NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING CONTROL COMMITTEE

Meeting held in the Council Chamber, District Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City on Monday, 2 November 2009 at 7.30p.m.

MINUTES

PRESENT: Councillors: Jane Gray (Chairman), Mrs F.R. Hill (Vice-Chairman), D.J. Barnard, David Billing, John Booth (substitute), Paul Clark (until 9.00pm), J.M. Cunningham, Gary Grindal, A.F. Hunter, S.K. Jarvis (substitute), David Levett, M.R.M. Muir, Michael Paterson and Michael Weeks.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mary Caldwell (Planning Control and Conservation Manager), Tom Rea (Area Planning Officer), Tracey Farrell (Environmental Protection Officer), Andrew Mills (Service Manager - Grounds Maintenance), Anthony Roche (Solicitor) and Ian Gourlay (Senior Committee and Member Services Officer).

ALSO PRESENT: PC Guy McCallan (Hertfordshire Constabulary – Traffic Management Officer); Majinder Sehmi and Roger Taylor – Hertfordshire Highways County Councillor T.W. Hone, Councillors Elliot Needham, Mrs L.A. Needham, David Kearns, Lorna Kercher and Martin Stears-Handscomb and approximately 52 members of the public (including registered speakers).

110. CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

111. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Clare Body (Councillor S.K. Jarvis substituting) and Councillor Alan Millard (Councillor Booth substituting).

112. SUBSTITUTION OF MEMBERS

The Chairman confirmed that Councillor Clare Body had tendered her apologies for absence from the Committee at this meeting in accordance with the procedures of North Herts District Council, and that Councillor S.K. Jarvis would act as her substitute.

The Chairman further confirmed that Councillor Alan Millard had tendered his apologies for absence from the Committee at this meeting in accordance with the procedures of North Herts District Council, and that Councillor John Booth would act as his substitute.

113. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

There had been no notification of any other business.

114. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman announced that, as it was a major application that was before the Committee, and as the role of the Council was that of a consultee and not the determining authority, she had exercised her discretion and allowed 15 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 15 minutes for public representations, 15 minutes for local councilors and 15 minutes for the applicant.

The Chairman reminded Members that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a prejudicial or personal interest, and that such interests and the nature of such interests should be declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a prejudicial interest could speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 1 115. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chairman confirmed that all members of the public who had registered to speak at the meeting were in attendance.

116. 09/01840/1SU - LAND NORTH AND EAST OF CADWELL LANE AND WILBURY WAY AND WEST OF STOTFOLD ROAD, HITCHIN (HITCHIN RAILWAY CURVE)

[Prior to the commencement of this item, Councillor Levett declared a personal interest in view of his role as a recently appointed Governor of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, as the Foundation had submitted its comments regarding the scheme to the Council, albeit before the date on which Councillor Levett took up the role of Governor.

During the debate upon the item, when discussion arose on the possible use of Junction 9 of the A1(M) and A505 roads as an alternative route for construction traffic, Councillors J.M. Cunningham and Michael Paterson declared personal interests in this matter as they both resided in properties adjacent to the A505 road.]

The Area Planning Officer updated the Committee on two matters.

Firstly, in addition to the comments received from third parties summarised in the report, a further 22 letters from local residents had been received by the Council since the report was written. The letters were from the occupiers of 14, 22, 35, 69 and 104 Hillcrest Park, 29, 31, 35, 45, 51, 63 and 73 Wilbury Hills Road, 11, 24, 36, 54, 60 and 88 Romany Close and 5 Wilbury Close. The main concerns expressed were lack of consultation, environmental impact, health and safety issues, increased traffic and congestion, concerns over a future access road out of the Hitchin Industrial Estate, and the lack of alternative construction routes and strategies, including whether material could be brought in by rail.

Secondly, Members were requested to note from the addendum report to the meeting that officers were recommending to the Committee that a second objection to the Draft Order proposals was raised, with specific reference to environmental concerns arising from the details of the flood attenuation scheme and exchange land at Burymead Springs. The addendum report also recommended two further planning conditions in relation to this land and a slight amendment to the wording of the recommended Section 106 agreement in respect of the restoration and enhancement of Cadwell Marsh and Burymead Springs.

Speakers

(i) Wilbury Residents’ Alliance

With the consent of the Chairman, Lyndsay Slaney-Parker addressed the Committee on behalf of the Wilbury Residents’ Alliance.

Ms Slaney-Parker stated that the Residents’ Alliance’s letter of objection and report was submitted on 16 October 2009 to NHDC. In view of the short time available, she presented a summary of the impact on Wilbury Residents and their concerns, as detailed in the Alliance’s letter and report. The major concerns centred around Network Rail’s:

• Failure to Consult; • Failure to Address Safety, Health and Amenity Issues; • Failure to Address Environmental Issues; • Failure to Decouple Local Planning Issues; and • Failure to Consider Rail & other Construction Alternatives.

Ms Slaney-Parker considered that the TWA was highly misleading and hid the fact that Network Rail did not comply with the requirement to complete Statutory consultation, in that they had failed to consult with Letchworth Garden City residents. Network Rail had only informed residents of their plans.

Ms Slaney-Parker stated that the Safety, Health and Amenity impact of the construction and its legacy on the Wilbury area had not been addressed in the TWA. A 175% increase in

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 2 HGVs on Wilbury Hills/Stotfold Road was significant (1 HGV per minute) and would peak at 200% plus. This was more than twice the volume seen by a recent Task and Finish Group on Grove Road, Hitchin, and should have triggered a viability study to see if Wilbury Hills/Stotfold Road was suitable. Wilbury Hills/Stotfold Road was 5 metres wide, the footpath ran un- segregated from the carriageway and comprised a major walking and cycling route for children attending Fearnhill and Wilbury Schools and the Letchworth Greenway. In addition, emergency services utilised this route to access this side of Letchworth, and there would be no room for the existing road users. They would be forced onto the already busy routes into and through Letchworth

Ms Slaney-Parker advised that Network Rail had failed to provide an environmental impact statement for the construction traffic. They had estimated traffic volumes, but there was no noise, vibration, pollution or CO2 emissions assessment for the proposed construction route/traffic

The Committee was advised that Network Rail had not seriously considered delivering materials to site by Rail, using tipping wagons and conveyors. Re-enforced concrete sections could be cast on site reducing road freighting of large components (cost savings and reduced carbon footprint would be achieved), and no consideration had been given to sharing the load on multiple access routes.

As an example, Ms Slaney-Parker stated that 3 children had been recently seen walking along Wilbury Hills Road, and were oblivious to the traffic passing within inches of them. This would become a near fatal activity with the volume of construction traffic proposed. It would be too dangerous to pull out of side roads or back out of driveways, potentially leaving people marooned at home (and children sitting in the back of the car would be put at further risk). Emergency services would not be able to get to people in this part of Letchworth and lives may be lost. The construction industry killed 1 worker every 4 days, and it was unacceptable that this risk be bought to the doors of Wilbury residents by the use of its roads as part of the site access.

