Where is the firm foundation? We couldn’t find it. So, how can we rely on HS2’s figures? We don’t know what they’ve used because there doesn’t seem to be anything, so we did our own.

47. So we had a 14 year old schoolboy sitting next to his mum in the pouring rain, for an hour – and everyone else down the road – counting. I’ll just take you through what we found. The brown – except it looks red – those figures were taken in August; and the blue were taken in September when schoolchildren and people went back to work. As you can see – and actually, it starts sooner than 7.00, but I think those of us who are up before 7.00 are usually out working. But about 6.30, my husband has to be out of the road, otherwise he has to turn left up to the roundabout and turn around; it starts to build up around 6.30, like most places.

48. So, 7.00 to 9.00 is our peak time, going away towards London; and 4.00 to 7.00 is our peak time coming back, and the corresponding figures for the other direction. So for us, between 10.00 and 3.00 is really the only time we can get across that road; and it sort of varies between 9.00 to 10.00; and 3.00 to 4.00. Really, we’re on a hiding to nothing, because if HS2 uses the peak time for people to get to work and the haulage, we’re not going to be able to get out at all, unless people very kindly let us out. And then, if they say, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll put everything on non-peak hours’, we can’t get across the road. It’s our only time for getting across the road and out of our houses – and getting to work, kids to school, lots of us care for other people – like anyone else in the world, we need to just move sometimes. The emergency vehicles are there as well, I think quite a few people have raised issues about the emergency vehicles – these are our figures, just taken with our own clickers. I think we said that all but two of them on

A517 (11) HOL/00600/0171 each occasion – of the totals were ambulances? Yes. So that’s the pattern of our life as it is at the moment.

49. Then you’ve got HS2’s predictions, and I haven’t done this brilliantly – but just to have a look. They predicted – and I put their predictions from their calculations in green. This is without HS2’s traffic on it; this is there prediction for 2021. I wasn’t quite sure whether the Rocky Lane figures that they calculated should be added into the figures further down the London Road. So I added them in, but you could take them out. But anyway, it’s not scientific, it can’t be until we’ve got something better done. However, you can see that there’s predicted growth of 1,000 over six years. I don’t know whether that’s acceptable or to be expected or not. That’s about a 10% increase. If you increase by 10% without HS2 you have gridlock, complete gridlock. We have it a fair amount at the moment; we’ve got complete gridlock outside our houses. If there’s traffic – if there’s a traffic accident, then nothing happens and I’ll refer in a minute to what happens those. I know you’ve heard a lot about that so I won’t be too long on that.

50. Can I have the next slide please? Now, with all of that traffic, people undertake on our service road. This is the service road; it’s the really poorly maintained bit. Left hand picture, it’s on the left hand of the van; right hand picture, it’s where someone’s parked in that service road. We try to keep that clear – and I’ve got some photos in a minute to show you why. People undertake on that road, and in order to get out, we have to get onto it. If they undertake – sometimes they’re coming up for example, towards me on my right hand side, and I am there and they don’t see me. So with an increase in traffic, more and more people will use that service road because they’ll try and undertake. It’s equally dangerous on the other side because that has a road that basically is a road that is supposed to – Michael gave me – deceleration, that’s the word. A deceleration road he said, I have to refer to it. People on the other side of that road, on the right-hand side, going towards Rocky Lane, there’s a deceleration road that people go into in order to turn left up Rocky Lane. People use that as a stopping off place to go into the garage. People use our service road, as well, as a stopping off place to go to the garage. That’s great for Kumar’s business – we wouldn’t want to stop that, but it is really, really dangerous in a way that we worry it will be.

51. Could I have the next slide please?

A517 (12) HOL/00600/0172 52. MR BELLINGHAM: Sorry, could I just clarify the point, is that where we stopped? Is that where the bus stopped?

53. MS DIXON: Yes, you stopped, left hand –

54. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: On the west side, going in –

55. MR BELLINGHAM: Quite near that Labour poster there?

56. MS DIXON: You were past that, going in towards Wendover. See where the road curves –

57. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Did you say Labour poster or did you say ‘house for sale’ poster?

58. MS DIXON: You had a nice view, though, in the service station, because you were looking out over fields, where the embankment will go.

59. This was our effort to show you what happens when you have to try and get out. On the left hand side, is my car, it has a short front, it doesn’t have a long boot. So people with longer frontages, sorry, have to go out further into the road. Julie parked her 4x4 into the road and that’s my here, in the pouring rain, trying to get the distance of what a lorry would be, parked there. I can’t see Rocky Lane, coming out. So I have to go into the road in order to see anyone coming down from Rocky Lane, or anyone coming from my right, depending on the size of the lorry. On the right hand photograph, Shaun parked his van as an example, on the service road, so that, again, you can see – I’d have to go quite out into that road, to be able to see anyone exiting from the garage. They might be turning right in front of me. So this is a real problem with our service road. It is very dangerous and when Caroline and Shaun bought their house, which is one at the very, very end of the road, at the Wendover end, they were told they must not have anyone use the A413 service road for the building; it had to be kept clear. Their house has had to be built so far back, so that people can turn in their frontage, not to use that service road. It’s there for service, but it’s our protection, if you like. If people use it to undertake or park on it, it’s very, very dangerous; very dangerous.

60. Can I have the next slide please? This is the lie of the land. You can see, again, this is looking up towards Wendover. Mr Bellingham, I think you were probably on this

A517 (13) HOL/00600/0173 side, where that is, looking across there?

61. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

62. MS DIXON: The road is not great, and I’ll show you some flooding in a minute. But can you see where it sort of goes down, and it’s the same on the other side. Can I have the next slide please? We do have drainage problems as you can see. That’s something going towards Wendover and you’ll that that is Jack and Olive’s house. The rain, basically, drains downwards and they flood; quite a few houses along there flood. Then you can see Kumar’s service station. That happens a lot. Rocky Lane – I mustn’t forget Rocky Lane – because that has an asbestos water main, which always floods at the bottom. This is a continuing problem. So the people who live on the edge of Rocky Lane and are on the corner – Rocky Lane and our local A413 – have that sort of flooding. So anything that increases that flooding is of real concern to us. Of course you can imagine in the rain with traffic as well.

63. Can I have the next slide please? This is just to demonstrate to you Rocky Lane, the extract on the left is to tell you that at some point – sorry, Small Dean Lane – at some point will be closed, as will Rocky Lane. Small Dean Lane is very important to us – that must be kept open. At the time we did these slides, we were under the impression it would be completely closed off, but I think HS2 confirmed to the previous petitioner that it would still remain open to people walking and people on bicycles, and that’s great, because that’s our only – we think, I hope that’s correct – our only route, if the road at the end is blocked, for us into Wendover. The elderly people who can’t cycle, who can’t walk, they have to be able to get through in a car. So if the A413 is blocked off, during an accident or anything, we have to have access via Small Dean.

64. May I have the next slide please? That again is just to show you where Small Dean Lane goes, and where it will be closed temporarily, but if we could possibly have part of it open for people in cars as well as for bicycles and walkers, that would be great.

65. Next slide please? You can see – and you’ve heard from Dunsmore so I shan’t repeat it. It’s a rat-run, rat-run hell, rat-run city. Robert comes back from work and he’s sometimes back at one o’clock because there’s been an accident further down and everyone is going like this. It’s gridlock. Also, at the Rocky Lane, up towards The Lee.

A517 (14) HOL/00600/0174 66. Next slide please? We took some nice photos of Dunsmore Lane, on a sunny day. Julie is the one in the left, she’s not a big woman; the van is not a big van. That is where occasionally construction traffic or traffic trying to avoid construction traffic will go, and at the bottom, that’s looking down from the top of Dunsmore Lane, to the bottom, photograph on the right; that’s where traffic will exit and enter. Sometimes you wait a while there as well. That’s also the dangerous bit, that if you’ve come out of Rocky Lane, you’re trying to turn into.

67. Then the next slide please? Small Dean Lane, we couldn’t have hoped for two better pictures. That’s Debbie in her post van. Then, they’re cyclists. They’re not big lanes. You can’t pass like this, so if there’s any problems on the A413 and people go up here, you can’t. It’s utter gridlock, and of course, that is where ‘Os’, who’s speaking to you later, he lives down that road.

68. Next slide please? So really, how are we affected during construction? We need to know what the risk assessment is of our road. What risk assessment has been done on our road? It is reasonably foreseeable – and I’m using my words wisely here – it is reasonably foreseeable that if HS2 uses our road, there will be a traffic accident if they use it in the way that they’re currently proposing. It is likely that that cause will have something to do with HS2. We need a risk assessment of our ability to get in and out of our homes, both in cars and across the road. We want to know what the situation will be if the roads around us are closed for us; we must have a risk assessment of our service road for the way that it may well be used and what could be done to minimise that. I’ve already spoken about flooding.

69. So now I’d like to move onto the next slide? Air quality. Look at the right hand side, with the elderly people that we have; they’re fairly tough and they’re not going to let a train get in the way of their lives. But sometimes health takes over. So air quality is of a concern. We know that there is a lot that is unknown, and that’s life. In business, if something is happening and you’re not sure what it’s going to look like in the future, you do a 5-10% leeway don’t you? You do a number of scenarios planning, and you have Plan B in case you are wrong and Plan B has to happen. We must have measures in place from now, right now, so that if HS2 is wrong about the air quality assessment they’ve done – which apparently is negligible, then they can monitor it and track it, and so can we. Then as you’ll see later, we can work with them on it, but we must have

A517 (15) HOL/00600/0175 measures in place right now, because there’s no data. There may well be unknowns; better to have systems in place to work out what they will be. We don’t know, roughly, what the wind behaviour will be. We hear horror stories; we’re not professionals, we don’t know. Will the construction buildings affect wind behaviours? In London they certainly do. So really, what we’re saying is, nobody knows what the future looks like in some areas, so let’s be business-like and put something in place right now to assess what that might, scenario planning, 5-10% leeway either way, measures in place right now.

70. Next slide please? Views during construction? Hoarding design? There’s some really nice hoardings in London; we wondered whether, perhaps, we could have something looking beautiful? I don’t know but we must be involved in what the hoarding design looks like.

71. Noise during construction. Night time must be banned and weekends. We’ve all worked on construction contracts – we’re basically, at the end of the day, everyone’s working to the hilt just so they don’t have to pay any penalty clauses. We must try and protect what we can, because we have nothing to protect us during the week from this, so we must at least have night time and weekends, and not Saturday mornings. Lighting during construction. We’d like to know a bit more about that as well.

72. Could we have the next slide please? Then this is the final slide about how we’re affected during construction. This is happening now, and this is an extract from one of our neighbours: they haven’t petitioned, but we’ll be hearing about this exact same thing from someone who has later, from Julie. This is now – they are doing up their house and they have to – they wanted to borrow some money on their property to do windows, and all the sorts of things they’re doing on their house. That was their aim, to do up their house, to add value. They’ve been turned down for a mortgage, or a charge over their property, simply because of the position of HS2. Those of us who are self- employed, might want to grow our businesses. If you’re a director of a company or a sole trader, you often give a guarantee secured on your property. We’re not going to be able to. Some people are coming to the end of the mortgage and might want to change their mortgage provider or go to a lower rate; that is a change in the legal holding of that property. We are going to be turned down for the usual things that most people, if they work for themselves or run their homes, are able to do. We are not. The Need to Sell

A517 (16) HOL/00600/0176 doesn’t help us out with this; we must have something to guarantee something or other to protect us. They’re now going to have to sell their house.

73. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I interrupt for a moment? I think, Chairman, at some stage, we ought to consider how we can get the Council of Mortgage Lenders in, because this is an issue that is going to affect people up and down the line, in Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and the like; and if there’s going to be a blanket refusal because of this rail project, I think the Council of Mortgage Lenders should be held responsible for working out the way in which they don’t provide this automatic ban on considering a loan for those who might be affected?

74. MS DIXON: Yes, thank you. I note it wasn’t envisaged this would happen; it can’t have been, but it is. Thank you very much.

75. CHAIR: Thank you for providing us with that information, because people say things because very rarely do we get letters or something to have on paper.

76. MS DIXON: Yes. We have more; they’ve gone to about 10, there’s more. Julie will be talking later. You can see theirs; we didn’t want to put it on here.

77. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Often when the leaders of institutions come in front of a Parliamentary Committee, they often find solutions which aren’t available to people lower down the organisation, considering an individual application.

78. MS DIXON: Thank you very much for that. Then, just briefly, how we’re affected post-construction, then I’ll hand over to Margaret. Could I have the next slide please? Principally, post-construction: so when the building site that we will be living on has calmed down a little bit, we will have the railway line. Principally, we will be affected by the views, the noise and what we’re calling our assets – which are really our homes.

79. Could I have the next slide please? These are the views – this is what HS2 said they would do. So we have things like new hedging, trees, balancing ponds, something called a woodland belt, woodland blocks – I don’t know how that differs. I think our point really is, this is cosmetic – it’s much appreciated – it is cosmetic. You cannot hide a viaduct. You can’t hide it; and you can’t hide an embankment. People have said to

A517 (17) HOL/00600/0177 us: make a choice. You cannot make a choice whether you want something looking beautiful and something that sounds horrendous.

80. So can I have the next slide please? Looking at this slide and then the next one. You’ll be familiar with these. We don’t really have much of a look-in when it comes to being acknowledged as affected by noise, really. They don’t think we’re affected by it. This is like air: if you don’t know what the traffic or the noise or the view or anything in the future is going to be like, you plan for Plan B and you do it now. So you do your scenario planning. What does this look like if they’re wrong by 10% or 20%? Let’s have some measures in now, let’s put some noise monitors in now so that we know what we’re dealing with; and HS2 knows whether they’ve veered off course as and when they veer of course. But we have to know what Plan B is for us, what happens if they’re wrong? Let’s do some scenarios.

81. The other thing I would say, we are specialists in noise: we live on a road and we have a railway line. We are the only specialists in reality. It is the type of noise; it’s not necessarily the volume for us. We have a lot of traffic that hums along beautifully. You get a motorbike that’s not that much noisier – or the volume is not much noisier, you notice it because it’s a different noise; and it’s a patterned noise. Something that’s a lovely hum is fine. But it’s these patterns of noises. 34 trains an hour are not going to hum along unless you connect them all together and they never stop one to one. So for us, it’s about the pattern. That’s the only comment we can make, but nobody knows what it is going to be like, so I go back to what I said: scenario planning and please can we have some monitors in?

82. Can we have the next slide? Balancing ponds. I knew those as toxic ponds. I’m told that they’re beautiful and lovely and wildlife, nature. We asked for them to be open air swimming pools, but we don’t know what type they’re going to be, but you can only try can’t you?

83. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They can’t do their job if they’re full of water before the floods!

84. MS DIXON: Okay, so we only swim when it floods, fair enough! The point is, we don’t know enough about them, and we would very much like to be involved with the design of them, because they are all around us. We have quite a few: we have two in

A517 (18) HOL/00600/0178 front of us, some further down the road, and some, I think, further up the road. There are so many unknowns for us, every unknown that there is, we are in the middle of it. So our message, really, is: let us get involved in them. We try not to listen to rumours; the best way is to get us involved in the design. That’s really – I’ll stop there, because in a minute, I’m going to actually – actually no, I will carry on and just do what we want to happen, and then I’ll ask Margaret.

