Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday 4 November 2014

In Committee Room 5 (Morning)

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (In the C hair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Ian Mearns Mr Michael Thornton

______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Mr David Reilly, Chair, Lea Marston Parish Council Mr Kevin Oakley, Vice-chair, Lea Marston Parish Council ______

PUB LIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Chairman’s opening 3

Lea Marston Parish Council Mr Mould’s overview 3 Submissions from Mr Reilly 9 Submissions from Mr Oak le y 14 Further submissions from Mr Reilly 16 Further submissions from Mr Oakley 23 Further submissions from Mr Reilly 26 Submissions from Mr Mould 29 Closing submissions from Mr Reilly 35 Closing submissions from Mr Oakley 39

(at 09.30) 1. CHAIR: Order, order. Good morning everybody. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. And today we have Lea Marston Parish Council. We lco me, gentlemen. We normally start off with the promoters just giving a quick overview of what they consider the issues. Are you happy with that?

2. MR REILLY: Yes, thank you.

3. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould.

Lea Marston Parish Council

4. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you very much. Yes, this is the petition of Lea Marston Parish Council. Lea Marston parish is shown – the area of Lea Marston parish is shown on the map in front of you, which is P859. It’s outlined in red, and as you can see, it’s an area which is to the east of the western midlands conurbation. And it is immediately to the east of the line of the proposed phase one railway; the line of which and the bill limits for which is shown on the plan in front of you, with the now familiar notation: the bill limits being shown in the shaded grey area.

5. I ought to point out to you one or two features, with which I think the committee is now familiar. But just by way of an aid memoir. The Birmingham and Derby railway line is running on a north-easterly, south-westerly alignment, just to the south of the village of Lea Marston, which you can see right in the centre of the map here.

6. And you’ll see that the grey notation, the bill areas, extend for a distance along the Birmingham and Derby line. That’s to enable some reception sidings to be created, to serve the Kingsbury Road railhead. And so there will be sidings created to the north of the existing Birmingham, Derby line.

7. They’ll be created by excavating to a depth of about three metres, so that the sidings can be laid into an excavated area. And then a track will be created, running alongside the Birmingham-Derby line, then angling round to the north to run along the trace, effectively, of the proposed railway. And as you go northwards, you can see that,

the green notation showing the phase one railway, that it – there’s a fork.

8. And whilst the railway continues on the left hand arm, up towards – into Staffordshire and towards Handsacre, the lead spur is provided for to the right. And that’s the spur that is the stub, as it were, that is shown turning into the north-east, at the point where the cursor has just shown.

9. And immediately to the east of that is quite a substantial area of land ear-marked for the bill, and that’s the location of the K ingsbury Road railhead, which I think you heard about last week. And that’s an area that will be excavated to a depth of some six metres, and a railhead facility will be created there, to serve the phase one railway.

10. Now if we turn to P860, we get a clearer sense of the facility I’ve just described to you. You can see the reception sidings along –

11. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Turned to 90 degrees.

12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Turned to 90 degrees, yes. So north is now off to the left. So if you – you can find the Birmingham and Derby line towards the right hand side of this plan, and you can see now with the yellow notation the area which is to be excavated and used for the reception sidings.

13. And then you can see that the railway line serving the railhead, curving round from the reception sidings northwards, or moving to the left along this image. And then you can see the railhead itself just to the east of the lead spur, again with the yellow notation.

14. The railhead itself will have bunding created to the east and to the south of the facility, and that’s shown with the sort of stippled notation immediately to the east and south of the yellow shaded area. Those will – that shows where buns will be constructed.

15. And they’ll be constructed early in the process of excavating the railhead, so that they will provide visual and sound mitigation to people and communities to the east and

to the south of the railhead facility. And it’s proposed that those bunds should also be planted; not simply after the railhead has been – has finished its work, but as early as possible during the construction process, to provide further visual mitigation to the railhead facility.

16. The railhead itself is a facility that will – just bear with me. It will be – it will take three years, 10 months to construct, and then it will be in operation for one year and 11 months. It’ll – the site will then be used for a further two and a half years, as a main compound for rail related work, testing and commissioning. After it’s completed its work, it will be decommissioned, and the railhead and compound operations will take about six months to decommission.