Ms Slaney-Parker re-iterated that the Alliance was willing to meet with Network Rail to try to resolve the issues with the proposed construction. However, due to the extent of public concern about the huge adverse impact, its legacy on the population of Letchworth Garden City, the lack of consultation, and that the TWA does not mitigate the impact, the Alliance objected to the proposals and wanted a Public Inquiry.

Ms Slaney-Parker trusted that the Alliance had supplied NHDC with sufficient detail so that the Council could take the matter forward to the Secretary of State for Transport and lodge a formal objection on behalf of the residents.

(ii) Hillcrest Residents’ Association

With the consent of the Chairman, Alan Hinchcliffe addressed the Committee on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents’ Association.

Mr Hinchcliffe stated that the residents of hillcrest park objected to the way in which the matter had been handled by Network Rail, with little or no consultation with the people of Letchworth, let alone the health and safety impact on each of them, when residents of Hitchin/Ickleford had known of the scheme for 2 years, compared to only 3 months for Letchworth residents.

Mr Hinchcliffe advised that Hillcrest Park was constructed on a landfill site – the land was therefore unstable. He asked who would underwrite the homes in Hillcrest Park, because the road would not take the amount of HGVs of 32 tonnes upwards using Wilbury Hills Road, under which ran many of the services to the site. Some of the speed humps in Hillcrest Park were removed because of the vibration caused by HGVs making deliveries.

Mr Hinchcliffe had spoken to Shell Gas LPG, who supplied gas to the site, and who were completely unaware of the Network Rail proposals. He was still waiting for Shell Gas LPG to send a structural engineer to check tanks in order to assess whether or not they could be any problems.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 3 Mr Hinchcliffe explained that a survey of Wilbury Hills Road had been carried out by the Traffic Management Service from 8-15 July 2009. 45,957 vehicles were recorded, of which 8% were found to be speeding. He questioned whether HGVs would slow down, but considered this to be unlikely, as the drivers were paid per load. It was difficult enough exiting the Hillcrest Park site at the present time, but would be even more when the work commenced in 2011.

Mr Hinchcliffe asked when would sensors be installed to check noise/vibration, so that a baseline could be established. The report made many references to sensitive areas around Cadwell/Business Park – as most Hitchin residents were supportive of the link, according to a survey carried out by Network Rail, then maybe Hitchin should have the traffic, and not Letchworth.

Mr Hinchcliffe quoted from Hansard Papers – 23 October 2009 (re: Carbon Footprint):

“ That would help to reach the commitment set out in the Government’s climate change legislation to cut carbon emissions by a quarter by 2020 and by half by 2050. Rail freight can help reach this figure as every tonne of freight carried by rail produces at least 80 per cent less carbon dioxide than by road. Therefore, more rail freight would help to tackle congestion. Thr freight Transport Association estimates that one freight train can take 50 lorries off our roads, yet in 2008-09 there were 316,684 freight train movements, which was a 4.7 per cent decrease on the previous year’s total. In 2008-09 more than 20 billion net tones kilometre.”

Mr Hinchcliffe reported that Lord Bradshaw asked a succession of questions that related not directly to the report, but to rail freight. There were some questions on infrastructure maintenance costs and the operations of Network Rail. Decisions on the efficiency of Network’s operations and how to improve them fall to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation, under the five-year funding settlement that has recently been implemented.

Mr Hinchcliffe concluded by stating that, on the above grounds too, the TWA submission was worthy of objection.

(iii) Mr Derek Manning

With the consent of the Chairman, Derek Manning addressed the Committee as a resident in the vicinity of the application site.

Mr Manning, a Chartered Environmentalist, commented that the current Network Rail proposal was the most environmentally damaging proposal possible. He was astonished to learn of the Network Rail proposal to haul the estimated amount of construction material by road, especially for a rail infrastructure project.

Mr Manning advised that road transport of bulk materials was the most expensive and the most environmentally damaging method available. It contravened Network Rail’s own design Code of Practice 719R of the International Union of Railways, in that they should carry out construction projects in the most environmentally responsible way and at minimum cost.

Mr Manning, together with local residents, had previously proposed to Network Rail a detailed method by which all bulk details could be delivered direct to the construction site using a rolling train discharge into embankment chutes and conveyored to a stockpile or to anywhere on site. All concrete viaduct sections could be pre-cast on site in a temporary purpose-built casting shed and craned into position. All aggregates and OPC could be delivered direct to site by rail.

Mr Manning explained that rail transport had the potential to cut the programme by some 5 months, giving huge savings. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Engineering Report, which was from a project of much higher quality than the present proposal, used as much on-site material as possible and acquired the remainder locally to the project.

Mr Manning stated that he had checked the British Geological Survey for the proposed scheme and had found that all of the embankment material could be obtained from the nearby landscape. Standard earth moving equipment could strip the top soil and shave the underlying chalk material from the area adjacent to the site, re-instating the top soil on completion. CIRIA 574 went into great detail into how to use chalk for construction purposes.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 4 This method would give even greater time and cost savings to the project, and councillors would be aware of a similar operation in their area with the A505 Baldock Bypass. With the relatively recent Jubilee Line construction, all materials were moved to the construction site by rail, and the tube kept running at all times.

Mr Manning advised that the Network Rail proposal, using their own figures, involved 30,000 HGV movements for the embankment material alone, and that this was probably an under- estimate of the real number. This would have an absolutely devastating impact on those living in the area of the proposed transport route and would cause huge environmental and infrastructure damage on roads with no formal foundations.

Mr Manning believed that the Network Rail proposal showed a total lack of respect for the local residents and to the Council, verging on arrogance. He asked the Committee, as local elected representatives, to protect the residents by formally objecting to the scheme as presently proposed by Network Rail. He felt that should the Council not lodge a formal objection to the proposal and force a public inquiry, where all of the arguments could be put to the Inspector, then any further ability to influence the damage the present proposal would cause would be lost.

(iv) County Councillor T.W. Hone

With the consent of the Chairman, County Councillor T.W. Hone (County Councillor for Letchworth North West) addressed the Committee.

County Councillor Hone advised that he had grave concerns regarding the scheme, and was supportive of the local residents in their objections to the proposal, as follows:

 Concerns about possible fatalities due to HGVs travelling down the 1:5 hill along Stotfold Road, then turning right across the traffic approaching from the other direction, in order to access the construction site;  Slow moving traffic, such as hearses, used the route regularly for access to the two nearby cemetries – this could also causes problems with fast moving HGV traffic;  Concerns for the safety, due to the increased volume of HGV traffic, of local school children walking along the very narrow Wilbury Hills Road;  Some vehicles parked at the top end of Wilbury Hills Road, near the two busy mini roundabouts, and so this area needed a speed reduction from the existing 40 mph zone.

County Councillor Hone concluded by stating that he could see the benefits of the Network Rail scheme and supported its concept. However, further discussions need to take place on how it could be best constructed, including a far reduced environmental impact on the residents of Wilbury Hills Road.