85. Next slide please? There are four areas really that we want to think about. For us, it’s the aesthetics, it’s being part of a construction site, it’s continuing to live as a community, and it’s a compensation scheme.

86. Next slide please? Underground tunnel. We don’t know, even, how an underground tunnel would affect us, because I’m assuming we would still be used, but we will take it; we will take any tunnel you can give us. As we said earlier, we particularly like the one that the Wendover Society put forward. But, we are trying to be as reasonable as possible, and to help ourselves live there. We’re not having a tantrum and tears; we are trying to work on this. We have to make a choice between views and noise. The only option for us is an underground tunnel. It solves all of our problems. As I said, if it’s going to be a choice of viaduct and embankment – or, sorry, noise reduction and view: can we please be involved as a community? Don’t expect us to have a say through Wendover or anywhere else? We are a community. Balancing ponds, again, can we be involved as a community. Everything around us is going to affect us, the views and the aesthetics of it. So we need to be – we are happy to be involved and collaborate with HS2. That’s what they said they want, so they should do that. We must be considered in every relevant impact statement by HS2, as a road, as a community.

87. Can I have the next slide please? I’ve written this in detail so that HS2 can take it away as a checklist. Everything seems to come down to this Code of Construction thing which is beautifully written, sounds wonderful. But when I asked HS2 whether they could give us any examples when it was used for the Olympics – I gather it was based on the Olympics – of how many complaints were made about it, etc. so we could get some idea of whether it was reliable, they couldn’t give us any information. So I would like to know, if that is the chosen standard, why have they chosen it? What have been the problems with it? What have they learned about it? They are asking a lot of us –

A517 (19) HOL/00600/0179 they are asking us to rely on a document that seems to have the answer to everything.

88. In order to minimise the risks to us – and it’s on that basis that we have done this, and to be collaborative, and to avoid numerous litigation claims, which we are quite happy to take if we want to but we shan’t at this stage – we need monitors in place from now, regarding air and noise, as we’ve already said. We would like monthly meetings, once construction starts, regarding the next months’ plans, with the construction leads for all three construction sites around us, Friday afternoon for the next month, something like that. And we want the traffic flow predictions for that following month built in, from broader afield, so we can plan work together. If we know something is happening, there’ll be an increase in traffic. We won’t plan a party; we won’t plan to have hospital appointments, etc. Because we can manage if we know in advance. We mustn’t – we cannot rely on an ombudsman or whatever the idea is. They have no teeth.

89. In relation to the monthly meetings ourselves, we – Bucks County Council doesn’t turn up to meetings; they are supposed to be the ones that are supposed to be, if you like, protecting us from the HS2 – which is David versus Goliath. It seems to us that HS2 is also riding roughshod through Bucks County Council; they do not seem to be able to cope. In that sense, then, who is going to monitor and make sure these meetings happen? You are going to hate this, however, I think something – or we think something like this Committee, not necessarily you, should stay in place until it is built, so that anybody who has any concerns – and I don’t mean whinging concerns, I mean big concerns, can be brought to a place like this once every six months. Because it’s the fear and the distrust that drives all of this. If you get rid of that, and you know that there is a place you can go to have things sorted by people who have clout with HS2, because Bucks County Council won’t, then actually it makes it a lot easier to be collaborative.

90. Use of Chiltern Rail. Please, never use Chiltern Rail at night; they do occasionally do some work on the Chiltern Rail, and it’s not so bad. But please don’t, please don’t increase its use on current proposals. We like the Chiltern Rail as it is – it’s our only break, it’s our only view.

91. Use of the existing A413 – and I use existing deliberately – never use our local, existing road outside our house at night, and give us a break at the weekends. Give us a break from construction work. We would like a haul road, which is what we were going

A517 (20) HOL/00600/0180 to talk to Bucks County Council about. We mentioned it a while ago. We heard nothing from them about what they thought about it, until we had the PRD from HS2 when they said, ‘Bucks County Council don’t want it’. How do they know when they’ve not done any work on our road or anything? How do they know we can’t have it? So we would like a haul road that becomes the new A413, which would probably fit quite nicely with the potential growth, as a result of Aylesbury. We would like some work done on that; we can’t do it, but we think that should be looked at. Then, possibly, relocate it if it gets too bad. Other people have asked for that. Our aim is to stay through this; we want to work with it. But if it gets really bad, we should be relocated from the centre of the construction site. We need, as I’ve said – we don’t trust a document; we need to know that it’s been reliable.

92. Now, I think, I would like to turn briefly to Margaret who will basically tell you why we actually like living there, and then I’ll go to the compensation scheme problems that we’ve got. Am I alright for time?

93. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the Members of the Committee don’t mind. We’ve heard a lot from people some way away who might be affected a little; you’re very close and are affected a lot. So don’t feel under any time pressure.

94. CHAIR: And you’re quite jolly.

95. MS DIXON: I was going to ask you for a joke after the first 15 minutes, but I didn’t know whether that would be appropriate. So do feel free. Margaret? This is Margaret and she’s one of my neighbours.

96. MS COLE: Good morning.

97. CHAIR: Hello, Margaret.

98. MS COLE: My name is Margaret Cole and I live with my husband John at New Hope Lodge, London Road, Wendover, HP22 6PN. Our petition is 887 and 888, are among those in the presentation by our Roll B Agent, Sara. This is a short statement about our community and why we like it here.

99. For myself, we’ve been here since May 1991. Like many others of our generation, we benefited from the property boom which resulted in our living in a house

A517 (21) HOL/00600/0181 and an area to which, even in my wildest dreams, I could not have aspired. Throughout the many moves in my life, there have been problems and disruptions until now. We’ve become a community and I feel safe here.

100. Casual visitors to our community tend to see it as a not particularly tranquil place. They see a main road, the A413; and we have a railway, the Chiltern Line, running along the bottom of our gardens. They see a garage and two semi-industrial units. What they don’t see are our gardens, which are quiet and peaceful; or our incredible sunset skies. We have a modern health centre in Wendover; and three first-class hospitals, Stoke Mandeville, High Wycombe and John Radcliffe in Oxford. Local bus transport is poor for us, but a short car ride along the A413 takes us to two Chiltern Line stations, and the national bus network.

101. You will have seen from our presentation that people who move here tend to stay. Ours are good, family houses, on relatively generous plots, and we have excellent local schools. For the self-employed, there is space to create private work areas. As a result, some residents have spent substantial sums of money to expand and improve their homes; decisions that were never about a short-term gain. With HS2, those investments may never be realised. For older residents, their years of quiet enjoyment of their homes will end with the start of construction of HS2 and they may never see it return. We do have issues. We have no mains gas, no mains drainage, no cable, and no fast fibre broadband. A move to another area would probably have all these, but it would be at the cost of what we’ve built here. A well-developed, mutual support system has grown up here, and we greatly value the knowledge that we look after each other. Only a full tunnel will stop the fragmenting of our community. I’d ask you please to give your support to this request. Thank you.

102. CHAIR: Thank you.

103. MS DIXON: That is why, on the slide that you have in front of you, we want your help to help us stay and live there. The slide you have in front of you is all about, ‘How can we stay?’ Haul road, the new A413 would help. Access out of and across the existing A413 on foot or transport, that would be, I would imagine, fairly complex, but I think some work has to be done on that. Protect our ability to cycle or walk via the existing A413 and Small Dean, even if you can’t protect the right to drive along it. And

A517 (22) HOL/00600/0182 we must have a risk assessment of the existing A413 dangers, Dunsmore and Rocky Lane – that screeching is horrible when it happens, and action to protect us and all these people behind me as we use the road.

104. This final Christmas tree was worth a shot. In the olden days, you had a Section 52 agreement; or Section 106 they’re called now – I won’t call it a bung – but if you wanted something and you wanted to develop, you had to pay something in return. We have a lovely Christmas Tree field behind us and we wondered if somebody might want to buy that for us in return for HS2 putting something through our land. But actually, the point about that is that we are very, very concerned at the power struggle and the ability of Bucks County Council to actually protect us. We are very concerned that this is not a Section 106 type power relationship. It is – it feels like HS2 – and I will be a little bit dramatic – is not just ploughing through the countryside. It’s ploughing through Bucks County Council.

105. CHAIR: The Bill does require HS2 to come to agreements with local authorities and that has been happening all the way up and down the line, where local authorities have engaged with HS2, agreements have been undertaken.

106. MS DIXON: It may just be then that those have already happened and we’ve not got to that stage with Bucks County Council yet.

107. CHAIR: I think Bucks were more focused on the arguments about tunnels than the arguments about the detail of traffic and other issues, which we’re sort of coming onto. So, local authority do have a lot of power and sway and are perfectly – and clearly also, in order for HS2 not to have their traffic sitting on the A413 with everybody else’s traffic, then the highway authority are going to be pretty important players, not least because most of them have got computer modelling for what happens to roads. There’s work at the moment going on, with junctions, to see how the junctions on the A413 can be improved. But I’m not sure that we – outside the Bill limits, we can’t impose roads on Bucks. But, where there is an argument for investment in a highway then it’s something that local Members of Parliament may wish to take up with the Department for Transport. Up on other parts of the line, MPs have been using a hook: ‘Because this is coming through, perhaps we can have a bypass, perhaps we can do other things?’ Because there is several years until the project is likely to have a big impact, then there

A517 (23) HOL/00600/0183 is leeway there for some highway improvements. But one just has to be thinking now about what one can do.

108. MS DIXON: Well, we look forward to seeing Bucks County Council.

109. MR HENDRICK: I think you can keep up to date with it as well, and liaising with your County Council.

110. MS DIXON: We try, but they don’t turn up to meetings. So I think that, so far, we’re not that impressed. But I think perhaps if they see us as more of a community then we might be kept more up to date with things possibly.

111. Shall I move onto the compensation scheme for the moment?

112. CHAIR: Yes please.

113. MS DIXON: Next slide please? It seems silly, really, to talk about being compensated for something that’s going to make us move away from our houses, because that’s the only basis on which the compensation schemes seem to work. Again, look at our age groups: our houses are our homes; they are our pensions, as with everybody down the line. They are an investment in the future; they are a reward for the past and, as you’ve already pointed out, they are the ability to generate funds for business growth. A lot of us are self-employed; a lot of us are retired. Our houses are not transient places; they work for us if we’re self-employed; and they protect us and reward us if we’re retired.

114. May I have the next slide please? This is a rough idea of where we are at the moment. None of us, apart from Vince and Mandy – Mandy is at the back, we’re back in October – come within the compulsory purchase scheme. None of us come, as far as we can tell, within the voluntary purchase scheme. We’re not sure how many of us are entitled to a home owner payment because – we try to track who has had what information and try to coordinate it, and some people have had something saying that they’re entitled to a home owner payment, and other people who are clearly closer to the line, haven’t. So we wondered whether it would be possible for HS2 to do a summary of those who they think, further down the line. Need to Sell, we’re not sure. I’ll come back to that in a minute. We had a think about this. Initially, when we put in our

A517 (24) HOL/00600/0184 petitions, as we said, we all thought we wanted to just go. And then we thought about it more clearly and thought, ‘Well, let’s try and make it work’. Eight of us – eight houses, sorry – would be quite happy to stay if it’s workable. Six of us are thinking, ‘I’m still not absolutely sure’. Two are being forced to move because of how the compensation scheme is operating. Two Need to Sells are completed. One Need to Sell is agreed, subject to completion. Two Need to Sell applications are currently being made, one of which is within one of the forced ones.

115. CHAIR: What do you mean, ‘forced’? You have to apply?

116. MS DIXON: Because the only way to realise, as we’ll hear from Julie, their cash flow problems, is to sell their property, because they can’t get a charge over it for securing debts etc.

117. CHAIR: This comes back to the credit problem?

118. MS DIXON: Yes.

119. CHAIR: Right.

120. MS DIXON: Next slide please? I go back to the basics of compensation, which you should be compensated according to your actual loss, not numbers. The existing A413, that which is the construction route, is actually our railway equivalent, pre-construction. Post-construction, the issue is the railway; but our railway, pre- construction is the road. It’s as bad as the railway could be for some people post- construction; all the compounds. I just repeat there again – that the left hand side, right hand side, how far people are from the line, versus how far they are actually from the cause of the nuisance. A compensation scheme compensates you for nuisance of some variety.

121. Full compensation: some people have already suffered losses as Julie will show you. But it has to be full compensation. In some senses, if you take – we live in our houses because they’re cheaper than anywhere else because they’re not in the middle of expensive Wendover, which doesn’t have a road, we live where we do. If we take those houses, if - but for HS2, if you take those houses and say, ‘We’ll put you somewhere as if HS2 weren’t happening’, we couldn’t afford anywhere else nearby. So you give us,

A517 (25) HOL/00600/0185 say, I don’t know, £100 for our property. In order to buy a property similar somewhere else nearby, we’d have to pay £150. So, that’s not – if you’re only giving us £100 – it sounds very greedy – but if you’re only giving us £100, that’s not £150, that’s not full compensation. It needs to be fairly recognised as being compensable, the nuisance that we’re suffering, not the distance. The reality of living in a compound needs to be fairly recognised that that is a loss that we are suffering. And it needs to be a friendly process. So far, it seems okay from what people tell me down the road. There is one area I’ll come to in a minute, other than that.

122. Could I have the next slide please? Give us the same rights as anybody else. Why does it have to be a need to sell? What happens if I’m just a flibbertigibbet and I just fancy moving every now and then? Anyone else can, why can’t I? I’m not given to asking for permission from anybody to do something if it’s legal to do so. I own my property, so why is not the freedom to sell like you do. You don’t have to ask anybody’s permission to move. The scenery changes, you get fed up with living where you do, you change as long as your job lets you or the schools let you. Why do we have to ask for permission? It’s ridiculous. Why do we need this compelling reason? It is so obvious that we have a compelling reason: we’re in the middle of a construction site. We may not choose to use it, but we should be exempt in some way, in places where it is so obvious. So I don’t know if it’s possible to have specific zones.

123. I was visiting someone who was filling in their Need to Sell and there’s nothing particularly wrong, as I said – people are friendly on the phone, they’re very helpful. But he was on his 41st draft. It’s horrible to have to go through it. It’s horrible, it really is; when it’s so obvious we shouldn’t have to do it. Why do we need to market in what we’re calling a, ‘You must be joking’ area! You go to a local estate agent and say, ‘Can you put…’, and they say, ‘You must be joking’, or words to that effect, ‘Give us two grand and we’ll think about it’. There are zones where you shouldn’t have to market your home. Some people have put their house on the market just to see what happens. We love our houses and we have to put up with people coming around to have a look and then have them say, ‘HS2, no’. It’s painful. We don’t want to have to do that.