17. Afte r it’s been decommissioned, both the railhead and the reception sidings area will be grassed over, and will be subject to detailed restorative mitigation works. Now, as a qualification to that, I should also tell the committee that one of the reasons for selecting the railhead at this location, as opposed to other alternative locations that were considered during the process of preparing the bill, was that it seemed to provide at least the prospect of being used as part of the phase two works, in the event that the phase two railway were brought forward, and powers were granted for it.

18. So what I have just said to you is subject to that qualification. There is at least the prospect that this facility will not be decommissioned at the end of the phase one works, but will actually be retained in some shape or form to serve phase two. And I – and it’s right that I make that point, because I know that the petitioners are concerned that, if that were to happen, then the railhead – the operation – the construction phases here, covering both the phase one and the phase two railway, could last a good deal longer than the periods I’ve just given you, and indeed could take us into the late 2020’s.

19. CHAIR: I understand, Mr Mould, the Department for Transport are safeguarding the route to Crewe today?

20. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They are.

21. CHAIR: Okay. Does this have any impact at all on this, or not really?

22. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It brings – well, of course, the route to Crewe is on the Manchester spur. So it would –

23. CHAIR: No.

24. MR MOULD QC (DfT): – not quite so direct. But I think it does have an impact in this sense, that it brings the prospect of at least a part of the phase two railway coming – it means the prospect of that coming forward is to some degree increased. I think that’s probably the fairest way of putting it, yeah.

25. MR MEARNS: J ust fo r context, I think David Dickens in a meeting I was at last night suggested Crewe could be ready by 2027.

26. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I know that that has been said publically, and obviously that reflects what you were told. That I think is the – that is an ambition, which would obviously, as you can see from the process we’re going on in this committee, will take a great deal of work to realise. But that is certainly the ambition that has been put forward publically.

27. CHAIR: Thank you.

28. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just lest anybody is listening or watching, and is saying, ‘If that’s the case, what does that mean for, for example, the Handsacre junction?’, the answer is that that ambition sits very firmly alongside the government’s commitment to promote the phase one railway, and to promote this bill.

29. And one of the things that S ir David Higgins has mentioned in the report that he published, I think about a week ago,– this ma y e ven have been something that was mentioned during the course of the meeting that you attended – was that careful consideration is being given to the longer term future for the Handsacre link, in terms of the potential for serving the Staffordshire towns to the north.

30. So there are a number of matters that are being – that are in play there. I thought I

should say that, just in case it raised concerned. Because, as you know, we gave a commitment, amongst other things, about Handsacre during the course of the negotiations we were having with Staffordshire parties.

31. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

32. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right. So returning to Lea Marston, I would like to show you also, please, page 869. You’re now – this is a plan at a larger scale. But this is the easterly – the red line here shows the easterly section of the land which is earmarked for the reception siding. So we’re on – we’re looking at the Birmingham to Derby line.

33. And I wanted to show you this, because there’s a remnant of ancient woodland called Sych Wood, which is shown here. And as you can see, in order to construct the reception sidings, a relatively limited area of ancient woodland is needed. It’s shown and explained in the box on the slide in front of you. Lots of ancient woodland, 0.9% of Hams Hall Wood and local wildlife site: a 13.8 hectare area.

34. I mention that because I know that’s been a source of concern locally, and it is a concern, I think, which the parish council raises in their petition. A couple of other matters, if we can turn to P H70 please. Just to set the parish councils petition in the context of assurances that are being given to the North Warwickshire Borough Council, within whose administering area the parish council sits.

35. On 24 October we gave two relevant assurances. Firstly under the heading ‘Special Management Zone’, an assurance to set up a special management zone, to operate in the area of North Warwickshire, including Lea Marston. And if we go over the page, you will see that that includes the creation of a community engagement team, and a number of duties and functions are specified in this assurance letter, for that engagement team and for that special management zone to seek to achieve. Unless you want me to, I’m not going to read that onto the record. You have it in front of you.