(v) Councillor Elliot Needham

With the consent of the Chairman, Councillor Elliot Needham (Ward Member for Letchworth Wilbury) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Elliot Needham stated that he was supportive of the scheme, but felt that the impact of the heavy volume of construction traffic on local residents had not been properly considered. It appeared that no alternative site accesses had been investigated, and he expressed concern over temporary routes becoming permanent routes after the works had been completed. He was also concerned with the increased noise and vibration, together with the reduced air quality, that residents would experience throughout the construction period. This would result in an increase in ambient noise of over 1 decibel per day.

(vi) Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham

With the consent of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Waste, Recycling & Environment) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham expressed her concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on Burymead/Cadwell Marsh, which was one of only two wetland sites in North Hertfordshire and was a managed wildlife site which had recently applied for Local Nature Reserve status.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 5 Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham referred to an apparent contradiction in the report, as the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre had stated that “there will be significant impact on wildlife sites”, whereas Section 10.14 of the report stated that the Council’s Ecological advice was to raise no objection to the proposal on ecological grounds. She had no knowledge as to the source of this advice, but considered that the comments of the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre were correct.

Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham advised that the proposals from Network Rail (NR) recommended the incorporation of a flood attenuation scheme within the boundary of Burymead Springs. They also planned to permanently reduce the size of the publicly accessible site by annexing a strip of land parallel to the site’s eastern boundary. NR proposed that, once created, the flood attenuation scheme would be handed back to NHDC for long term maintenance. The annexing of land from Burymead Springs for NR purposes would reduce the area of the site accessible for public enjoyment and appropriate management for wildlife. The proposed exchange land was located within land already owned by NHDC and of considerably lower wildlife value.

In regard to the flood attenuation scheme, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham stated that the proposed location was close to the boundary with the site currently occupied by Sita (Metal Recycling) and owned by NHDC. The possibility of contamination to soil in this area was higher than anywhere else in the Wildlife Site and as such the creation of a water body in this location should be resisted. The burden of long term maintenance of this feature should also be resisted by NHDC. During the period of construction, NR intended to close access to all traffic other than that involved in the construction. This would restrict the Council’s access to its land and, consequently, its ability to properly manage Burymead Springs, and would also halt public enjoyment of this site for that period.

Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham felt that NR should be directed to present options for the provision of a flood attenuation scheme and exchange land to the North of Burymead Springs and in private ownership, rather than on the Council-owned land. She also considered that the cost of approximately £60,000 for restoration and enhancement of Burymead Springs was inadequate, and had not taken account of issues such as the requirement for major works to the reed beds to take place every 5 years.

Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham concluded by stating that she had not lobbied any of the Members of the Planning Control Committee prior to the meeting, but was in attendance at her own choosing.

(vii) Councillor David Kearns

With the consent of the Chairman, Councillor David Kearns (Ward Member for Letchworth Grange) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Kearns advised that some of the residents of Stotfold Road lived within the Letchworth Grange Ward, which was why he had requested to speak at the meeting.

Councillor Kearns commented that Network Rail had indicated that construction traffic would use Junction 10 of the A1(M), and then along the A507 road, and down the Stotfold Road/Wilbury Hills Road. He felt that a preferred route would be Junction 9 of the A1(M) up to Letchworth Gate, and then along the A505 road.

Councillor Kearns considered, however, that if the Junction 10 route was to be used, then the Council should enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council for additional signposting, so that the route for HGVs was clearly displayed. He was concerned that the lack of such signposting would run a greater risk of HGVs using Norton Road and Wilbury Road, which were far denser residential areas than those on the proposed route.

(viii) Network Rail

With the consent of the Chairman, Erica Blamire and John Hughes addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant (Network Rail).

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 6 Erica Blamire (Senior Commercial Scheme Sponsor) made the following points during her element of the presentation:

 Network Rail welcomed the support for the principle of this key railway investment, as detailed in the comprehensive report before the committee;  The TWA Order submission made by Network Rail at the end of September 2009 was by no means their final position on the scheme. They were fully committed to maintaining a dialogue with the Council and all other interested parties over the course of this project to try to reach agreement on any outstanding matters.  The scheme was part of a wider programme of works on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) to facilitate the introduction of additional long distance high speed passenger and freight services;  The requirement for this was outlined in Network Rail’s ECML Route Utilisation Strategy, published in February 2008;  Over the past 10 years, passenger and freight demand on the ECML had increased dramatically, and this growth was expected to continue. Network Rail needed to invest in the railway now to provide that additional capacity for the future;  As a result of the analysis carried out, the scheme had been financed by the Department for Transport and formed part of Network Rail’s committed obligations to the Office of Rail Regulation for Control Period 4 (April 2009 to March 2014);  It represented a £60m investment in new rail infrastructure through the provision of a flyover that would allow trains travelling to Cambridge to cross over the ECML;  In doing so, this would remove one of the ECML’s worst bottlenecks which was caused by the current conflicting movements between Cambridge services and south bound passenger and freight services;  The investment was required for a number of reasons: o It would eliminate a major constraint on developing timetables on the ECML, thereby allowing an increase in capacity on the local and national network, particularly on long distance journeys on the ECML; o It would improve performance and reliability for both passenger services and freight trains, in line with government imposed targets; o It would provide the relevant infrastructure and capacity to allow for a shift away from road transport, supporting sustainable development and travel; o It would reduce train delays in the Hitchin station area;  The scheme was consistent with national, regional and local transport policies, and supported the overall strategy outlined in the Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan;  National Planning Policies set out the importance of growing the rail network in Britain;  In 2004, the Transport White Paper: Future of Transport: A Network for 2030, set out travel and transport options for the next 30 years;  In 2007, the Rail White Paper: Delivering a Sustainable Railway, highlighted important plans to grow and develop the railways in order to provide greater capacity for freight and passenger traffic;  The proposed new infrastructure at Hitchin would help deliver the long-term ambitions of these White Papers and, as mentioned previously, was an integral part of the ECML Route Utilisation Strategy, which was widely consulted with Councils and other rail industry partners up and down the ECML;  The scheme was also consistent with the East of England Plan (2008) and the Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England 2008 to 2031, both of which sought improvements to public transport and the strategic transport network and, in particular, improvement in journey times and reliability;  As the officer’s report stated at Paragraph 10.2, the scheme was supported at a strategic level in the Rail Strategy section of the Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan;  Before drawing up detailed plans to address the problems at Hitchin, Network Rail considered seven different scheme options. Following an appraisal process, the final scheme was selected on the grounds that it was the most economic, safe and environmentally acceptable option;  The options and the process by which the final scheme was chosen were described in the Environmental Statement Alternatives Report section of our TWA Order submission;  The proposed route kept close to the existing industrial estate to minimise visual impacts;