124. CHAIR: If it helps, we will revisit Need to Sell and some of the issues you’re raising in the autumn.

A517 (26) HOL/00600/0186 125. MS DIXON: Thank you.

126. CHAIR: And maybe generate a further report, because it’s working a lot better than the Exceptional Hardship scheme, but there still are a number of concerns which are being raised with us.

127. MS DIXON: Yes, and I’m sure it wasn’t intended to be that way. And obviously, therefore, you’ll be looking property bung etc. as part of that process.

128. May I have the next slide please? That’s the end of me burbling on, but I would like Julie to tell you their experience, if that’s possible?

129. MS LUE: Good morning.

130. CHAIR: Morning.

131. MS LUE: Having been caught up in one of the worst recessions the construction industry has experienced, we needed to raise capital to make sure we could keep our business going in the short-term for cash flow purposes, so we decided to explore releasing our home as an asset by placing our house on the market in January 2010. We took this as a proactive, sensible step that any business would take at that time. We did not particularly want to take out loans at this stage, as our house was of sufficient value for us to sell it. We had equity in our home that we could use. As the committee is aware, HS2 was announced in March 2010, immediately our house was blighted. In order to keep our business afloat, we had no option but to use credit cards as clearly we couldn’t release the value we’d built up in our home by selling it. You will be aware of the high rate of interest on credit cards. We borrowed funds from family members and, critically, we had to cash in our endowment policies. We will never be able to replace these at a similar rate than the ones we had.

132. In October 2010, we applied to the HS2 Exceptional Hardship Scheme. We were rejected due to the lack of evidence. The evidence we provided was from our accountant who we felt was the person best placed to demonstrate our financial situation. We saw a solicitor who said that we would only be successful under the scheme if we were to be declared bankrupt. We are a business; that would mean we would never be able to get business funding or indeed, any other funding again.

A517 (27) HOL/00600/0187 133. In April 2015, we applied for personal loans to consolidate our accruing debts. The appointed chartered surveyor valued our house at nil. His remark on the valuation report is, ‘We are of the opinion that the only purchaser for this property would be the acquiring authority for HS2’. We moved to our house and lovingly invested time and effort into it because we wanted it to be our home for a very long time. Initially we put the property on the market, reluctantly, to support the business before HS2 was announced, because we did not want to be dependent on loans or high interest credit cards, to keep the business going in a strong position through the recession. Then our home became unsellable, because of HS2.

134. We were then put in the position where the only way to keep the business in a strong position was to borrow. We looked at HS2 to help us out and they failed to do so. The only way we can now sort out our financial problems caused by HS2 is to move. We couldn’t stay even if we wanted to because we have to sell our house to HS2 under the Need to Sell Scheme. What happens if our financial difficulties are still not compelling enough a reason for HS2? If somebody from HS2 could guarantee the value in our home, lenders may well lend to us, instead of us having to sell it. Our property has remained on the market for the last five and a half years, attracting no interest whatsoever. The longer the Parliamentary consultation of HS2 continues, the deeper our debt will become. We have recently applied for the HS2 Need to Sell Scheme and we are waiting for a response.

135. Just the proposal of HS2 has caused us undeniable hardship, coupled with the knowledge that there is no repayment of our losses both financially and personally. Surely this cannot be right; we are hardworking people who run our own business. We are trying to do everything right, yet whether we are able to move on with our lives is in the hands of HS2.

136. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So there are two sides – just to interrupt for a moment – one is the present situation, and the other is why you were put in that situation when, quite plainly, whoever considered your application has no understanding of what it’s like to be running a business and the alternative sources of funding, we will wait to hear.

137. MS LUE: Thank you.

A517 (28) HOL/00600/0188 138. CHAIR: Is that it, Sara?

139. MS DIXON: Yes.

140. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

141. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you, I am just going to deal first of all with the question of the operational effects, but before I do, can I just make a preliminary point? I noted with interest that Ms Dixon was talking about wanting many residents want to stay and want to be able to stay during the construction and the operation of the railway, but there’s concern about what it involves, and what it involves both in construction and during operation. I recognise that, and it seems to me that it’s very important that there’s a lot of information about what construction involves, the processes and controls; but it’s very important that Ms Dixon and this community understand and have the opportunity to get more information from us. I would certainly suggest, if Ms Dixon is prepared to agree to this, that there’s a meeting with HS2 people who can take her through a lot of the detail of what’s involved in terms of construction and the operation and a lot of the controls that exist.

142. I say that, I’m going to just summarise them now, but there is quite a lot of information, but it clearly – there are still concerns about what it involves so the information is not necessarily getting through in a way that I would like, so I would suggest that there is that meeting. I am sure Ms Dixon would be prepared to have it. If we can have it with Bucks as well, excellent. I can’t speak for Bucks, but they’re obviously particularly involved and relevant for the control of traffic along the A413 and measures to deal with construction traffic and, of course, future traffic growth on the A413 which is a feature of this location anyway, regardless of HS2.

143. CHAIR: We would also like to know, as a Committee, when the meeting is held and a report back?

144. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

145. CHAIR: About what is going on and what the discussion – about whether it was moved forward?

146. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

A517 (29) HOL/00600/0189 147. CHAIR: Because what we don’t want is to have a meeting that nobody turns up to?

148. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I can understand that. I can’t commit Buckinghamshire County Council to the meeting, but certainly it would make sense. In addition, the Additional Provision 4, that’s AP4 as we call it, does have changes to the traffic arrangements which would affect the A413 and Rocky Lane, because as you’ve heard one of the features of AP4 is to try and reduce traffic along the whole length of the A413. There are consequential effects on Rocky Lane, so those need to be explained to Ms Dixon and the others in the area, so that will also form part of that meeting.

149. Can I just take it in stages, then, and just deal with construction, operation and I’ll come back to compensation last? On construction, if we just look at P7548 – and what I’m saying now is certainly not meant to replace the useful meeting, it’s just a summary at this stage, but just to give you an overview? P7548 just shows the key areas of concern to Ms Dixon. As I indicated, London Road is here. Ms Dixon referred to three compounds: there is one off to the left here, which is the Small Dean Viaduct main compound, which is accessed from a different area, and we don’t anticipate that having a material effect on Ms Dixon’s properties. But the principles that I’m just going to just refer briefly to, about how compounds will operate and the controls on them in terms of noise, hoardings will apply to that compound as to any others. But the most immediate ones closest to this part of London Road are of course the Small Dean Viaduct launch satellite compound, which I’m pointing to; and the Rocky Lane underbridge compound.

150. As the committee has heard, whilst of course HS2 as a whole has a construction period which is of six or seven years in this area, the use of these compounds varies depending on what’s going on at any one time. So, the Small Dean Viaduct launch satellite compound which I’m just pointing to here, which is obviously concerned with constructing the Small Dean Viaduct is actually operational for approximately two years, rather than the longer period that was referred to, and there are some details about it in the Environment Statement, but again, I think we need to explain this in more detail to Ms Dixon. That will generally be accessed by the site haul road from the Rocky Lane compound. So, where it’s possible, we’ve sought to introduce haul roads for access which keep traffic, so far as possible, off the roads. That clearly is not possible in all cases, and as Ms Dixon points out, the Rocky Lane does serve as an access for a

A517 (30) HOL/00600/0190 construction traffic route to join the A413, which is taking that part of any mass haul along the A413 before it goes back onto the trace. Just by way of explanation, the reason why we have to go onto the A413 is of course, one can’t have a trace in the vicinity of the viaducts, because it doesn’t exist. It’s sometimes been referred to as ‘blockers’, but you can’t a haul road in that location so one has to join the roads at certain points, and this is one point. That is why we will be controlling HGV traffic and other traffic through the transport management plans in this location.

151. So I just wanted to – Rocky Lane – I think I referred to it as an overbridge, it’s an underbridge, apologies if I mis-said –

152. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You said underbridge.

153. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Oh did I, good!

154. CHAIR: We do listen to what you’re saying.

155. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I thought I’d said overbridge. The Rocky Lane underbridge is constructed from the Rocky Lane site. What happens in that location, as I think Ms Dixon showed on some slides, is that there is an off-line diversion, so Rocky Lane remains open, so it’s never shut, because we construct the underbridge whilst the traffic continues to flow, and then put the traffic back onto it, in the way the committee has heard, in other locations. So we are seeking to try to minimise interruption of flows. Of course, there is – and this is, I think, a central concern of the residents here, there is a need for construction traffic and HGVs to come from the Rocky Lane site to join the A413 and there is some traffic coming up the A413 from lower down on the scheme. That, of course, will have to be looked as part of the transport management plan, the traffic management plan, with Buckinghamshire County Council. I can’t speak for Buckinghamshire and their meetings with Ms Dixon to date, but certainly they are taking, so far as we’re aware, a keen interest in traffic management along this section. They have already identified sensitive junctions which they require us to do further work on, and this is one of them. The Rocky Lane interface with the A413 is one that we are looking at, and will be dealing with Buckinghamshire County Council in detail. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t keep Ms Dixon fully informed as to what the proposals are. As part of that, of course, if there’s a need for regulation on that junction, we will have to look at what measures need to be introduced. There was mention of a

A517 (31) HOL/00600/0191 crossing of the A413 by way of a light crossing. Those are the sorts of things that can be looked at; I just put this caveat down, that Buckinghamshire County Council has highway authority will also be concerned to ensure continued flow along the A413 and sometimes – and I’m not saying in this case – and sometimes the introduction of further light signals actually exacerbates a problem rather than cures it. Not always –

156. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Not for people trying to cross the road.

157. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, that’s certainly right. It enables people to cross the road, but I can have a knock-on effect on the congestion along the road, including the access roads that are of concern for people exiting properties. So I’m not trying – I’m not ruling anything out, but clearly it’s something that Buckinghamshire County Council will have their own views on as to, if there is a problem here, what the best solution is.

158. CHAIR: Sometimes petitioners ask for something, we think that’s a good idea, then the local highway authority says, ‘No, it’s not a good idea’, and it’s at that point they have – they know their roads very well, but it isn’t always –

159. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s all I – I’m not trying to defining what should or should not happen at this location, but clearly these are the sorts of things that need to be looked at, as to whether there’s a problem with the junction, and if so, what sort of measures are most effective to introduce. There is clearly –

160. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just to be boringly, blindingly obvious, if I want to cross the road, I either do it when the traffic is moving or the traffic is stopped. Those are the two alternatives.

161. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Or when there’s a gap in the traffic, yes.

162. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In peak hours, there isn’t a gap in the traffic.

163. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I don’t –

164. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And there’s no central refuge, as far as I’m – let’s leave it like that. I just want those who consider these things to understand plainly, that there are people like you, like me, living on London Road whose access to basic

A517 (32) HOL/00600/0192 shopping is on the other side of the road. Do they have to have a three-hour gap in the morning and the afternoon when they can’t cross the road? The answer is, they shouldn’t.

165. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I am obviously agreeing in principle, but there –

166. MR HENDRICK: I sat on a highways authority for eight years and the problem with a crossing where there’s a light is you get what’s called a bunching effect, so obviously when the lights are on red and people are able to cross, the traffic coming up to the lights bunches and if it’s happening regularly, then you get bunch after bunch after bunch, rather than a nice flow of traffic. From a driver’s perspective, obviously, it’s inconvenient. From the perspective of a pedestrian, then obviously it suits the pedestrian fine, because the pedestrians can cross as and when they feel like it with only a wait of a minute or two from the light going from green to red. So it depends whether the highways authority or the local authority itself wishes to give more power to pedestrians or whether the traffic situation is more critical to the operation of the local economy.

167. CHAIR: I think Sir Peter has made the point which no doubt the project has heard and clearly there will be further discussions between the County Council and residents and HS2 about how this situation is managed and until that is done, there isn’t very much more we can do on that.

168. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): What I was just seeking to emphasise is that these are the sorts of things that one expects to be looked at as part of the processes which are form part of what we have set up to do –

169. MR HENDRICK: The big thing – and that is why I asked you about your County Council earlier, is whether or not your County Council is batting for you in saying that, ‘Alright, traffic is important, but the pedestrians and the local people are important’. You need your County Council to pitch in on your behalf, and where he can’t, at the very least, your MP?

170. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): As I say, I can’t speak for Buckinghamshire County Council. It sounds as if there’s an existing problem there from what the residents are

A517 (33) HOL/00600/0193 saying, so in a sense, there may be an existing problem which may have to be addressed in any event, regardless of HS2. So, I just don’t know, but that’s something –

171. CHAIR: Can we go onto weekend working and evenings? There is quite a large civil engineering going on here, is there going to be required some weekend working, or will that be the exception?

172. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Generally speaking, that would be the exception because this isn’t a site, as I understand it, which is identified for, unlike a tunnelling site, where we would expect to be applying for 24 hour working. So, the expectation is for the core working hours as set in the Code of Construction Practice which are 8.00 to 6.00pm on weekdays; 8.00 to 1.00pm on Saturdays; but there’s the ability to apply for additional hours and the guidance identifies that those hours, if they would be required, would be included within the LEMP, as it’s called, the Local Environment Management Plan, which is another document I just wanted to draw attention to, primarily for Ms Dixon. Because, under the Code of Construction Practice, it’s intended to have these Local Environment Management Plans drawn up in consultation with the local communities, and there’s an annexe to the Code of Construction Practice which sets out the sorts of things that would be included within the Local Environment Management Plans. The idea of those, just to be clear is that, whilst this is a Code of Construction Practice which is intended for the whole of the scheme, there is a process by which one can involve the local community to adopt a location-specific plan to deal with the environment whilst construction is going on, and therefore on core working hours, we’re not expecting to exceed those, but there may be times when it’s beneficial to have working hours outside those times. One example, just as an example, is when you are doing an offline diversion, and you need to put the road back onto its original tie-in works – which generally can take place in a matter of overnight type working, sometimes it’s best to do that when there’s the least amount of traffic on the road, and that can be during the night. But’s a sort of one-off type event. Other occasions, where you’ve heard one might apply for exceptional working hours outside those times, is when the seasons would benefit from it. The general intention is to minimise disruption or to minimise the amount of work going on in the area. So all of these things are intended to try and –

173. CHAIR: And the Local Environment Management Plan isn’t something which is

A517 (34) HOL/00600/0194 fixed; it’s something which is ongoing?

174. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

175. CHAIR: So let’s say that construction work starts in a particular area, and there’s an agreement on working hours, and the residents have a concern about that; there would be a vehicle for them to say, ‘Can we alter this?’ or, ‘Can we have a discussion about how these things are managed?’

176. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely, there is of course – there is the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which primarily deals with construction work sites, and those provisions will apply to these work sites, where we will be seeking consents. Again, the power of the local authority to control – and exercise control – over the work sites.

177. Now, I’m trying to get a lot of detail in; I know the committee is familiar with it. This is why I think it’s important to have the meeting with Ms Dixon to take her through some of this detail, because there is an awful lot in the Code of Construction Practice and that will be in the Local Environment Management Plans which is plainly of interest, bearing in mind the points that she’s raised, but cover an awful lot of the topics that she identified. So, for example, hoardings: those are required to be designed, taking account of the local area. So those sorts of things are measures which we would expect to come forward as part of the Local Environment Management Plans, amongst other things. There is a whole host of things.