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 7  On 30 September 2009, following consultation with statutory stakeholders and the local community, Network Rail submitted a TWA Order to the Department of Transport, seeking permission to undertake the required work at Hitchin Cambridge Junction;  Before submitting the TWA, Network Rail gave full consideration to the environmental impact of the scheme and within the TWA, and the Environmental Statement sets out the likely impact of the scheme on the environment as a result of construction and operation;  It also described the measures to be taken to mitigate these impacts, for example landscaping, wildlife habitats and viaduct in place of embankment on the west side of the ECML;  Meetings had been held with, among others, the Environment Agency and Natural England to discuss Network Rail’s environmental mitigation proposals, and these organisations had stated that they were broadly content with the plans;  The officers had also concluded, in Paragraph 10.21 of the report to the Committee, that the Environmental Statement, together with its Executive Summary, appeared to meet the statutory procedural requirements;  As part of Network Rail’s commitment to environmental considerations, the land to the west of the site would be re-instated as public open space after the works had been carried out;  In addition, a Planning and Environmental Management Strategy had been developed for the project. This strategy defined how Network Rail’s policies, obligations and commitments, in relation to planning and environmental management, would be delivered by its contractors, who would be required to produce complementary Environmental Management Plans, which would be monitored and enforced by Network Rail;  The Planning and Environmental Management Strategy for the scheme was similar to the one prepared for the Thameslink Programme, which was fully accepted by NHDC;  Network Rail gave all affected councils a formal legal undertaking that the Thameslink Planning and Environmental Management Strategy would be enforced on all contractors. Network Rail was prepared to give a similar formal undertaking to the Council that the same commitment would be enforced on this project;  Network Rail had agreed with NHDC officers to set out, through a planning condition, their commitment and willingness to work under consents sought under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. This would mean that consents relating to construction works – including noise, hours of work - would be required from the Council’s Environmental Health Officers before their contractors would be able to start work on site.

Mr John Hughes (Development Manager) made the following points during his element of the presentation:

. Full details of the pre-application consultation Network Rail had carried out could be found in the report which accompanied its application to the Secretary of State for the proposed Order, and which was prepared in accordance with the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure)(England and Wales) Rules 2006; . Network Rail had been keen to explain the plans to a wide audience and encourage as much feedback as possible. A programme of pre-application consultation was carried out with the local community, as well as statutory agencies and bodies. This included: - Issuing advertising posters to North Herts District Council and Hitchin Town Centre Initiative for display in the town centre, council offices and the public library; - Advertising and news articles in the local press to target more than 225,000 people. This circulation included residents living in the Letchworth area; - Holding a four day public exhibition at Hitchin Priory in April 2009, during which the local support for the scheme by individuals and rail groups was overwhelming; - Undertaking presentations with the Letchwoth Area Committee and local residents (22 July 2009); - Uploading information about the project on the Network Rail website – www.networkrail.co.uk/hitchin . Network Rail was satisfied that the pre-application consultation undertaken was comprehensive and provided ample opportunity for the local community to gain further information and engage with them regarding the proposals; . Where consultation was concerned, it was always possible to ‘do more’. However, Network Rail considered that the consultation which had been undertaken to date had been more than adequate, having regard to the measures taken and in light of the stage of development of the proposals being consulted upon;

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 8 . Consultation should not be a tick-box exercise, but rather an ongoing process. This was the approach adopted by Network Rail, and their engagement with the local community did not end with the submission of the application for the proposed Order; . Since submitting the application, Network Rail had already met the Wilbury Residents’ Alliance on 7 October 2009 and with Hillcrest Park Residents’ Association on the 13 October 2009. These meetings provided an opportunity to discuss and address specific concerns relating to the construction works and particularly construction traffic; . Network Rail was fully committed to ongoing engagement with local community and interested parties. This would include further discussions as part of the planning phase, engagement during construction and beyond through to completion of the scheme; . Network Rail recognised that the matter of construction traffic may be the most contentious aspect of their proposals and it was something they had been considering carefully; . Meetings had been held with Hertfordshire County Council, NHDC and Hertfordshire Police to discuss this matter and contact had also been made with Central Bedfordshire Council; . Network Rail would continue to meet with the Councils, Police Authorities and residents groups to discuss their concerns and the available means of addressing them; . A number of the representations submitted to the Council had raised the possibility of using rail to bring materials to the site, rather than by road as was currently proposed. As a result of these representations, Network Rail would be re-opening thier review of the opportunity to use rail for importing bulk fill materials to site. However, previous analysis of this method had shown that on such congested lines (both ECML and Cambridge line) it was going to be difficult; . It was also likely to be inconsistent with other environmental considerations such as the avoidance of night-time working, as access to the railway during daytime would be out of the question due of the intensity of existing passenger and freight services; . The proposals for the routing of construction traffic were set out in the Environmental Statement. A key principle behind the thinking for the proposed construction route was that traffic should be kept out of the centres of Hitchin and Letchworth and, as far as possible, away from the most built up residential areas; . In accordance with this principle, Network Rail’s preferred route to the site for all heavy vehicles is via the A507 from the A1(M) at Junction 10 and then via Hitchin Road, Wilbury Hills Road and Stotfold Road, with a temporary haul road being constructed across the whole site connecting to a new junction on Stotfold Road, adjacent to the existing railway bridge; . At a meeting with Herts County Council, NHDC and Hertfordshire Police in April 2009, it was agreed that, in principle, the proposed route was acceptable and was the preferred route given the constraints within the surrounding area; . It was also agreed that the principle of one route should be adopted because this made its enforcement by the police more practicable; . Network Rail was discussing mitigation measures for Wilbury Hills Road, following suggestions from North Herts, the County Council and Herts Police. These included the possibility of reducing the speed limit, introducing a temporary crossing at Hillcrest Park and re-locating the on-street parking that was currently in place; . The TWA Order included works for traffic management purposes at the entrance to the site from Stotfold Road; . NHDC officers had, more recently, asked Network Rail to look into the possibility of an alternative route being taken by construction traffic bringing materials to the site. This alternative route would bring loaded vehicles from the A1(M) via Junction 9 and the A505 through Letchworth. The vehicles would then make a left turn into the site off Stotfold Road. Empty vehicles leaving the site would turn left onto Stotfold Road and return to the A1(M) via the A507 and junction 10 (in other words traffic would leave the site via network Rail’s identified preferred route for construction traffic); . In light of the Council’s request, Network Rail had agreed to investigate whether this alternative route for construction traffic travelling to the site would be preferable. However, whilst this route would be investigated seriously, as stated in a letter to the Council dated 9 October 2009, Network Rail did not currently believe that the A505 route would offer a preferable route for construction traffic, in terms of the likely environmental effects. As the A505 route would pass a significantly greater number of residential properties than their currently preferred route via the A507, Network Rail considered that it was very likely that it would result in a worsening of the temporary effects currently