178. CHAIR: What we’ve heard is the Code of Construction Practice escalates. So if there’s a problem locally, is to solve the problem quickly, not to actually have a complaint, six months later, somebody says, ‘This was…’ – you know, it’s to try and deal with it. So you end up with complaints that’s failed. There should be information locally so that people can put in complaints if there’s rubbish on roads or if something’s going wrong.

179. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Additionally, if I may, I think what I was hearing from Sara Dixon, is that if you’re going to have hoardings or screening, whether some consultation with local residents, and imagination, whether something can go up which is relatively attractive, rather than just plain, boring hoarding which might be perfectly suitable in some other area?

A517 (35) HOL/00600/0195 180. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

181. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Taking into account the context of local wishes, it’s something which I don’t think would add much to the project but might make a significant difference to local people?

182. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well I can see that, and what the Code of Construction Practice currently says is, where hoarding is required, it will be 2.4 metres in site, raised to 3.6 metres and possibly altered in form so that there’s a general statement of what’s required. But further details will be included within the relevant Local Environment Management Plans. So the details of the hoarding will go into the plans, but the plans in order to be drawn up have to take account of consultation with the local community. So certainly, that process of them getting involved in what the hoarding should look like, is something which we are already putting into this process.

183. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And you may have said this already or may be planning to say it in future, but in terms of these hoardings, could you please recognise the London Road residents as a community for this basis, rather than the whole of Wendover?

184. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, as I said –

185. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Will you try to?

186. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We will try, certainly.

187. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

188. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And I think the other thing that cropped up was about risk assessments in relation to traffic. Generally speaking, as I understand it, there are risk assessments that have already been carried out. I don’t have the precise locations of them with me at the moment, but clearly the A413 junctions with Rocky Lane with construction traffic, any measures that are introduced there, will need to be the subject of safety audits, if there are going to be changes to any of the junction layouts. I hope that is some assurance to Ms Dixon in that respect.

189. CHAIR: When we dropped into Aylesbury, we were told the house build in

A517 (36) HOL/00600/0196 Aylesbury was some of the highest in the United Kingdom in terms of growth, and one can see that as you drive around. Your count on the assumption is as a result of local growth, as well as HS2, clearly that’s why it’s important for the county and the project with the residents to get together to sort this out, because whenever we’ve arrived anywhere, the first thing you find out, there are traffic problems, even before HS2 arrived; because of local growth and country roads.

190. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So I go back to the first point I made: plainly, the detail of this needs to be discussed with Ms Dixon, so I’m going to suggest a meeting itself.

191. Can I turn to the operational effects, because once the construction has occurred, of course, the line will be there. If I just show you P7571(4), this just shows – just to provide some assurance I’ve got the right plan here – if you could just zoom into this location? I just want to provide some reassurance that even if the London Road appears on the right hand side of the part of a plan, we certainly are still carrying assessments and have carried out assessments in the Environmental Statement of these properties and this community. These are just showing noise and vibration monitoring assessment locations, which have been done for the purposes of the Environment Statement, including those at the sample properties on London Road, close to these sites. What you can see here is the embankment that’s behind London Road, and I’ll just show you the effect of that, but there is an embankment with a false cutting; you can see on the edge here. So where the line is closest to the properties, the lines – there is the embankment of course, but the embankment is designed to provide protection to the properties in operation in noise and visual effects.

192. I can show you that in a little more detail, 7573(4), again, if you just want to zoom into this section?

193. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this construction or operational noise?

194. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): This is operational noise. And you can see, if I just show you here, the 3 to 5 metre is showing the run of the embankment up to, I think, 5 metres where one is obtaining a 3 to 5 metre protection in terms of noise and consequential visual effects. And then the noise contours that are coming out here, the bulk of the properties are in the yellow contour in London Road. And in the noise

A517 (37) HOL/00600/0197 assessment that’s been carried out, as you’d expect – and I don’t think Ms Dixon suggests otherwise – a lot of the noise environment currently is dominated by the existence of the road. To some extent the railway but that’s less frequent; but certainly the road noise. And we’re not anticipating any major changes in the noise environment from the operation of the railway. I think the closest property which was looked at, which has an ID number 368776, so that was I think approximately… If I just move the arrow, without the scheme there were daytime levels of 54 dB and 46 at night Leqs. And with the scheme it’s day 56 and night 48. So a 3 dB change during the day and 2 dB at night. And both of those are below the relevant contours of concern.

195. There are LAmax’ in our scheme of about 67 in that location and 76, I think, at 356932 which is nearer. And those compare with some fairly high LAmax’ which exist already in this location. Property 356932 already has, or would have, an 83 dB LAmax in this location. So I know this sounds rather technical and, again, it’s something that you need to talk through, Ms Dixon, but the broad message is we have assessed the effects of noise; we are identifying where there are increases; and indeed where there are minor adverse effects. But, generally speaking, we have sought to mitigate the noise and the visual effects by the embankment with the false cutting. Of course there will be a view of an embankment but it’s designed to mitigate the effects of the railway.

196. Further across, of course Small Dean viaduct, that is a viaduct and you can’t screen the viaduct because of its very nature, but it is further away from the properties itself and it’s further down the road; and the noise effects are such that they’re not predicted to cause Small Dean viaduct a significant problem to the properties. So, again, that’s something we can clearly talk through –

197. CHAIR: So it sits in an area where there is a fair amount of noise at the moment. We’ve discussed it at some point – somebody raised the issue – of the issue of the road surface on the A413 and whether or not the road surface could be looked at to try and lower the ambient noise. Even if you can’t hear the railway it makes the place a bit quieter. Is that something which could be discussed with Buckinghamshire Country Council?

198. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It could be discussed but, as I understand it, Mr Thornely-Taylor may have already… Or if he didn’t say it, he certainly said it to me

A517 (38) HOL/00600/0198 but the benefits of road noise resurfacing only come in at a certain road speed level and I’m not sure whether they would at work 40. This is a 40 mph section. I don’t know. I’ll find out. They’re more beneficial at higher speeds where you get a 2 to 3 dB reduction in noise roads. But I’ll find out more about that.

199. So Dunsmore Lane, which is referred to of course, is not proposed for construction traffic routing although there may be times when Small Dean Lane needs to be closed for that temporary period of nine months to traffic where more traffic uses Dunsmore Lane. Again, we’re not anticipating significant amounts of traffic increases on the Dunsmore Lane from our scheme.

200. Balancing ponds you heard about. There are some balancing ponds in the locality. Can I just put up 7600(1)? This is within our material but it just gives further detail of what a balancing pond does. And, as Sir Peter already identified, despite its name it’s not a pond for most of the time. It is designed to be an area of land which –

201. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s hollow.

202. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s hollow. It’s a piece of land which has been engineered so that it can accommodate extra water in the event of flooding in tight situations. And, accordingly, normally these areas should be dry. So I hope that makes it clearer as to why one couldn’t use it as a pond or for any other purposes. The idea is that it should generally be dry. But I note the interest in them and these are balancing ponds which will form a part of the earthworks in the area which will be part of the approval process under Schedule 16 to the Bill with the local authority. And so it will be a matter we have to take forward in terms of the ultimate design.

203. CHAIR: Are they open or are they closed?

204. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): They’re generally open. They’re sometimes referred to as ‘scrapings’ but you have a piece of land and you just lower the profile of it so that it can take water, accumulate water, in the event of a flooding situation and allow for its regulated discharge rather than causing a flood; regulated discharge to stop it all spreading out over the road. So they are there to have a beneficial effect for the railway but they’re not – and we wouldn’t anticipate them generally to be – visually intrusive features.

A517 (39) HOL/00600/0199 205. CHAIR: How deep with they be at the extreme?

206. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, that will depend upon the ultimate design. The ultimate design of them has to accommodate whatever area of land they’re effectively acting as a balancing pond for, so the depth of them and the shape of them will have to be approved in conjunction with the local authority and the Environment Agency. So there isn’t a fixed depth to any of them; they have to be designed.

207. MR CRAUSBY: Has there been any consideration about safety and child safety in particular? How much work have you done?

208. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand that if they are of certain depths, or could be of certain depths in flood situations, those are circumstances where one might have to have fencing to prevent access to them. But at the moment the final design of them hasn’t been fixed and clearly that’s something that Ms Dixon and others who are interested in we can explain more about that process as to how that design will occur and what currently the plans looks like for the balancing ponds and the depths. But we haven’t done the detailed design on them as yet.

209. CHAIR: So we won’t have a London Road yachting club?

210. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m afraid not. Whether that’s a good or bad thing. Yes, that would defeat very much the object of them and their purpose. There is another page, 76002, which just gives you a little bit more detail which I’ll just put on screen. This identifies some of the legislation that sits behind the need for balancing ponds and their design. And the final point, 5.3, about discharge rates which I said would have to be approved.

211. CHAIR: Thank you.

212. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think I’ve referred, in terms of enforcement mechanisms, to information paper E1. You’ve already explained some of those processes. There was mention of requiring the Committee to sit throughout until operation which would be a tall ask, but it’s not necessary because, as has already been explained, there’s a process for dealing with complaints that occur, if and when they occur, but there is of course ultimately the sanction of MP involvement, Secretary of

A517 (40) HOL/00600/0200 State involvement and the House’s involvement if there were a problem; none of which we anticipate but there is already that process given the nature of this as a Hybrid Bill and eventually an Act of Parliament.

213. CHAIR: When the meeting is arranged can you let Mr Lidington or liaise with Mr Lidington to see whether or not he can attend or when the staff can attend? Because I think there’s more of a chance of getting Bucks County Council there than MPs there.

214. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I’ll do that.

215. CHAIR: Okay.

216. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, we’ll try and speak to Ms Dixon after this to see what dates might be suitable.

217. Can I then turn to compensation? And in relation to the general provisions about compensation, as the Committee knows there are homeowner payment zones which move geographically out from the line and in this location it’s right to say that some of the properties are covered, because they’re closer to the line, and some are not. There is a map which shows how the lines fit in terms of the safeguarding zones. I’ll just show it briefly: P7542(3). It’s not a very big scale on this screen but we can zoom in. We have to come down to Rocky Lane so you can see the point I was making. So in this location the yellow zones covering some of the houses, and I think the green zone potentially some. It may not. I am very happy, and perhaps we can do this at the meeting, to identify which properties are in which zone. But the Committee has heard that the zones do result in lines because of the nature in which they’re drawn. The Committee has heard about that previously but we can provide Ms Dixon with the detail of how the properties divide up. And there’s guidance on if you have a certain percentage in a certain zone, how it’s treated.

218. CHAIR: If it clips your garden there’s a bit of an argument about it but I think –

219. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yeah.

220. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would it be sensible then also, to be fair, to come back in the autumn to explain whether the Secretary of State or the scheme has any discussion? Because if you’re going through a relatively small community which is on

A517 (41) HOL/00600/0201 the fringes of this project, whether the Secretary of State or the promoters would seriously consider that you can use the generally acceptable rigid line and whether in fact there is discretion to include people who are so close that in effect their experience is going to be the same as those a yard or two or a metre or two closer.

221. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll come back and I’ll report back to you on that. I think I’m fairly sure that that was something that was looked at and considered as part of the –

222. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Maybe if in discussion with the Secretary of State the promoters would say this is an illustrative example. I’m not saying it’s the only one but it’s one where there might be seen to be a degree of absurdity.

223. CHAIR: Three or four at the end of the line you’re out.

224. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I understand the point. The homeowner protection zone was drawn up –

225. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m not asking you to do it now.

226. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I’ll save it.

227. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

228. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I note the observation. Can I then turn to a specific example of somebody who applied under the Exceptional Hardship Scheme and was rejected? It’s Lue. And I don’t have the details of the rejection and it may not necessarily be appropriate for me to go into the details now even if I did have them.

229. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Certainly not with us but I think we might ask the witness to petition whether she’d be happy for the promoters to be able to discuss the details with others.

230. MS LUE: Yes, we are.

231. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I mean, we can do so privately. If we’re going to look at how things are working we don’t want people’s details to be out there because you know you have to put your arm and leg into it. But it’d be quite useful –

A517 (42) HOL/00600/0202 232. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There are two elements which Sir Peter rightly identified: one is what’s the position now and the second is what happened previously. And I can’t give you any details of what happened previously but I will look into it and will report back to the Committee.

233. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Again, the Secretary of State may wish to notice that on the face of it an injustice has been done and there’s been an insensitivity combined with the mortgage lender’s apparent inability to recognise the realities of the situation which are not nearly as bad as would justify a blank refusal, and that there have been extra costs that have been imposed on the person or the household involved.

234. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I note that observation and I’ll take that back. It’s important to note though, because I can’t comment on the detail, but there should be a letter explaining the reasons why the application was rejected and it should explain why it was thought that the application didn’t meet the criteria or there wasn’t sufficient information provided. I’ve noted that Mrs Lue has said that she spoke to her accountant who provided information. I don’t know, and I can’t tell you now, whether there’s a dispute about that and that may clearly affect whether or not, in terms of the process, that the injustice occurred but we will come back to you about that.

235. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay.

236. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I just say –

237. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We could hopefully anticipate that there will be a direct engagement with her.

238. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yeah. Can I turn to the position now? Because I know Mrs Lue has got an application in on the Need to Sell which I’m told that there is an application which is being processed and there will be a recommendation made by the panel and then a decision made. And I just wanted to point out something that I pointed out previously about the Need to Sell: even if an application is accepted, of course, there is a three year period in which one can take up the offer. So it doesn’t require immediate action for someone who is successful under the scheme. I don’t know when her decision is due. I think the panel may have requested some further information.

A517 (43) HOL/00600/0203 239. MS DIXON: Yes.

240. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. And, yes, the additional point I was going to make is I did notice Mrs Lue originally referred to potentially seeking to raise money by selling her property and then leasing it back. If I’ve misunderstood then I’m sorry. But as a general principle there is the potential opportunity to do just that, which is to apply to Need to Sell, have your property purchased but then to arrange a lease back so that you can continue to occupy it and so you raise capital out of it but you can continue to stay, subject of course to the terms of the lease. But I just mention that; it may not be relevant to Mrs Lee but it might be relevant to others. So I’m going to come back to you, if I may, on what happened in the Exceptional Hardship Application once we’ve investigated.

241. CHAIR: Thank you. Is that it, Mr Strachan?

242. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is.

243. CHAIR: Thank you. Brief final comments.

244. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just come back to the issue which is if an application has been made under Need to Sell, can we be clear that the panel will not look for an urgency in selling? There’s not much point in having a scheme where you get a Need to Sell application accepted and you can hold on to it for three years if the panel gets a sense that you may want to hold on to it for six months or a year even, then that disqualifies you from having your application accepted under Need to Sell.

245. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I understand that point. I think that relates to a point that you’ve asked me to come back to you –

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m willing to wait for the moment but there’s a voice behind you.

247. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We’re just finding out.

248. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or come back in the autumn.

249. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’m conscious that it’s a related question to a question you already asked about the making of a conditional application in the sense

A517 (44) HOL/00600/0204 that one wants to know that if one wished to make an application and were to have a Need to Sell in the future you can make the application now without having to do it later, but have a sense of security. That’s something you’ve asked me to come back to you. In a sense it’s a related point, although a nuanced point.

250. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the last point which Sara Dixon, if I may say so, in her exceptionally helpful presentation asked the question whether it’s possible to have exempt zones where residents can be notified that were they to make an application a Need to Sell application would be accepted because of the effect on the local area.

251. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll come back to you on that.

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Again, come back to the autumn on that.

253. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): What has been commented upon several times is the ability to put in evidence that’s, for example, other estate agents –

254. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Had been accepted. So the marketing issue would not have been necessary in those circumstances.

255. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The only obstacle I see, or an obstacle I see, to have a zone type of approach is that the market does change and things can change on the ground or in terms of perception, and so fixing things in stone may be counterproductive –

256. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But it could be considered for a period. If, for example, an area like, for example, London Road, HS2 have bought two homes and may be expecting to buy another three or at least make offers, to say to the other 10 or 18 people who may be there ‘you’re going to have to show evidence of marketing’, well I think you’ll find is ludicrous.

257. CHAIR: It might not be necessary to declare zones because of the double-edged sword but it might be that the scheme itself ought to pay regardless of the fact that if it has an application where it’s bought four or five properties already that that is a very compelling reason that the market isn’t working.

A517 (45) HOL/00600/0205 258. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand, and certainly that is plainly evidence that the panel will take into account as indeed under the current guidance. But there is a balance to be struck between the potential to spread blight where it might not actually be there. And I do hasten to add, with everything I said earlier, we are seeking to, by explanation and showing people what the effects are, actually minimise blight or the perception of blight and to encourage people to stay with recognition of the impacts in construction and operational terms. So that’s the caveat I have.

259. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I understand the caveat. But the issue again comes down to the potential independence of the panel. Can the promoters or the Secretary of State tell the Panel that in various areas, for a time at least, the requirement for marketing is suspended? That’s all so I’ll let you come back to us in the autumn on that.

260. CHAIR: Okay. Brief final comments?

261. MS DIXON: I’m very happy to have a meeting with you and HS2. Thank you very much –

262. CHAIR: Do you want a meeting at the peak traffic times?

263. MS DIXON: Maybe when we’ve got the water pool in. Thanks for offering to be the sort of – what are you – backstop, I suppose, by asking to look at the minutes afterwards. Is it backstop? Rounders? Protection at the end. That’s very important to us, just at least at this stage. We don’t really have any further questions that can be discussed in that meeting. So thank you for listening

264. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed.

Oswald De Sybel

265. CHAIR: Right, we now move on to petition 1155, Oswald De Sybel. Good morning.

266. MR DE SYBEL: Good morning. Thank you for hearing my tale of woe. As stated in paragraph 7 of my petition, which is number 1155, I live with my wife off Small Dean Lane and have lived in the property since 2009. Can we have slide 1?

267. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Is that slide 1?

A517 (46) HOL/00600/0206 268. MR DE SYBEL: Yes, it is. The precise location is you go down Small Dean Lane. I’m just trying to find out where it is. Hold on a minute. There’s Manor Farm. Wendover Dean. Is that it? I put it in my petition.

269. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be that Mr Strachan has got his usual –

270. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I was generally just asking for that and I’m not sure if we have got it available. I can give you a map closer to Small Dean Lane which might help.

271. MR DE SYBEL: Yeah, okay.

272. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Why don’t we try 7571(4)? Can you see this map? Does this help you a bit more?

273. MR DE SYBEL: This one here?

274. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So if you just focus here.

275. MR DE SYBEL: If you can find Small Dean Lane for me. I’m afraid I can’t see it here for some reason.

276. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can you just zoom in where I’m pointing here? Thanks. And then back. I think your property is just here, isn’t it, where the cursor is.

277. MR DE SYBEL: No, here it is. There it is. Which is approximately 700 metres from the proposed route.

278. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you’re between Lower Little London Farm and Small Dean Farm?

279. MR DE SYBEL: That’s right. Now, I endorse the petition of the previous petitioner, Sara Dixon, in so far as it includes Small Dean Lane and the relevant sections of the proposed development off the A413; that is between Small Dean and Wendover viaducts connected by a railway embankment. And of course I would also endorse the short tunnel option which is just mentioned.

280. Now, I should also like to take this opportunity to expand on that part of my original petition which deals with air quality. That’s paragraphs 13 and 14 of my

A517 (47) HOL/00600/0207 original petition in which I voiced my concern about the potential adverse impact on health from poor air quality resulting from the construction and operation of HS2 and associated development.

281. Now, a detailed illustration of the proposed works for the relevant area can be found in what I think HS2 referred to as Exhibit K of August 2014. I think we’ve seen it today. It’s reference number P7595. Alright? Now, on any view the scale and projected duration of the works will result in something like a two to four, or even six year, intensive construction development and concentrated – and I stress that – in a very, very small area.

282. Now, in this context the Committee will note from paragraph 14 of my original petition reference to my family, and I would mention that my wife suffers from asthma; but for present purposes I’d like to concentrate and focus on the health of our five-year- old grandson.

283. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just help ourselves by asking if you might to 1316(2)? Where I think if you look at centre-left there’s Lower London Farm.

284. MR DE SYBEL: Lower London Farm, yeah.

285. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you go up and then slightly right is Small Dean Farm and you’re halfway between? So you’re roughly where it says ‘100-2004’?

286. MR DE SYBEL: No, I think we’re at ‘101-200’ I think. No, sorry, we’re at ‘101-2004’.

287. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yeah, okay. We’ve got you. So in effect you’re down from London Road if I was going as a flying bird.

288. MR DE SYBEL: That’s right. Turning back to our five-year-old grandson, he visits us from London with his little sister on a regular basis, for example during weekends and school holidays. Now, our grandson suffers from a rare disease called spinal muscular atrophy or SMA. It’s a rare genetically inherited neuromuscular condition and it’s characterised by degeneration of the spinal cord and the spinal cord neurons, resulting in progressive muscle atrophy and weakness. It has no cure and it requires multi-disciplinary medical care. A fuller picture of the nature of this condition

A517 (48) HOL/00600/0208 can be found in two relevant facts sheets which I’ve submitted which I think are slides 5 and 6. These are published by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Spinal Muscular Atrophy Support UK.

289. Now, unlike Baroness Jane Campbell of Surbiton who sits in the House of Lords and has an acute version of the disease and is a veritable beacon of hope to all sufferers, our grandson suffers from a milder form of the condition known as SMA3, the specific nature of which is to be found in slide 6. The main symptom of this condition is difficulty with maintaining balance, which explains why our grandson can only manage walking for short distances and only with the aid of trekking poles.

290. Of particular relevance to this expanded petition are two references in the aforementioned fact sheets to respiratory systems and, I quote, ‘Individuals with SMA type III may be prone to respiratory infections but with care may have a normal lifespan.’ And further, ‘Children with SMA type III do not generally have difficulties with their breathing but their breathing strength and cough effectiveness must be checked regularly.’ Now, given these observations I am naturally very concerned that the increase in traffic and construction works associated with HS2 in my locality as described this morning may adversely affect air quality which in turn could present a serious threat to the health of our grandson.

291. And moving on to air quality for a moment, as regards that there are two publications from HS2 that I’ve managed to source. They can be found or are referred to in slides 2 and 3. Now, slide 2, which was drawn up with the help of Defra,

concludes for our locality that the magnitude of impact from construction dust and NO2, which is nitrogen dioxide, after incorporating draft Code of Construction Practice measures will be negligible. Further, in the health impact assessment report, which is in slide 3, I quote: ‘The increased risk of health effects to any individual as a result of emissions associated with the proposed scheme will be extremely small.’ And it goes on to concede, ‘However there may be anxiety caused by perceived health risks from increased traffic emissions particularly from people with existing respiratory effects.’ Well, there certainly is anxiety and this is why I’m here today.

292. These reports were published some two years ago and I’m wondering whether there’s a persuasive case that they require updating, given the recent evidence we’ve

A517 (49) HOL/00600/0209 heard this morning of traffic flows predicted by HS2 – that’s in what they call Exhibit K – and also by Sara Dixon.

293. My concern regarding air quality can’t be understated, particularly when one considers that there is presently an air quality plan recently submitted by Defra following a ruling from the UK Supreme Court in April of this year and has rightly or wrongly been criticised as ‘hollow’ by Her Majesty’s Opposition and ‘a list of meaningless assurances and half-truths’ by ClientEarth who brought the case against Defra before the European Court from whence it was referred to the UK Supreme Court. Now, I’m asking myself: is this issue about air quality and air pollution, is it going to become a political football whilst Rome burns? I sincerely hope not.

294. So as regards my locality, I see the position as follows: unless measures can be

swiftly implemented to avoid the attendant risk of dangerous levels of NO2 in particular, and to a lesser extent construction dust, I fear that my wife and I may have to make a very difficult decision, i.e. that of denying our grandson and his siblings access to our house at weekends and during school holidays; and, most importantly, to our exercise pool which is installed in our garden. Such a decision would be, to us, an absolute catastrophe. To date, our grandson’s medical team at Great Ormond Street Hospital have encouraged our grandson to focus on what he can do rather than what he can’t do. With this mind, he has learnt to swim; an achievement which has given him enormous confidence. And, according to his physiotherapist, swimming should certainly be encouraged as it helps with mobility problems associated with the disease.

295. I should also mention that denying access will also result in his parents, in particular, losing the respite that they have when their children come and stay with us.

296. So if, after having collated all the arguments for and against the construction of a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns, and indeed the more recent proposal for a short tunnel, the Select Committee is minded to reject both then I would respectfully ask that the Select Committee recommend that: HS2 fund and undertake comprehensive

monitoring in relation to, in particular NO2 and particulates before commencing any works; that HS2 report the results of this monitoring exercise to local residents and councils; that HS2 be required to set air quality limits using independent experts; that in terms of implementing best practice required under the Code of Construction Practice;

A517 (50) HOL/00600/0210 reference should be made to the supplementary planning guidance (SPG) of the control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition; and finally that if, during construction, these limits are breached HS2 will be under a legal duty to cease operations until such time as the air quality improves to levels acceptable under EU and WHO guidance.

297. I have nothing else to say.

298. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Strachan?

299. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, there is a section in the Environmental Statement dealing specifically with air quality which explains the methodology that’s been adopted, and air quality does form part of the assessments of both the construction effects and the operational effects; the operational effects obviously principally being if a road is moved or there is a realignment of a road whether that has a knock-on effect on air quality. And the methodology that’s used for that assessment is that produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management – there’s a specific methodology that they prescribe – and the results of this area and this location are that there aren’t any material effects being identified for this property that Mr… Sorry –

300. MR DE SYBEL: De Sybel.

301. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): De Sybel. I apologise if I mispronounce it. Mr De Sybel’s property. So as a result of the assessments we have done we are not predicting any material effects on this property or its continued use or the use of it for whatever purpose.

302. CHAIR: The Environmental Statement though, although you have that, it’s constantly updated. So presumably as more information comes in –

303. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yeah. I was going to say that in relation to this area changes to traffic in relation to AP4, to the extent that they involve changes in traffic which would affect the air quality modelling, will be updated as part of the environmental information to the extent there are any changes that necessitate that.

304. CHAIR: So by October we would know more and have more information.

A517 (51) HOL/00600/0211 305. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just to explain to Mr De Sybel, AP4 is a change to part of the route a little bit further south, but results in some changes to construction traffic along the A413 which we’re going to report in the environmental information that goes with that additional provision. But I wouldn’t anticipate any change because of the distance of the property from the A413 and the line itself but, rather than me trying to predict what’s in the Environmental Statement, that information will come out in due course.

306. CHAIR: And monitoring of air quality is local authority as the project goes by?

307. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is.

308. CHAIR: So if air quality changes then the local authority would service notice?

309. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Local authorities are responsible for air quality in their area. As I understand it, it’s a matter for them how they do it but they obviously focus their resources on areas where there is an identified, or likely to be an, air quality issue and they can declare air quality management areas, if I get the right terminology. There isn’t one in this area because, as I understand it, there isn’t considered to be an air quality issue bearing in mind the location. In contrast, there are other areas which we’ve looked at in other parts of the route where they are either close to or within air quality management areas. But this part of the route isn’t one.

310. CHAIR: As we’ve heard from evidence, there are peaks and troughs in terms of the construction of the railway with certain times, certain compounds and you’re building haul roads and you’re shipping material around. Presumably local authority would, when there’s more activity, be testing the air more regularly than when onsite not much was happening. So there would be dialogue?

311. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I certainly wouldn’t want to tie local authorities hands’ as to where they think they want to monitor. But certainly it’s open to them and they will know when the main time of activity will occur because we’ll be identifying that. If they consider that there’s a need for monitoring that location that they wish to put in they can do that by reference to our timetables when there’s likely to be activity in that area. I think, yes, Chiltern District Council’s own review identified that the district meets the standards of air quality in the majority of areas. There was an

A517 (52) HOL/00600/0212 AQMA declared along Berkhamsted Road and Broad Street in Chesham but that’s obviously outside the study area. So this area, the area that we’re passing through, is not an identified air quality management area where the levels are in excess of those standards which would justify such a management area.

312. So that’s part of the background but the key thing is we do carry out an assessment, yes. In relation to the forthcoming Environmental Statement it’s already been scoped out that there are no new different significant environmental effects in relation to air quality, so the new environmental information won’t include further information about air quality because it’s been identified that there aren’t any significant effects on air quality arising from that change.

313. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Mr De Sybel?

314. MR DE SYBEL: Yes, I’m just wondering whether the air quality plan produced by Defra will take into account our area.

315. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m not sure which one you’re referring to.

316. MR DE SYBEL: Well, the one at the Supreme Court in April ruled that Defra must produce an air quality plan for the UK by December; and what they’ve done is produce something two weeks ago which has been heavily criticised by the Opposition, rightly or wrongly.

317. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’ll find out is the answer. I don’t know the precise answer to that; I’ll find out and I’ll report back to the Committee and to Mr De Sybel on that specific question.

318. MR DE SYBEL: My finale question is: does HS2 have an air quality monitoring strategy?

319. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We have a strategy which is to assess the impacts of our proposal in terms of air quality and we have done that in the Environmental Statement. We have identified those areas, if there are any areas, where there’s likely to be any significant adverse effect on air quality, and those were set out in the Environmental Statement. This isn’t such an area. Area’s close to roads or construction activities are ones where there are more detailed assessments carried out after the initial

A517 (53) HOL/00600/0213 assessment. And, as I understand it, as a result of those more detailed assessments closer to construction activities, we’ve actually concluded there aren’t significant adverse effects. And there are a whole host of measures that are required under the Code of Construction Practice to minimise air quality effects, be they from vehicles or from construction activities such as air moving, and those include of course suppressing dust and anything of that kind from construction sites.