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 9 predicted to arise from construction traffic. If the Council differed from this view, Network Rail would be grateful to understand why; . With regards to the separate issue of the provision of an access road to serve the Industrial Estate, that has been raised by the Wilbury Residents’ Alliance, Mr Hughes clarified the legal position in regard to this matter; . The Secretary of State had been asked to make the draft Order to enable Network Rail to obtain the necessary powers, and to acquire the necessary land, to enable it to construct a new stretch of railway at Hitchin (Cambridge Junction). The Order only empowered the Secretary of State to make a ruling relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction of a railway; . Whilst it was possible in certain circumstances for an Order to make provision for a new or altered highway, Department of Transport guidance made it clear that this was only permitted where the highway works directly related to the scheme. The provision of a new access road to Wilbury Way Industrial Estate was, it was understood, a long standing proposal, and bore no relation to the railway scheme being promoted under the draft Order. . It was made clear that the proposed haul road, other than a short section from Stotfold Road to a permanent line side maintenance access point, was only temporary and would be removed after the work was complete, and the affected land would be able to return to agricultural use, but with Network Rail retaining a permanent right of access over it (to enable them to access the railway). The accommodation bridge under the railway would be built to give access for the farmer and, accordingly, would be built to the standard required for agricultural use; . A number of proposed planning conditions were, after discussion with NHDC officers, set out in the TWA submission. Network Rail had also been reviewing the conditions and mitigation measures that had been suggested by the officers in Section 13 of the committee report; . Whilst Network Rail not had sufficient time to fully assess all of the proposed conditions, Mr Hughes confirmed the conditions outlined in points 13.3 -13.9 in the report, relating to controls on the construction access, could be accepted; . A number of other conditions proposed in the report were amendments to conditions in the TWA submission . Network Rail’s Environmental specialist was currently reviewing the other proposed conditions and they would be advising the Council of their position on these as soon as possible; . Section 14 of the report raised the question of a Section 106 Agreement with regard to traffic mitigation measures and some ecological restoration and enhancement. This was a matter that would be discussed in more detail in the coming months. In principle, it was accepted that any necessary mitigation measures would be paid for by Network Rail. The details of those measures and the mechanism for payment, which could be through a Section 106 Agreement, would be subject to further detailed discussions with NHDC officers; . In summary, Network Rail welcomed the support, in principle, to this nationally important scheme, as set out in the Committee report; . This scheme was of national significance and an integral part of Network Rail’s plans to upgrade and improve the East Coast Main Line for passenger and freight services, and was supported by national, regional and local transport policies; . It was acknowledged that some residents had concerns about the construction phase of the project and network Rail would work with the Council and residents’ groups to mitigate against adverse effects of the construction phase, particularly construction traffic; . Contractual obligations would be placed on the successful contractors through the PEMS, S61 consents to control noise, hours of work etc; . Consultation had been and remained a key activity for Network Rail, who were fully committed to working with the Council, its officers and the local community to progress the scheme. Network rail would continue to maintain a dialogue with the Council throughout development of the scheme, detailed design and construction, right up to the completion of the scheme.

Area Planning Officer

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report by stating that the Council had been consulted by the Department of Transport on this proposal by Network Rail at the end of September 2009. The detail of the proposal and the general process followed with an

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 10 application submitted under a Transport and Works Order was clearly set out in the report. Of critical importance, given the scale of the proposal and the concerns raised by residents and officers, was the requirement for the Council to respond with formal comments to the Secretary of State for Transport by 11 November 2009, so that the Secretary of State could determine how the matter was to proceed following the closure of the consultation period.

The Area Planning Officer advised that a project of this scale did raise significant environmental questions and that, for this reason, this type of application was subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures and had to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES must not only evaluate the magnitude of the impacts of the development, but should also address and mitigate any harm which may be predicted. In this case, it was the Area Planning Officer’s opinion that the ES did not fully evaluate the impact of the development in terms of the impact of the construction strategy and the impact on the local environment, particularly with regard to the sensitive ecological area at Burymead Springs. It was acknowledged that the process appeared to allow for further negotiation and discussion at a local level, post-consultation period, between the applicants and statutory authorities and third parties. However, with regard to the two main issues identified by officers, the submitted application and Environmental Statement did not offer a sufficient degree of information or range of detailed measures which may offset or mitigate the significant and potentially harmful development effects on the environment.

On the Green Belt issue, the Area Planning Officer accepted that there was a positive and favourable presumption at national, regional and local level towards delivering sustainable transport infrastructure and promoting stable levels of economic growth, and that given the importance of the scheme to the future of the rail network in terms of improved passenger and freight transport services, it was considered that very special circumstances were apparent with this project to set aside the normal presumption against development in the Green Belt.

On the issue of noise, both in terms of construction noise and operational noise, the Area Planning Officer felt that the scheme may be acceptable in both the short and longer term if adequate mitigation measures were implemented. Given the protection to railway operators under the Railway Act 1993 against nuisance actions in relation to operational noise and the measures available to the Local Authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, no substantive objection was raised in relation to noise issues.

Similarly, in terms of landscape and visual impact, it should be noted from the report that the impact of the new railway line would in time be considered to have an acceptable impact, being mitigated against by appropriate planting and the existence of nearby railway infrastructure and the proximity of the Hitchin Industrial Estate.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the issue of a permanent alternative access road into and from Hitchin Industrial Estate had been raised by several responders to this scheme. The application did not propose any permanent road works linking the industrial estate to Stotfold Road. The only permanent element to the works was the provision of the new access onto Stotfold Road, which would be maintained on completion for maintenance access by Network Rail. The issue of a permanent access road was, therefore, not a matter for consideration with this proposal.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the proposal posed a number of questions for the Local Authority and local residents. It was clear on one level, and this was borne out by letters received, that most people agreed in principle with Network Rail’s reasons for promoting the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, it was noted that some residents accepted that inevitably there would be significant disruption during the construction period and that the impact of these works should be shared by all local residents. On another level, however, it was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, that the genuine concerns of local residents and the Council as statutory consultee had been addressed at this formal consultation stage, bearing in mind that pre-application advice and consultation had been carried out.

The Area Planning Officer commented that Members of the Committee would be aware that a significant number of letters had been received from members of the public raising a number of issues and, although it was not the responsibility of the local authority to consult on this proposal, officers had reported these concerns as far as possible. Members were asked to

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 11 note, however, as stated on page 8 of the report, that there may well be other representations that had been sent directly to the Secretary of State for consideration. It was proposed that, whatever the resolution of the Committee, copies of all residents’ letters received by the Council were sent with the formal comments of the Local Authority. The Committee was also advised that, following the meeting, if any member of the public wished to make further representations on the Draft Order, they could do so directly to the Secretary of State for Transport by 11 November 2009.

The Area Planning Officer stated that Members would be aware at the end of the report of the precise conditions requested by officers and to a legal agreement to include financial contributions and the restoration and maintenance of Burymead Springs. The request for such conditions and Section 106 agreement was entirely reasonable and a legitimate part of the deemed planning application process under the Town and Country Planning Act.

The Area Planning Officer concluded by requesting the Committee to support the recommendations set out in the report, together with those contained in the addendum report previously circulated.