320. So, in terms of a strategy if you want to call it that, there is a comprehensive process for assessing air quality, which we’ve undertaken, and then for mitigating the effects of construction through the Code of Construction Practice and some fairly rigorous requirements in relation to the Code of Construction Practice. Under 7.3 of the Code of Construction Practice the nominated undertaker will require its contractors to implement inspection and monitoring procedures to ensure the effectiveness of those measures to prevent dust and air pollutant emissions. And then local authorities will be consulted about the monitoring procedures that are going to be used by the contractors. So there is a detailed process both for suppression for dust and also the monitoring of its effectiveness.

321. CHAIR: Okay.

322. MR DE SYBEL: So does that mean that we can look forward to updated reports on air quality from HS2?

323. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): You can look forward to the nominated undertaker requiring any contractors on their sites having monitoring processes as part of their contractual obligations; monitoring processes to ensure that the dust suppression measures that they are required are actually working.

324. MR DE SYBEL: Yes, absolutely. Okay.

325. MR HENDRICK: Are they not going to self-police it?

326. CHAIR: No, the local authority.

327. MR HENDRICK: No, I mean if he’s asking the contractors to monitor themselves what’s what. Through the Control of Pollution Act obviously the local authority –

A517 (54) HOL/00600/0214 328. MR DE SYBEL: What was disappointing when I went through the relevant evidence on this is that the air quality booklet of November 2013 prepared by HS2 mentions that the Bucks County Council did not undertake a baseline study for air pollution and air quality. And so what HS2 have done is, with their experts, actually relied on a theoretical model, a national model, to arrive at… That is the methodology. I’m not a scientist but I think that’s basically what it was: theoretically a desk study. Not a real study but a desk study. Now, that’s why I’ve asked about whether or not there’s a persuasive case for saying, now that we’ve had so much more information, we should have some updated publications for air quality. And that should start with a baseline study, an actual baseline study.

329. CHAIR: Do you want add anything, Mr Strachan?

330. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. The baseline that’s taken for the purposes of the study is set out in 4.3 of the Environmental Statement at CFA 10. And there you’ll see what happens is that there are estimates of background air quality obtained from the Defra background map for 2012, and then these data are then estimated for 1 kilometre grid squares. And then – I’m trying to read it all out – they take account of Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe District Councils’ routine diffusion tube monitoring at 20 and 32 locations respectively. Chiltern doesn’t have any routine diffusion tube monitoring. And then all of the material’s put together to make an assessment.

331. Just standing back for a moment, of course one can’t monitor or assess the whole of the study areas that everyone would like. The critical thing is to assess those areas where, in accordance with the Institute’s guidelines, there is likely to be or could be an adverse effect and then to model them in more detail. And that’s what’s been done in this process. And, given the distances we’re talking about, clearly this property is not one which is considered to have any material effect from dust. There are other locations which are closer or closer to construction sites and roads where obviously more detailed work has been done.

332. MR HENDRICK: How far away are you?

333. MR DE SYBEL: 700 metres. To the embankment as the crow flies and as the work compounds at the end of our lane. 700 both ways. So we’ve got the embankment and then we’ve got the work compounds. I think south, the prevailing wind.

A517 (55) HOL/00600/0215 334. CHAIR: The essential answer is that, as information comes in, things are updated.

335. MR DE SYBEL: Yeah, okay.

336. CHAIR: Contractors are under an obligation to keep dust and all other pollutants down and they have to monitor themselves to make sure they’re doing it in consultation with the local authority. The local authority then comes along and checks up on them to make sure they’re meeting it and if they’re not then they can be prosecuted. So there is a regime and I understand your concerns for your grandson.

337. MR DE SYBEL: Thank you very much.

338. CHAIR: Anyway, thank you very much for raising this important subject. We’ve had lots of asthma sufferers and things all the way up and down the line who have similar concerns. Thank you.

339. MR DE SYBEL: Thank you.

James Conboy

340. CHAIR: Right, the last petitioner of the day is 750, Dr James Conboy.

341. DR CONBOY: Right. Good morning, gentlemen.

342. CHAIR: Good morning.

343. DR CONBOY: I’ll try not to detain you too long. I have some slides to put up. And I’m representing the Chiltern Society. We had a meeting in Great Missenden a few weeks ago and decided that traffic on the A413 was a major concern for a lot of groups, and so I’ve been working on it and I’ve brought forward my personal petition in order basically to discuss the traffic, the work that has been done on it and our assessments.

344. So I’m Dr Jim Conboy. I’m a doctor. I have a doctorate in high energy particle physicals and if you break your leg I’m not the man to go to. I worked as a senior programmer for University College for 20 years working on experiments at CERN in Geneva for them. The last 10 or so years I’ve been working at the Culham Fusion Energy Centre. I’ve also undertaken data analysis and data analysis is what I do.

345. Can I have the next slide, please? And do I point at this with my finger or is there

A517 (56) HOL/00600/0216 a magic wand?

346. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you put it towards the screen. It’s not a touch screen but the arrow with allow.

347. DR CONBOY: Okay.

348. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think you can leave it. You need to leave it like that.

349. DR CONBOY: Okay.

350. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Oh, you wanted to turn the page you mean? To turn the page you say ‘next’.

351. DR CONBOY: Okay, alright. I will do my own personal slide since I’m here. My personal impact is that I cycle up and down the AONB. I can get to Kings Ash in 20 minutes. You will remember Kings Ash, I hope. It’s sort of the white house overlooking Wendover Dean and you met the Dutch lady, I believe. If you did, you won’t forget that.

352. It’s almost embarrassing to say this is my personal impact compared with what we’ve been hearing about here over these last weeks. However, if I wasn’t here this morning I would be cycling with the Chiltern Society Cycling Group who are going to meet at the Black Horse in Great Missenden, cycle for 20 miles and then come back, have lunch and a beer. That’s about a group of 20 cycles and they probably each spend about £10; £200 income for the pub at a weekday lunchtime. This is not a bad thing for them. And I can only say if this scheme goes ahead I doubt we will be starting from the Black Horse in Great Missenden again.

353. So half the AONB from where I live will be out of bounds for 8 or 10 years during the construction. There are many other cyclists who use these roads. If you go out there on a Sunday you’ll see far more cyclists than cars. And so on their behalf I’d say that this is a thoroughly bad scheme for them.

354. Travel very briefly. When I’m working near Abingdon my route would cross the trace three times: once down Rocky Lane and under Small Dean viaduct and then Nash

A517 (57) HOL/00600/0217 Lee Road. Fortunately I don’t have to make that journey everyday anymore. All the roads that I would use – A413, B4009, A410 – these are all used by HS2 construction traffic. To travel into London I would want to get to the Chiltern Line, and congestion in Chesham, Amersham and going down to Cheltenham would be… my journey would be impeded and I’d have to start earlier. I could probably get to Berkhamsted in about the usual sort of time but then I’d run into the fact that a couple of lines have been taken out of service at Euston.

355. Next slide, please. Right, now we get on to the main course. This is the A413 which goes from Gerrards Cross to Stoke Mandeville very closely following the HS2 line which you can see with the various coloured sections, with the viaducts and cuttings and embankments and so forth. Now, you might note at this point how this major construction route divides the AONB, one of the more tranquil parts between the A41 corridor around Berkhamsted and the M40 corridor through High Wycombe, and takes a line straight through the middle, splitting it in two so that the AONB is being sectioned up and eventually it will lose its character.

356. Now, the point of this talk is about the A413, the traffic congestion and the data that’s been provided; and what I hope to show you is that a very large amount of data which HS2 has provided us doesn’t answer the questions posed by the end user which is ‘how much longer will it take me to get to work in the morning?’ and in order to answer the question which this Committee might reasonably ask, which is: is this a feasible construction scheme?

357. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you mean the whole thing?

358. DR CONBOY: Sorry?

359. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you mean the whole thing?

360. DR CONBOY: I’m specifically referring to the traffic assessments. I will go into them in some detail. This is just to show where I’m going. The presentation and quality is in some cases very poor but nevertheless it does raise some very serious concerns about how this will affect congestion on the A413.

361. Next slide, please. Right, here we have the A413. It’s the main commuter route

A517 (58) HOL/00600/0218 down from Aylesbury Vale towards London. It’s also a route up to many of the villages and the little lanes in the Chilterns which are so characteristic of it. It’s not the safest of roads; there’s a rather well known pinch point at the Deep Mill railway bridge in the mornings and evenings. It can be very congested. This is not a terribly bad day but, as you can see, it’s just a continuous queue of traffic and very difficult to turn on to in various places, as we’ve heard earlier. And on top of that it is the main route to get to the A&E Department at Stoke Mandeville.

362. Next slide, please. To go into the traffic flows in more detail, you can see the main flow of commuters comes down from Aylesbury and Aylesbury Vale along the A413. And when they get round the Amersham area they have choices of continuing on the A413 towards Gerrards Cross, queuing up at Denham to get onto the M40, or they can go down the A355 to Beaconsfield, queue up in Beaconsfield and get onto the M40. They can also, some of them, go north into Amersham along the A404 an join the M25 at Rickmansworth which sometimes is not quite as bad.

363. The other minor thing which I must point out is that you can also get to the M1 through Hemel Hempstead. And if there’s an accident on the M25 this is where you’re sat now that you have traffic control alarms. It won’t do you any good because Chesham and Amersham are both seized up. But this happens on occasion. We can tell if there’s an accident on the M25 because nothing moves.

364. Right, next slide please. Now, this is what we anticipate may happen during the construction phase. We are expecting severe delays on this section of the A413 roundabout where the main construction compounds are. And what will happen to commuter traffic? Well, the people who plan ahead will maybe go down through Butler’s Cross, Rignall Road, into Great Kings Hill, Prestwood and through these roads and join the A413. In doing so they will pass a rather nice country house called Chequers, which you might hope to be invited to, and one of the best collections of ‘Stop HS2’ signs in the country. The others have left things a little bit late, and they get to the end of the Wendover Bypass here and find that nothing – this bit – that nothing is moving, they can then turn off Rocky Lane, which you’ve heard about earlier, up through Swanbottom, through Chartridge, and down into Chesham, where they will add considerably to the problems we have there already, which we will tell you about next week.

A517 (59) HOL/00600/0219 365. Next slide please. So how much congestion should we expect? And to start with a little cliché it’s rather difficult, we don’t know yet. What have we been given? We have the junction analysis; we have figures for traffic generated by construction compounds, and we have the peak hour traffic flows, and I’ll come to all of these in turn. Next slide. Right, this is the junction analysis from the ES, I’m afraid not the latest version, table 7.51 Central Chilterns. This predicts, as you can see here, this is the B485 joining the A413 at the roundabout near Missenden, maximum queue two vehicles. This is a picture I took in quite a hurry to get it into our ES response, and you can see that there’s a good quarter of a mile of tailback there, nearly halfway up the hill. Right in the background here that’s the A413 a bit further down, but… This junction assessment has no correspondence to what we experience on the ground, and frankly it’s not of any use. Next slide please.

366. MR HENDRICK: Is that because it’s not based around peak traffic; it’s an average over the day?

367. MR CONBOY: I believe it is supposed to be peak traffic, what would be the point of assessing then?

368. MR HENDRICK: I agree with you; that’s my question?

369. MR CONBOY: If it’s not about peak traffic it’s not really what we want to know. You want to know what’s happening when you try to get to work, can you get out of B485? Will it take you 10 minutes or 20? This is not a unique aberrant junction. When the, I think there was a committee of the other place, were investigating these matters we sent off a whole selection of these sort of things that we found from various different groups. I don’t have them all to hand; it’s just an example from our area. Traffic by compound: this is from – I won’t refer you to the document, I think you saw it earlier – but we have a little box for each compound, this is the Rocky Lane underbridge compound, which is, is it that one? Yes. Anyway, so we’ve got duration of busy movement, and we’ve got a peak HGV flow of actually in this case 300 to 450 a day, which you would never get out of the bottom of Rocky Lane onto the A413, but that’s not the point of this presentation. This gives us the total for the day; we then have the histograms, can I see P7596(1)? Okay. This is getting better: we have the actual change in the rates over time, it looks like quarterly. Unfortunately what it

A517 (60) HOL/00600/0220 doesn’t tell us is how these flows are distributed over the course of the day. The HGVs are presumably evenly distributed and with luck will be less during peak hours. The cars, which is the grey, and presumably that includes the contractors’ vehicles naturally want to get there at the start of the day to start work, the same as everyone else, and go home in the evening, and we don’t actually have the figures for that. The other missing factor is how all these different compounds will combine together to produce traffic on the A413, which we will get onto again later.

370. Next slide please. Sorry, that’s the same again. Yes. Okay, daily traffic flows: we have very nice maps, which label the locations, which make life a bit easier, and we’ve got here the daily traffic flows at various locations. Again, although we have now got the total for the A413, we don’t have the breakdown over time, and this is what I think led to the people at the bottom of Rocky Lane actually doing their own survey. Next slide please. And the other element, which HS2 provided us with, are the extensive tables of peak traffic flows in the CFA document, I think volume 5 for each area. When we first got these I attempted to make some sense of it and constructed a little graphic showing how the traffic travels up and down the A413, and I don’t expect you to go into all the details, but, for instance, here is the Missenden Bypass north of the B485, and these are vehicles. The blue is all vehicles going south and the red is HGVs going south, and then we have similar things from the side roads, and so forth all the way down. The first thing to note is this is Amersham, Gore Hill, there’s these three roads off into Amersham, they’re not construction routes, so we don’t have any figures for them. But for other difficulties you might be able to make a guess at what those figures were, but unfortunately we also found on looking at these figures they don’t altogether make sense. There are strange things, which you might not expect, and we know we’ve found the problem in this particular junction, which I’ll use as an example, there appears to be a deficit of 62 vehicles. If you add up the number of HGVs that come into the junction and the number going out, you would expect them to be roughly equal. Can I have the next slide please?

371. Okay. This is the actual junction: A413 meets the A404 coming up from High Wycombe. This is a very major junction right outside the Amersham vent shaft, and you can see from the picture it doesn’t have any obviously magical properties; it’s just a road junction. Next slide please. Okay. Taking this from the ES tables the top row is

A517 (61) HOL/00600/0221 the traffic, the flow of HGVs into the junction from each road. The bottom row is the HGV flow out of the junction from each road, and a cursory inspection you can see there are more HGVs flowing into the junction on each of the roads than flow out.

372. If it was an underground car park this would be fairly credible, but, in fact, it’s a road junction as you saw form the previous slide, and there’s a discrepancy of about 60. Okay, this is a survey, 5%, 10% we might expect as something error, but an error of one third is going beyond what you could really hope to live with and have any confidence in the data. We followed this up with two FOI requests, or rather an FOI request and a complaint. The first response was, ‘Oh, these numbers are from Little Missenden, all the lorries had gone walkabout on the way down from Little Missenden,’ but, in fact, there’s nowhere for them to go. There’s no credible place they could have turned off, so we complained about that, and we find the real reason. Where are we – can I have A1362(20)? If you look at the highlighted section of the FOI response we see, ‘the Amersham Bypass count data was derived from Buckinghamshire County Council counts. Due to the primary counts not distinguishing HGVs we had to use average HGV counts from April and May 2011.’ So, in fact, they’ve taken some Bucks data from some different time, which doesn’t distinguish HGVs, put it together with their survey data, and ended up with some nonsense. Can we go back to the slide, which would be slide 13, I believe?

373. Okay. So I must ask: why didn’t they do a survey of the Amersham bypass? It’s not just a trivial little side road somewhere, it’s one of the main construction routes taking a lot of the traffic out of the AONB. And why is there no effective quality control? I would refer you to the PRD, but my copy of it doesn’t have numbers, but PRD paragraph 25: ‘the promoter does not agree that unreliable traffic baseline information has been used to carry out the traffic assessments. Transport surveys and quantitative assessments have been carried out in all locations where the proposed scheme can reasonably be considered to have a significant traffic effect.’ Well, if you would accept that the A413 might not be reasonably considered to have a significant traffic effect then that is a true statement, but otherwise I submit it’s not.

374. Paragraph 26: ‘The modelling and assessment work undertaken is robust because blah, blah, blah… number 3, it was subject to appropriate quality assurance checks’. Well, in this case I can’t see that it has been. So basically they have been taking short

A517 (62) HOL/00600/0222 cuts, they haven’t done the amount of work which you might expect on a project of this scale and the amount of money that’s been spent on it. I also looked up at the same figures in AP2: this same junction had 221 HGVs in, 160 out, and there were still 61 missing. So not only did they publish this rather dubious data in the first instance, they haven’t even bothered to correct it. Can I have the next slide please? I’ll just mention, if I did that in my profession I would be in some difficulty by now.

375. So, how much congestion do we expect? First of all we’ve seen that the junction analysis is, well I’ve written it politely on this slide, but I’d say useless. The traffic generator at compounds: well, that’s promising with the histograms, but doesn’t have the time of day information. Peak hour traffic is a missed opportunity; this is the sort of thing that you want, but it doesn’t appear reliable. Fourthly I’d like to introduce the idea of road load factors, which is a formula which will tell you how much traffic you can reasonably expect to put on a road. Can I have A1362(12) please? This is from the design manual for roads and bridges from the Department of Transport, which I found on the internet. Next please of this sequence: 1362(13). There is, I’ll leave the quote just for now, but this gives a formula for road capacity as a function of various variables, and the ones we are interested in here is the percentage of HGVs in the flow and the factor which relates to the road width. Next slide please. Okay, and the guts of the thing is for a single carriageway without any HGVs – sorry, where is it – pointing at this bit, this is a 7 metre single carriageway; you might expect to get 1,380 private cars through in an hour. Right, can I return to the presentation slide 15.

376. Okay. So with a bit of data scrabbling I took the figures from the peak flows, and I applied this formula from the roads and bridges manual, and what I find is the narrower sections of the A413, which haven’t been improved, which are north and south of the Great Missenden Bypass, which is okay, because it’s wider, these are loaded at over 100%. If you see these sections here, this section here, and the section between Great Missenden and Little Missenden is marginally under 100% - not a figure that I’d be comfortable with.

377. MR HENDRICK: Is 100% 1,380?

378. MR CONBOY: Well it’s 1,380 less factor for the percentage number of HGVs. In fact, I think it equates eight HGVs to nine cars, which you might think is not a great

A517 (63) HOL/00600/0223 deal.

379. MR HENDRICK: So it has to be weighted between the two different types of vehicle?

380. MR CONBOY: It’s to reflect the fact that if you’ve got a lot of HGVs they travel more slowly, you can’t pass them, this sort of thing; at least I imagine that’s what it’s doing. I could suggest ways to look at this formula again, but that’s not what I’m doing at this point. The point is, in the roads and bridges manual it says, ‘Once the road is used beyond its capacity,’ it says, ‘Flow breaks down with speeds varying considerably, average speeds drop significantly, the sustainable throughput is reduced, and queues likely to form.’ I believe this is something like you might have encountered on a motorway; all of sudden you slow down to about 20mph, you crawl for half a mile, and then suddenly it speeds up again and there’s no apparent reason.

381. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The wave effect.

382. MR CONBOY: Sorry?

383. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s called the wave effect.

384. MR CONBOY: Yes, but it happens…

385. MR HENDRICK: It’s called bunching.

386. MR CONBOY: Yes, it happens when you’re approaching the limits of the road; it’s a chaotic flow technically, and things can break down.

387. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: As a low speed A Level physicist, to a high speed post-doctoral physicist it isn’t; it’s the wave effect and you can see it on all sorts of roads miles away from the junction.

388. MR CONBOY: Yes well I think this is a similar thing, but I would imagine that on a road like the A413 where it’s narrow it’s going to be rather more dramatic. Okay. I also checked out the AP2 figures, which are very similar: 110, 94, 97, so I think there is a slight reduction on traffic on the A413 until you get to Rocky Lane where it shoots up again, because you’re moving all the spoil down from Hunter’s Green. Right, so my observation at this point is that although I have my doubts about the data, if you take it

A517 (64) HOL/00600/0224 just a little bit further than HS2 have been prepared to do, I mean, you can tell somebody how many HGVs and how much traffic there is no the road, what does it mean? It’s very difficult to interpret, but if you say a road is working at 85% of capacity then that might be worrying, 75% okay, 110% you can anticipate severe problems. I would ask, one of my asks, is that HS2 should produce these sort of figures.

389. I’ll briefly survey the consequences, which I know we will go into more detail next week, can I have the next slide please? Firstly, I’m sure you’ve heard our worries about ambulances: the nearest A&E is Stoke Mandeville in Aylesbury at the top, we have two other hospitals nearby, High Wycombe and Amersham. On this side all the red routes are HS2 construction routes, you can see if the A413 grinds to a halt you have to use a construction route to get anywhere else: this is not very good news. Our basic point is we want to get to hospital if necessary; we don’t want to get there is reasonably practical. Next slide please. Fire and rescue: you can see all the major stations, which are fully manned, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Watford, and Hemel, and in the middle we have Chesham, Amersham, Great Missenden and the construction route. Amersham is manned by a crew during the day, all the rest of those are on retained duty, which means they phone people up and they come from their place of work. I would submit, with all respect to the retained duty people, this is not a way to manage emergency services for a major construction project, particularly when the main fire station is some way away and it would take some time to get there. This I think we will return to next week, thank you. Next slide.

390. Now I’ll get on to requests: for AP4 this might be implemented with a bit of luck. Firstly, at some points we have a timescale which is project year, and sometimes we have calendar year, and there may be a reason to do that, but it would be nice to know what the offset is. We would like some realistic junction assessments, which have actually been compared by somebody going and having a look at the junction, maybe taking some measurements, and seeing if they can reproduce those in the first instance, and then try and project them forward for another three or four years. We’d like the traffic figures to be extended to the roads which are at risk from displaced traffic, the roads that are not construction routes, but the roads where the commuter traffic, which is not under HS2’s control, is likely to go? We would like to know how much of that is

A517 (65) HOL/00600/0225 happening at the moment and how much, if possible, it might be anticipated. The fourth point is to actually do the work which I have been trying to do, which is to produce a breakdown of what traffic is anticipated on the A413, say, by each quarter during the construction period in the morning and evening peaks, so we know whether the road is overloaded, and, if it is, we might think that HS2 should be asked to revise their plans and see what they can do about it.

391. MR HENDRICK: Could I ask what the definition of capacity is, is it the point at which congestion starts to occur?

392. MR CONBOY: No I think capacity is the point at which the flow breaks down.

393. MR HENDRICK: So then you get the bunching effect?

394. MR CONBOY: Yes, you get bunching effects, you get queues; it’s the point at which you’ve exceeded the road capacity. This was the quote I had on – could we go back to slide 15 please? It’s this quotation here at the bottom where they say capacity is the point at which the flow breaks down, speeds varying considerably, etc. That’s from the roads and bridges manual; that’s what they mean by road capacity. It means when you can’t get any more through basically. Right, back to 18. Okay, and the last ask is can we have these tables in spreadsheets? It is quite ridiculous to issue pdfs with acres of data, which on their own are quite meaningless. If you’ve got that amount of data you want to plot it, you want to find the maximum, find the minimums. At the moment we have to take it from a pdf, put it into Word, and then cut and paste it into Excel; I certainly wouldn’t even consider trying to type it out. In the scientific community at the moment there’s a thing called open data, where when you do an experiment you have to be able to make the data available for somebody else to check it easily. I would ask that HS2 have a look at this way of doing things. We have to do it otherwise they don’t pay us. Next slide please. That would particularly apply to the noise figures incidentally, which are even worse.

395. Mitigation list, again, is things you may have heard of and probably will hear about again. We haven’t had any consideration of other ways of moving out the bulk materials, moving out spoil, moving in bulk materials, and a railhead. I’ve stayed near the compound, so I’d better watch my back here, but somewhere on the Chiltern Line there must be a place where you could get rid of some of this stuff without taking it all

A517 (66) HOL/00600/0226 out by road. I’d just say that the route of all this, of course, is that there was no comprehensive environmental assessment done in the first instance, which would have told people that if you build a railway through the middle of the Chiltern Hills, particularly on the surface, you’ve going to have problems with spoil and getting it out, or alternatively, if you haven’t got enough to build embankments, getting stuff in again. This should have been thought of ages ago and it should have been assessed in the ES in the first instance. We’d like to prohibit HGV movements during peak hours; I’ve said here 9.00am to 4.00pm, although the half hour either side of that is pretty dodgy as well; we saw the figures from the earlier petitioners. The only way I think we can keep the…

396. CHAIR: When you say HGV movements, do you mean HS3 HGV movements or all HGV movements?

397. MR CONBOY: Well obviously they can only control their own movements, so, yes, it would be HGVs associated with HS2. In some of the compounds the flows are so enormous it’s difficult to see how this can be achieved and I think they have to think about what they’re trying to do there. Travel plans in the ES they proposed a car share scheme; now, we know what the take-up for car share schemes is, that is not going to do anything. We’d like them to have a park and ride and with some teeth; if you can’t park on the compounds, but you can park somewhere around Amersham or somewhere around Wendover, and be driven in on the bus, then people may do it. The other thing is in the event of an emergency relying on the blue light on the top of the ambulance is a little ancient technology; by that time there is probably nowhere for the HGVs to actually get out of the way, the road is not wide enough, you don’t run a 30 tonne truck up the verge in the same way that you might be able to squeeze to the side in a car. So we would ask for some system where in an emergency they actually interrupt the flow of vehicles sometime beforehand, so the ambulances can get through. If that doesn’t work then I think we need to look at the air ambulance cover for this area; there is one air ambulance comes up from Benson, is that going to be adequate? One of the main beneficiaries may well be the construction workers themselves; it’s a very dangerous industry and they are in places that are not necessarily close to the road. So this is another consideration. These things I think we may revisit next week in possible more detail. That’s all I have to say today, thank you for your attention and if there are any

A517 (67) HOL/00600/0227 questions I’m not sure whether I’m obliged to answer them, but I will as a witness.

398. CHAIR: You can always take the Fifth. Mr Strachan?

399. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to respond to the points that have been made; there is an overarching response, which is of relevance to I think most of what Dr Conboy said, which is that, as the Committee already knows, the promoter is already undertaking further traffic assessments of the A413 and the junctions that Dr Conboy is referring to, and undertaking discussion with Buckinghamshire County Council and the Highway Authority on the results of that work. So I say that’s an overriding response, because that process involves further traffic assessments of the A413, and the junction, including the sensitive junctions that Buckinghamshire County Council has identified. And, no doubt, if one wants to call it peer review, but I don’t know how you describe it, Buckinghamshire County Council scrutinising that material as part of a review of what our assessments have shown. So, in a sense, because that further work is on-going and being undertaken, the material that’s already been put in is going to be superseded by that. That said, I’m still going to just respond briefly to what was done, because a number of criticisms have been made of it, but I do hasten to add that it’s somewhat academic in that sense.

400. CHAIR: And the point about the work on the junctions is presumably to increase the capacity of the junctions by engineering works – if that’s possible and necessary?

401. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If it’s necessary then to look at what measures to increase capacity, be it controls on flows or indeed engineering works, whatever may be necessary.

402. CHAIR: Thank you.

403. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So I make that general point, but can I just, because Dr Conboy has gone through a number of points, I will just respond briefly, albeit I won’t cover everything he said. He referred first of all to the junction with the A413 and Chesham Road, and he referred to some of the modelling work in the environmental statement, but what he didn’t refer to was that for that junction itself in the environmental statement, paragraph 12.4.13, I think it’s page 192, and I think he was suggesting there isn’t sort of sense checking of these things; it was already

A517 (68) HOL/00600/0228 identified in the Traffic and Transport section that ‘Changes in traffic flows (12.4.13) are expected to lead to significant changes in delay and congestion to vehicle occupants at the following junctions.’ You’ll see the A413 – sorry, I said Chesham Road, it was Frith Hill I think he was identifying – ‘A413 London Road, B485 Frith Hill, major adverse effect’, and you can see there’s a footnote that explains what a major adverse effect is considered to be. Sorry, back on the same page please, just at the bottom. I’m not sure if we can read it, but ‘When traffic flows the junction will be beyond or very close to capacity with the proposed scheme, and the increases in traffic due to the proposed scheme will be such as to substantially increase queues or delays on a routine basis at peak times.’ So these issues arising from modelling work were being identified in the Environmental Statement, and that’s a precursor to then the mitigation, which is the process of Traffic Management Plans and looking at these junctions in more detail. If the criticism is that we haven’t picked up on these points, that’s not right because they’re in the Environmental Statement and hence the further work that’s been going on with Buckinghamshire County Council, who have, no doubt, themselves wanted us to look at these junctions.

404. The second point was just a general picture that Dr Conboy was suggesting that these traffic flows are going to happen for nine or 10 years and are going to sever this part of the AONB. That’s simply not the case and the Committee has already seen how construction traffic for Environmental Statement purposes is assessed on a worst-case scenario. Just to give you an idea of that again, P8144(1), Dr Conboy went to the construction traffic on Rocky Lane. What one can see from these is that the mass haul movements for Rocky Lane occur for a period of just over two years, and the flows are indicated. So the levels of construction activity which are potentially going to create additional HGV traffic of potential significance to the area are limited in duration, and that’s when, of course, the Traffic Management Plans will need to be particularly effective to deal with that, but the construction periods generating mass haul have already been limited to these periods. And the Committee will have heard, of course, the reason why that happens is that we managed to use the haul routes wherever possible to take the bulk of the traffic and keep it off the roads. That’s why we’re compressing it into these certain periods of time, and the reason for that I’ve already explained, about why you have to come on to the roads at certain points. The traffic, of course, under the bored tunnel options would actually be greater because of the greater

A517 (69) HOL/00600/0229 construction works for CRAG T3I that we discussed.