Questions and Debate

Members asked a number of questions relating to the proposed scheme, which were answered by the Area Planning Officer and/or the other officers present from Hertfordshire County Council Highways and Police Traffic Management Service.

During the debate, it was clarified that the only permanent element to the works was the provision of the new access onto Stotfold Road, which would be maintained on completion for maintenance access by Network Rail. It was further clarified that the issue of reducing the speed limits on Wilbury Hills Road and Stotfold Road during the construction period would be addressed as part of the consultation process on Network Rail’s Traffic Management Plan.

The Solicitor confirmed that the concerns expressed by Hillcrest residents regarding the potential for structural damage to their properties as a consequence of the increase in HGV movements was a civil matter, and not one for consideration by the Committee. On a separate matter, the Solicitor confirmed that the East Coast Main Line Strategy was not binding on the Council in any legal way, but was the basis of Network Rail’s submission to the Department of Transport to secure funding for the proposed scheme.

The Committee discussed the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt, and agreed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the open character and appearance of the locality. However, notwithstanding the officer recommendation, the Committee did not consider that sufficient reasons or justification had been included in the Draft Order to overcome the Green Belt policy presumption against development.

In respect of construction traffic, the proposed objection recommended to the Committee was supplemented, in that Members were not satisfied that the matters contained in Paragraph 10.19 of the report and on Page 6 of the Council’s letter to Network Rail dated 18 September 2009 and contained in Appendix B to the report, had been satisfactorily addressed by Network Rail in its subsequent response dated 9 October 2009.

The Committee understood that a Public Inquiry would be held into the Draft Order asked that, as part of its response to Department of Transport on the Draft Order, the Council would welcome the opportunity to present its objections to the scheme.

The Committee agreed that the following further comments and recommendations be included as part of the Council’s response to the Department of Transport:

(1) The Council expected Network Rail to seriously consider the importing of material to the site by rail and, if this could not be achieved, to supply a full justification as to the reasons why this could not be undertaken, and in the event that Network Rail were able to demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the majority of construction material to the site by rail, the Council would expect that:

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 12 (a) Network Rail should be required to provide funding for traffic and other measures agreed with the District Council, in consultation with the Highway Authority, to reduce the impact on local residents so far as was reasonably practicable, and that such measures should be implemented before construction of the works commenced, and

(b) Network Rail should be required to submit and fund a scheme of management, to be agreed with NHDC and the Highway Authority, that would ensure the works are implemented in a manner to ensure that impacts on local residents were minimised;

(2) The Council needed to be satisfied that Network Rail had complied with Rule 11 of the Transport and Works Application and Objection Procedure (England and Wales) Rules 2006, as set out in Paragraph 4.14 of Network Rail’s Environmental Statement, which required the submission of details of the impact of the scheme on the environment, bearing in mind the lack of data provided regarding a preferred route for construction traffic;

(3) The Council requested that details of the construction traffic routes and changes which may result from the appointment of a contractor should be made available and sufficient time given for consultation with the Council, via the Planning Control Committee, and local residents and consideration given to any comments that may arise;

(4) The Council raised concerns as to level of consultation undertaken by Network Rail in respect of the proposed scheme;

As an additional comment, the Committee agreed that, should the Draft Order be approved, Network Rail give consideration to the inclusion of a public footpath alongside the proposed embankment to link Wilbury Hills Road with Ickleford.

In respect of the recommended Section 106 Agreement, and notwithstanding the financial sums suggested in the report for highway improvements (£100,000) and restoration and enhancement of Burymead/Cadwell Springs(£60,000) respectively, the Committee considered that the Council should have greater flexibility in respect of negotiations on the appropriate level of these financial contributions, together with any further financial contributions which may be required.

RESOLVED:

(A) That the report and recommendations, together with the formal minutes of this meeting, represents the Local Planning Authority’s formal response to the Network Rail (Hitchin (Cambridge Junction)) Order submitted under Section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the request for a Direction under Section 90 (2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Rule 10 (6));

(B) That the Department of Transport and Network Rail be informed that the proposals are contrary to Policy 2 (Green Belt) of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations, in that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the open character and appearance of the locality, and that the Council does not consider that sufficient reasons or justification have been included in the Draft Order to overcome the Green Belt policy presumption against development. An objection on Green Belt grounds is therefore raised;

(C) That it be acknowledged that the District Council is concerned, however, over the significant amount of HGV traffic associated with the construction of the scheme on the local road network over a considerable period of time and the detrimental impact that this will have on highway safety and the amenity of local residents. The District Council is not satisfied at this stage that sufficient justification has been given for the proposed construction strategy to enable it to support this aspect of the scheme. Accordingly, the District Council raises an objection to the proposals, and was not satisfied that the following matters contained in Paragraph 10.19 of the report and on Page 6 of the Council’s letter to Network Rail dated 18 September 2009 and contained in Appendix B to the report, had been satisfactorily addressed by Network Rail in its subsequent response dated 9 October 2009:

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 13 (i) Clarification as to the potential to bring construction material in by rail;

(ii) Whether there is potential to source material, especially soil, locally to keep vehicle movements down;

(iii) Full details of a travel plan including construction staff promoting car sharing or possibly bus shuttles;

(iv) The Transport Assessment (TA) should assess the potential for the HGV access to be split so that inbound is from one direction along Stotfold Road and outbound is in the opposite direction. The assessment of the route to the A1 should therefore be split between Stotfold Road/A507 and Stotfold Road/A505/Letchworth Gate;

(v) Regardless of what access routes are considered, the TA should include analysis of traffic speeds and information on safety. The TA should include information/data on the various construction traffic option routes relating to casualties, speeds etc;

(vi) Further details on the scope for consultation between the construction contractor and the Local Authorities;

(vii) Clarification for the arrangements for accommodating HGV’s before the site’s operational hours;

(viii) The District Council would like to be re-assured that the junctions on the routes assessed for HGV access are capable of accommodating HGV's or oversized vehicles without giving rise to excessive delay/congestion and/or causing physical damage. The Council would also like confirmation that construction traffic would not cause excessive re-routing of traffic within Letchworth in particular. This is also true for any other highway features that may constrain HGV access, such as islands on the Stotfold Road route between Letchworth and the A507;

(ix) Specific details as to how Cadwell Lane and the junction with Grove Road will operate;

(x) More precise details of the mitigation measures on Wilbury Hills Road are required with specific reference to speed restriction and safety issues;

(xi) With regard to on-street parking on Wilbury Hills Road, Network Rail should consider how this impacts on their proposed access route and, if necessary, how this parking could be accommodated elsewhere without compromising the safety and convenience of residents when accessing parked vehicles;

(xii) The information presented in the TA on HGV movements and other construction traffic is often presented in percentages or total amounts in peak hours. For the purposes of clarification it would be useful to have an estimate of how many HGV's may be expected on average, say, per minute. Assuming a steady flow of HGV's in the 'steady state' outlined in 11.4.1 of the TA and that over a 10 hour site operation, 180 '20 tonne lorries' 2-way are anticipated this could equate to, on average, 1 every 3 minutes two-way. Clarification on the intensive period of HGV construction traffic movement would be required;

(xiii) There is reference to the need for night working or construction access. Whilst it is appreciated that details of night working aren't available now it would be useful to have clarification as to when these details are likely to be known and, where possible, quantification as to what vehicle movements are likely;

(xiv) Network Rail are requested to document the result of consultations on the proposals with Central Bedfordshire;

(D) That the District Council raise a further objection to the Draft Order on environmental grounds, with specific reference to the proposals for flood attenuation and exchange land in regard to the land owned by NHDC and known as Burymead Springs, and that

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 14 Network Rail be directed to present options for the provision of a flood attenuation scheme and exchange land on land to the north of Burymead Springs and in private ownership (details of the issues concerned are contained in the addendum to the report presented to the Committee);

(E) That the Council understands that a Public Inquiry will be held into the Draft Order and would welcome the opportunity to present its objections to the scheme;

(F) That the Council expect Network Rail to seriously consider the importing of material to the site by rail and, if this cannot be achieved, to supply a full justification as to the reasons why this cannot be undertaken, and in the event that Network Rail are able to demonstrate that it is not reasonably practicable to bring the majority of construction material to the site by rail, the Council would expect that:

(i) Network Rail should be required to provide funding for traffic and other measures agreed with the District Council in consultation with the Highway Authority to reduce the impact on local residents so far as is reasonably practicable, and that such measures should be implemented before construction of the works commences, and

(ii) Network Rail should be required to submit and fund a scheme of management, to be agreed with NHDC and the Highway Authority, that will ensure the works are implemented in a manner to ensure that impacts on local residents are minimised;

(G) That the Council needs to be satisfied that Network Rail have complied with Rule 11 of the Transport and Works Application and Objection Procedure (England and Wales) Rules 2006, as set out in Paragraph 4.14 of Network Rail’s Environmental Statement which requires the submission of details of the impact of the scheme on the environment, bearing in mind the lack of data provided regarding a preferred route for construction traffic;

(H) That the Council requests that details of the construction traffic routes and changes which may result from the appointment of a contractor should be made available and sufficient time given for consultation with the Council, via the Planning Control Committee, and local residents and consideration given to any comments that may arise;

(I) That the Council raises concerns as to level of consultation undertaken by Network Rail in respect of the proposed scheme;

(J) That if, notwithstanding the above objection, the Secretary of State resolves to grant the Draft Order, with or without modifications, he is respectfully requested to consider the following conditions, in addition to those set out in the application for planning permission, and matters which the District Council considers should be the subject of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Conditions

1. Contaminated Land

(a) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to the submission to, and agreement of the Local Planning Authority of a written preliminary environmental risk assessment (Phase I) report containing a Conceptual Site Model that indicates sources, pathways and receptors. It should identify the current and past land uses of this site (and adjacent sites) with view to determining the presence of contamination likely to be harmful to human health and the built and natural environment.

(b) If the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the report which discharges condition (a), above, indicates a reasonable likelihood of harmful contamination then no development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Site Investigation (Phase II environmental risk assessment) report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which includes:

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 15 (i) A full identification of the location and concentration of all pollutants on this site and the presence of relevant receptors1, and; (ii) The results from the application of an appropriate risk assessment methodology

(c) No development approved by this permission (other than that necessary for the discharge of this condition) shall be commenced until a Remediation Method Statement report; if required as a result of (b), above; has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

(d) This site shall not be occupied, or brought into use, until:

(i) All works which form part of the Remediation Method Statement report pursuant to the discharge of condition (c), above, have been fully completed and if required a formal agreement is submitted that commits to ongoing monitoring and/or maintenance of the remediation scheme. (ii) A Remediation Verification Report confirming that the site is suitable for use has been submitted to, and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority.

(e) Any contamination, other than that reported by virtue of condition (a) and (b), encountered during the development of this site shall be brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority as soon as practically possible; a scheme to render this contamination harmless shall be submitted to and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority and subsequently fully implemented prior to the occupation of this site.

1The definition of receptor shall be based on the definition contained within Table A, Annex 3 of the DEFRA Circular on Contaminated Land 1/2006 as well as controlled waters.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination affecting the site is dealt with in a manner that safeguards human health and the built and natural environment.

2a. Dust Monitoring

From a date at least 12 months before the start of construction of the development hereby permitted, the soiling rate shall be measured using the glass slide technique over consecutive periods of seven days at each Dust Monitoring Site and the results will be supplied in writing to the Local Planning Authority in which that site is located. A Dust Monitoring Site shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. For each Dust Monitoring Site, there shall be a “Dust Response Threshold” which shall be:

(a) where the Background Soiling Rate at any Dust Monitoring Site is less than or equal to 20su/week, the Dust Response Threshold for that site shall be twice the value of the Background Soiling Rate, or

(b) where the Background Soiling Rate for any Dust Monitoring Site is greater than 20su/week, the Dust Response Threshold for that site shall be calculated as follows:

40 su/week + (the Background Soiling Rate – 20su/week/2), where “su” represents the soiling unit.

The “Background Soiling Rate” for each Dust Monitoring Site shall be the highest average weekly soiling rate measured over any 4 consecutive periods of seven days in the 12 months prior to the commencement of construction. During the construction of the development, the four week average soiling rate shall be

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 16 measured at each Dust Monitoring Site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the measurements for each week shall be supplied to the Local Planning Authority in which the Dust Monitoring Site is located:

(a) by fax on the same working day that the said measurements become available or, where this is impracticable, the following working day, and

(b) by post.

If the measurements show that the Dust Response Threshold for any Dust Monitoring Site has been exceeded:

(a) the Local Planning Authority shall be informed that the Dust Response Threshold has been exceeded;

(b) appropriate measures shall be taken to reduce the soiling rate at that Dust Monitoring Site so that the Dust Response Threshold is not exceeded, and

(c) the Local Planning Authority shall be informed of any measures taken pursuant to para (b) above.

2b. PM10 Monitoring

A PM10 Monitoring Site shall be one of the 5 sites identified agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. During the construction of the development, the hourly level of PM10 shall be measured at each PM10 Monitoring Site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the measurements for each week will be supplied in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

If the measurements show that either of the PM10 Response Thresholds has been exceeded at a PM10 Monitoring Site :

(a) the Local Planning Authority in which the PM10 Monitoring Site is located shall be informed forthwith that the PM10 Response Threshold has been exceeded;

(b) appropriate measures shall be taken to reduce the PM10 levels at that PM10 Monitoring Site so that the PM10 Response Threshold is not exceeded, and

(c) the Local Planning Authority in which the PM10 Monitoring Site is located shall be informed of any measures taken pursuant to paragraph (b) above.