405. MR HENDRICK: Isn’t it the case though that by showing the average number of trips, and obviously the area under the graph and the period you’re talking about from 04 until 06 gives an idea of the total or the quantum? What I think Dr Conboy was referring to is it doesn’t give an indication of the peaks, and the peaks are where you get the congestion.

406. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): This histogram is not telling you when traffic is released onto the roads during the day; this is just giving you the peak.

407. MR HENDRICK: Well, that’s my point.

408. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, that’s right.

409. MR HENDRICK: And it would be more valid in terms of looking at where you get major queues and major problems to look at the peaks as well as the overall traffic average.

410. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I was going to make just two points about that. First of all, when traffic is actually going to be released onto the road is the subject of the Traffic Management Plans, so that’s something that is going to be dealt with as part of that. But for the purposes of the Environmental Statement, in relation to traffic flows which Dr Conboy did refer to, and also for junctions, but traffic flows, there has been a worst-case assumption modelled there for peak hours where one assumes a – I think it’s 13% – but, in effect, release of HGV traffic into the peak as if it were being spread out across the day without regard to the peak hours. So the traffic flow modelling of traffic flows on the roads assumes release of HGVs purely without reference to the Traffic Management Plan. Similarly, it assumes, I think, 50% of the local workforce arriving or travelling by car. I think I’ve got those figures correct. So the Environmental Statement does do such modelling work but, again, it’s very much worst-case scenario and not taking into account the mitigation measures which will come with the Traffic Management Plans. I’ll show you that in a moment by reference to his slides.

411. So if we go back to A1361(11). I think he’s taken this from our traffic flow analysis.

A517 (70) HOL/00600/0230 412. DR CONBOY: Yes.

413. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We’ve explained to Dr Conboy in a letter to him (sorry, I’ll get it up on the screen in a moment) that these are traffic flow analyses which happen at points on the road. They’re not measuring traffic flows through junctions; that’s a separate exercise. This is traffic flow, so you can work out traffic flows at specific points, but you can’t, as I think Dr Conboy is seeking to do – they’re not intended to be treated as junction flow capacity analyses where you’re getting vehicles into –

414. MR HENDRICK: The point Dr Conboy was making is: Wouldn’t it be more valuable and indicative of how traffic is going to feel to drivers to show that type of data, rather than just giving numbers, which doesn’t mean anything to anybody?

415. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): These are traffic flows at specific points on a worst-case scenario. I think what Dr Conboy was seeking to take from them was saying that they didn’t marry up, the figures are entirely inconsistent.

416. MR HENDRICK: Well, there’s that as well.

417. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s what I was dealing with. They’re not inconsistent because he’s mistaking the different purpose of them. I’ll show you the letter. 1362(17). I’m just taking the points he made in turn. If you look at the paragraph: ‘However, as identified in Annexe B3, these counts are not, as assumed in your request for information, counts immediately adjacent to the junction of the A404/A413. The London Road count is at Little Missenden recording traffic in the vicinity of the proposed Little Missenden vent shaft, consequently the calculation undertaken to assess the net flow changes at the junction is not appropriate’, that’s the one he was doing, ‘since there are a number of junctions between the A413 count at Little Missenden and the junction that would result in a significant difference between the counts.’

418. MR HENDRICK: Could I ask him to respond to that?

419. CHAIR: Yes.

420. DR CONBOY: That is the initial response from HS2 to our FOI request. I

A517 (71) HOL/00600/0231 complained about this, which is the next letter, and they said, ‘Oh, sorry, we’re wrong, it’s nothing –

421. MR HENDRICK: Yes, and they admitted the fault, didn’t they?

422. DR CONBOY: ‘It’s nothing to do with that. It’s because we took two different surveys and combined them.’

423. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

424. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s a separate point which I’m coming to. Let’s be clear, there are –

425. DR CONBOY: But let’s be clear that –

426. CHAIR: No, let Mr Strachan finish please.

427. DR CONBOY: Sorry.

428. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll say my piece and then you can. There are traffic flow counts (the traffic flow counts that I’ve just shown you) and there are traffic junction capacity analyses. They are two separate things: junction capacity analysis is measuring flows in and out of a junction to look at its capacity; traffic flow counts are taking isolated counts at points on roads to look at predicted flows. One of the main reasons for that is to look at severance, so: Are people going to be able to get across the roads bearing in mind traffic flows? But the two things are separate, as you’ll know, Mr Hendrick.

429. The first criticism Dr Conboy was making was about the traffic flow counts to suggest there were inconsistencies between traffic in from a road and traffic flowing along it, but that’s not what those traffic flows are showing. They’re showing counts at different points; they’re not purporting to cover every junction. That was the first point we responded to.

430. MR HENDRICK: Well, again, it’s a genuine question: How can you get a number of cars flowing into a junction and not get the same number flowing out?

431. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s the separate point which we responded to on

A517 (72) HOL/00600/0232 the junction capacity analysis, which was his slide A1362.... I’ve lost the slide. But that was his second point where he took you to a slide which showed different vehicles going in and out, and we did respond to that as he referred to in A1362(20). I don’t know if we can get that on. Page 20 please. He read you the yellow part: ‘The short answer is there were different count data used for different arms and –

432. MR HENDRICK: So, he was correct.

433. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): He’s correct but he didn’t read out the rest of the explanation. ‘...these are all adjusted to be consistent using standard road factors, but inevitably the precise growth along this corridor compared to these standards may have introduced some differences. More significantly, the examination showed substantial daily variation, for example...’, and then examples are given, ‘although these should still present a reasonable average for the period they do show the potential week-to-week and month-to-month variation that can occur, and are likely to be the cause of differences you’ve observed.’ So, there are differences but for the traffic assessment purposes, given the variation you can get in the peak, they were capable of being used for the assessment.

434. MR HENDRICK: But ballpark. They’re saying they were ballpark.

435. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The reason I have made my preliminary point was, of course, this has all become somewhat academic because we are now carrying out traffic counts and assessments.

436. MR HENDRICK: Maybe, but you wouldn’t want the same even mistakes or inconsistencies that were shown in those that Dr Conboy has highlighted to occur in the ones you’re doing now, and I think it’s valuable that he’s brought this up.

437. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, the reason why I’m responding to it is because they’re not mistakes or inconsistencies for the reason I’ve explained.

438. MR HENDRICK: This letter is quite woolly – the response. I think it’s accepting the point that it’s not comparing like with like in terms of the way they’ve put the figures together, and then he’s saying it’s fancy language to say, ‘Well, this is just a ballpark indication of how it might be.’

A517 (73) HOL/00600/0233 439. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, it’s there on the page. It says what’s been done.

440. MR HENDRICK: It says –

441. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s taken available data, and they’re different counts; there’s variation in the peak hours for all of these arms as to what flows you’d get at different times, but for these purposes those variations are not going to significantly affect the overall assessment. That said, whenever there’s a sensitive junction of the type Bucks have identified, we are carrying out the further counts and assessments and we’re producing the further data that they requested, so even more detailed analysis.

442. CHAIR: I presume if you’re meeting with Buckinghamshire County Council the first point is to agree the traffic levels and the impact on junctions so that everybody’s agreed on what the problem is before you start to try and work out solutions.

443. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely.

444. CHAIR: So, inevitably, if your count is too low and Bucks County Council say it is and they have further information, at some point you’re going to come up with a broad approach which is agreeing on the levels of traffic.

445. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, and I think Highway’s engineers are capable of agreeing, even if there are differences, what a workable difference is to give a valid analysis.

446. MR HENDRICK: Could you tell me, instead of just giving the figures in terms of the number of cars, either average or peak flow, you don’t deal with it in the same way that Dr Conboy was dealing with it in trying to assess the percentage of capacity, so you can immediately get an indication of what the flow is like.

447. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, and again, that’s a matter for the Highway’s engineers, but I understand that road capacity is a product of a significant number of features, including, importantly –

448. MR HENDRICK: But we still have the –

A517 (74) HOL/00600/0234 449. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): – junction capacity, and then environmental effects of the road itself: geometry, speed limits, sight lines, conflicting traffic movements, the land use, pedestrian interaction. You can’t derive a road capacity from a figure of the type that was being referred to, which is to do with the design of a new rural road; one has to look at capacity of a road having regard to all of the factors. One of the key factors, of course, is junction capacity, which affects the way in which the traffic actually flows along these roads.

450. MR HENDRICK: Yes, I see your point. The formula would be used to design a highway, whereas what you get is empirical data that is actually exhibiting how that road or highway is performing.

451. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Because it’s there and it has all of those features already in.

452. MR HENDRICK: Yes, I understand.

453. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: At the risk of – to Mark’s point. When I launched one of the editions of the Institute of Highways and Transportation’s ‘Brown Book’, I think I flipped through it and found it was perfectly acceptable to either have a third of ghost vehicles appear at one end of a junction or a third of real vehicles disappear at the other end of a junction, and I was asked whether I was right to be launching the book. It seems to me that in addition to the comments you’ve given us there’s still something to be explained, and I think that rather than discussing it much further here today it might be sensible if Dr James Conboy could be provided with the way you’re going to estimate the capacity of the junctions, what mediation can be taken to increase them to what’s necessary, or if you can’t do what’s necessary, to say so. I think we also, I hope, you going to come on to the question of whether the data which is being used to produce the PDFs can be provided in an open-source way so others can try to use it however appropriately or inappropriately.

454. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well, I think there are two requests there. The first relating to involving Dr Conboy in what we’re proposing to do. I don’t think there will be any difficulty in telling him what we’re proposing to do. Obviously, what we’re doing is a discussion with Buckinghamshire County Council and therefore by telling him what we’re proposing to do – Buckinghamshire may have their own views so it’s a

A517 (75) HOL/00600/0235 sort of an iterative process to make sure what we do –

455. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be iterative but... I’ve not been a county councillor but I guess that if I had been if I had people who were taking a serious interest in what I was trying to do I’d welcome having their comments. I wouldn’t want to sort of go away and do work in private and then dump it on the interested people.

456. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well. Again, I emphasise I’m not speaking for Buckinghamshire County Council today. I’ll leave them to decide how they want to manage it. On the question of provision of data, I think there may be a practical difficulty with providing all of the data in a different format. Indeed, as I understand it, coming back to this peer review point, what’s critical is to have the Highway Authority’s agreement or assessment of what we’re doing. I’m not quite sure how these data is communicated to them. I’ll find out.

457. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The data is built up from what Dr Conboy wants into something which he can read but can’t use. Is that right? I think it works.

458. DR CONBOY: Yes, it is a real pain to try and convert it back into a spreadsheet, which is what it started out as.

459. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, okay. Feed that back to your people and see what they can do.

460. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll find out about that.

461. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We aren’t in wartime so traffic counts aren’t sort of significant to our enemies.

462. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The reason I’ve gone into it perhaps in more detail than was necessary is that the explanations have been given, there is further work going on as Buckinghamshire requested, but the criticisms that have been made we don’t accept in the way that they’ve been put for the reasons I’ve sought to explain: traffic flows, junction capacity, separate analyses, and then this explanation.

463. CHAIR: Okay.

464. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll just check if there was anything else. Yes,

A517 (76) HOL/00600/0236 sorry. There was just in relation to control of the traffic and mitigation, car-sharing arrangements. It’s far more extensive, the options that are available for the green travel plans in the Code of Construction Practice, than simply just car sharing. And if Dr Conboy wasn’t aware and didn’t hear previously, the histograms and the assessments are very robust in terms of the worst-case scenario because they assume 100% of workers travel to these sites by car with only 20% car- sharing, whereas you can quickly see the measures that would ordinarily be introduced will significantly reduce that in practice, which is going to reduce all of that grey that appears on these histograms significantly. I just wanted to make that point because Dr Conboy may not have been here for it previously.

465. CHAIR: Okay.

466. DR CONBOY: I haven’t attended everything.

467. CHAIR: No, no. Brief final comments, Dr Conboy?

468. DR CONBOY: Yes, could we just have my slide 18 back again please? I have to say, first of all, I’m very pleased to hear that more work is going to be done on this. My main asks then, I’ll just reiterate. The junction assessments that we’ve seen have not been realistic and something ought to be done to make them realistic or find out why they weren’t. We do need to know what’s happening on the roads where displaced traffic will end up. We would like to know what the capacities are on the A413.

469. Regarding the quibbles about the FOI request, I won’t go into that in great detail. All I can say is if it was good in the first place, why would Bucks be asking them to do more and do it again. It’s not adequate what they’ve put forward previously. I’m surprised they would put it forward again. If, as we’re told, it’s not supposed to be consistent, a little note to that effect would have saved a great deal of effort. Also, I’ll just ask again that the data be made publicly accessible, not only for the travel information, but also for the noise assessment, which is a very similar situation – pages of numbers and very difficult to do. I hope to see you all next week.

470. CHAIR: Thank you for your contribution and I think that’s it for this morning’s session. Order, order. If you could please clear the room so we can clear our thoughts.

A517 (77) HOL/00600/0237 Sitting suspended On resuming—

471. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I have three announcements to make. The first is that the Government has deposited the proposed set of changes to the Hybrid Bill in Parliament in the form of a Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES2) and an Additional Provision, which will be known as AP3, and these changes relate to the revised design of Euston Station and the approach area and other design changes in the London Borough of Camden. They are changes made in the light of discussions with land owners, occupiers, and stakeholders with refinements to the design and updated environmental information. The Government is now consulting in accordance with the Parliamentary Standing Orders on the on the SES2 and the Environmental Statement that accompanies AP3.

472. The second announcement is that a Bill amendment giving effect to the deletion of the HS1 link has accompanied the deposit of AP3. The Amendment includes: changes to the title of the Bill, the description of the works; the deletion from the Bill schedules of the relevant and scheduled works of land parcels, listed buildings, and highways for that link; and the redundant Bill plans and sections were also removed from the list of exceptions in Clause 57 of the Bill. The amendments will be incorporated within the filled Bill when this is prepared after the House of Commons’ process. The landowner notices issued in accordance with Standing Order 13 were withdrawn on 2 May 2014, and the SES that was deposited with AP3 also includes an assessment of the environmental impacts that arise from the deletion of the link, including, in particular, traffic impacts.

473. Finally, the third announcement just relates to the fourth publication of the Draft Register of Undertakings and Assurances. The fourth version of the Draft Register of Undertakings and Assurances will be made public today before midnight on the HS2 website. It’s an Update Register providing the details of all undertakings and assurances that have been offered to petitioners up to 24 July 2015. The Register now contains 885 undertakings and assurances in total, and since the last publication 200 additional undertakings and assurances have been offered. There will be a change log on the website so that people can see what relevant amendments to the previously published

A517 (78) HOL/00600/0238 information have been made, and it would be useful if petitioners who have been offered undertakings and assurances up to that date could check the Register to see whether it matches their understanding of where they’ve been offered. We’ll publish further regular updates of the Register to keep the public informed. The next update is due to be published before Christmas.

474. CHAIR: Thank you. Anything more?

475. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, those are the only announcements. Thank you very much for listening.

476. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Strachan, for that update. Any other comments? Order, order. Thank you.

A517 (79) HOL/00600/0239

A517 (80) HOL/00600/0240