The PM10 Response Threshold for each PM10 Monitoring Site shall be:

(a) twice the Hourly Background PM10 Concentration or 500 μg/m3 whichever is the greater, and

(b) twice the 24-Hourly Background PM10 Concentration or 150 μg/m3 whichever is the greater;

The Hourly Background PM10 Concentration shall be the highest hourly average concentration of PM10 measured at either of the Background PM10 Monitoring Sites, in the 12 month period prior to the commencement of the development.

The 24-Hourly Background PM10 Concentration shall be the highest running 24- hour average concentration of PM10 measured at either of the Background PM10 Monitoring Sites in the 12 month period prior to the commencement of the development.

2c. Meteorological monitoring

During the construction of the development, wind speed, wind direction and rainfall at two agreed sites shall be monitored and the results of the monitoring shall be supplied in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 17 Reason: In the interests of public health and amenity

3. Stotfold Road construction site access

Before the access is first brought into use vehicle to vehicle visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 145 metres in a southerly direction and 4.5 metres by 190 metres in a northerly direction, shall be provided and permanently maintained. Within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.4 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for drivers entering and leaving the site.

4. Stotfold Road access

Any gates provided shall be set back a minimum of 12 metres from the edge of the carriageway while the gates are being opened.

Reason: To allow a vehicle to wait clear of the carriageway while the gates are being opened/closed.

5. Stotfold Road access

The development shall not be brought into use until properly consolidated and surfaced turning areas for commercial vehicles has been provided within the curtilage of the site. The turning space should be free from obstruction and available for use at all times.

Reason: To allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

6. Stotfold Road access

The access shall be constructed in a hard surfacing material for the first 12 metres from the edge of the carriageway.

Reason: To prevent loose material from passing onto the public highway which may be detrimental to highway safety.

7. Stotfold Road access

The access shall be 7.3 metres wide and the kerb radii shall be 15 metres.

Reason: So that vehicles may enter and leave the site with the minimum of interference to the free flow and safety of other traffic on the highway and for the convenience and safety of highway users.

8. Construction site

All areas for parking and storage and delivery of materials associated with the construction of this development shall be provided within the site on land which is not public highway and the use of such areas must not interfere with the use of the public highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and free and safe flow of traffic.

9. Landscaping – amendment to submitted condition 6

Details of the landscaping for the sites indicated on drawing no 123448-00 CV-001 issue 1 and Fig. 4.10 Issue 05 shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 18 the local planning authority. The details shall include species, size at time of planting, ultimate height, density and location to ensure that the optimum mitigation is achieved. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the substantial completion of the works. Any tree or shrub included in the scheme that dies or is removed or becomes seriously diseased or is damaged within the first five years shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species or as otherwise may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

10. Air Quality and noise – amendment to submitted condition 5

The development shall be constructed in accordance with Network Rail’s “Planning and Environmental Management Strategy”, as set out in the Environmental Statement Vol. 2 Scoping and Methodology Report, Appendix C. Specific reference should be made within the PEMS to the Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, Defra (LAQM.TG (09)). In particular a Traffic Management Plan and Noise and Vibration mitigation plan shall be prepared in consultation with the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality.

11. Air Quality and noise – amendment to submitted condition 9

Network Rail shall monitor Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 with regard to Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 09, (Defra 2009), prior to, and during the construction phase at relevant locations with public exposure as agreed with the Local Authority. The findings shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the same guidance, on a monthly basis. Mitigation strategies shall be implemented as soon as practicably possible by Network Rail, in the event of the objectives for these pollutants being exceeded.

Reason: In the interest of public health and amenity.

12. Operational Noise

Following the completion of construction, an extensive period of testing and commissioning of the rail line will be undertaken. During this period, the performance of the track in mitigating noise and vibration will be tested and evaluated against BS 8233 to confirm compliance. Noise and vibration monitoring locations will be established at a minimum of 5 locations (as agreed with the Local Planning Authority). Within 3 months of services operating on the line, a series of at least 20 monitoring tests will be undertaken at each of the 5 locations. Selected locations will then be used for monitoring periodically thereafter. There will be ongoing noise and vibration monitoring during the operation of the ECML.

In the event of a suspected non compliance with BS 8233, an investigation will be undertaken to confirm the noise of vibration levels at the specific location. If there is non-compliance, the cause and extent will be determined. A detailed report of the circumstances with a proposed rectification solution will then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent noise nuisance.

13. Operational Noise

Following the completion of construction, best practicable measures shall be taken to ensure that no squeal noise will be heard at residential properties. In the event of any complaints to the Local Authority of Squeal noise, Network rail shall monitor

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 19 the squeal noise and report the findings to the Local Authority, and prepare suitable mitigation (as agreed with the Local Authority) to eliminate squeal noise form being heard in residential properties.

Reason: To prevent noise nuisance.

14. Ecological Condition

Prior to the commencement of works details of the following ecological matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 Details of the restoration of the existing reed bed in Cadwell Marsh  Details of species protection during construction works  Details of the creation and future management of the attenuation basin and reed bed  Details of habitat creation and its future management.

Reason: To ensure proper consideration of the impact of the development on nature conservation interests.

15. Burymead Springs

Prior to the commencement of the development details of maintenance access to the District Council’s land at Burymead Springs shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The development to be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the proper maintenance of the wildlife site in the interests of nature conservation

16. Burymead Springs

That upon completion of the works, Network Rail retain ownership and maintenance liability for their flood attenuation scheme.

Reason: To ensure the proper and continued maintenance of infrastructure connected to the rail scheme.

Section 106 Agreement

1. To be consistent with approved County Council policies, and to mitigate the impact the development construction traffic has on the local highway network a financial contribution of £100,000 is requested from the applicant. The contribution will be used for highway improvements along the construction route of Willbury Hills Road residential area which may consist of pedestrian crossing facilities and lay-bys to be secured by a section106 agreement.

The exact triggers for payment will need to be agreed between the parties as part of the section 106 Agreement.

2. On the advice of Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre, NHDC requests that the applicant provides a financial contribution of at least £60,000 (indexed linked and to include a 10% contingency) or an agreed package of restoration and enhancement of the Council owned land at Cadwell Marsh/Burymead Springs (WS11/023). The details of this will be negotiated; however, as an essential term of the agreement these should be sufficient to reinstate the wildlife value of the site.

3. NHDC requested that NR undertake to cover the Local Authorities professional fees including external valuers, property consultants and solicitors in relation to temporary or permanent acquisition of its land and property. The applicant has previously agreed to undertake these costs.

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 20 4. Notwithstanding the financial sums suggested in 1. and 2. above, the Council wishes to have greater flexibility in respect of negotiations on the appropriate level of these financial contributions, together with any further financial contributions which may be required.

(K) That, if the Draft Order is approved, Network Rail give consideration to the inclusion of a public footpath alongside the proposed embankment to link Wilbury Hills Road with Ickleford.

The meeting closed at 10.40p.m.

…………………………………………. Chairman

PLANNING CONTROL (2.11.09) 21