36. And the second relevant assurance is under the heading ‘K ingsbury Road Railhead Environmental Mitigation’, under which the Secretary of State will require the

nominated undertaker to develop an enhanced scheme of landscape, planting and earthwork bunding, adjacent to the railhead, which will be in addition to that proposed in the environmental statement. And a drawing has been produced in order to illustrate how that is expected to be achieved, and the drawing is at page 903: P903.

37. CHAIR: So if we co uld –

38. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Go back. Yes, of course.

39. CHAIR: – the note of that previous one?

40. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P872.

41. CHAIR: Thank you. Yes that’s fine, thank you.

42. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then we go to 903. And that mitigation scheme, and the assurance relating to it, is focussed really on three areas in and around the vicinity of the railhead. And those areas are shown in the boxes on the plan in front of you, and you can see that in each case what is b e ing committed to by the Secretary of State is a series of la ndscape planting and earthworks, to help to mitigate the presence of the railhead.

43. And my understanding is that that is intended principally to address the permanent effects of the railheads. So there will clearly be – the earthworks that have been introduced in order to create the railhead, those will remain on a permanent basis, and the purpose of this mitigation scheme is to soften, to seek to integrate and to ameliorate the physical presence of the railhead, particularly for after it’s completed its function in the construction of the railway.

44. And then finally, before I complete this opening, I’ll just show you P904(1), a matter which I mentioned to you about a fortnight ago. As you recall, the government has announced the introduction of a community and environment fund, and a business and local economy fund, with together £30 million being made available to residents and local communities along the line of the phase one railway; to invest in projects such

as refurbishment of local community centres, nature conservation, measures to support local economies and employment.

45. Now the details of that initiative, in terms of its governance arrangements for bids, and that kind of thing, those are yet to be worked out, and announcements will follow in due course in relation to that. But it’s part of the context that the intention is that those who live up and down the route, their local authorities, parish councils and other individuals and businesses, will have the opportunity to bid for funding, both for large and small amounts, within the total sum available under this fund.

46. And the intention really is that this sits over and above the mitigation that is provided for under the bill, and it provides an opportunity locally to seek to secure funds for other additional local measures to offset the effects of the project. That’s the underlying intention. That’s all I wanted to say to you at this stage.

47. CHAIR: Okay. Who’s going to kick off? Is it you, Mr Reilly, or…?

48. MR REILLY: I will thank you, Chair. If I can introduce myself to the members of the committee. I am Dave Reilly. I am chair of Lea Marston Parish Council. And on my right I have Kevin Oakley who was chair of Lea Marston Parish Council, and is now vice-chair. We appear before you today as members of the parish, as opposed to representing personal interests.

49. If I may, can I just make some comments about the exhibits that Mr Mould has already shown, with a view to helping you understand the situation that we feel we face?

50. CHAIR: Yea h.

51. MR REILLY: If I could take you to exhibit 859 to start with, please. When we look at the map, as Mr Mould has already said, you see Lea Marston parish, which is bounded in red. A significant note on that map are the two communities of Marston, which you will see on the top right hand corner, and Lea Marston which you will see on the bottom left hand corner.

52. These comprise of 125 dwellings, with a resident population of approximately 200 people. Spread throughout the parish are also a number of single dwellings, which are all obviously either impacted or fall directly underneath the safeguarded areas. You will also note that Hams Hall national distribution park sits in the bottom of our parish, and that is significant to our presentation today, because we will speak about experience that we have had with the development of that significant construction project.

53. Mr Mould has already drawn your attention to the Birmingham to Derby railway line, and I would ask you to make sure that you understand where it runs, because that will feature in the presentation when we speak to you today. Thank you.

54. Could I also refer please to exhibit number P860, which is a very nice map of the railhead? What this map doesn’t show, Chair, which you will find in supporting documents that have been submitted by HS2, is some brief detail about this railhead. It’s a 24/7 site. There will be 500 people working on this site when it is in operation. There will be vehicle movements along the Kingsbury Road, and rail movements along the Birmingham to Derby line, and the feeder line, that will be continuous during the period of operation.

55. You will see in the bottom middle of the picture, there is a rounded triangle which talks about Kingsbury road over-br id ge main concord. From what we understand that is temporary provision for up to 40 workers to live on site. I have already told you that as a parish chair we have a resident population of 200 people. So our population is about to go up by one quarter.

56. In addition what you don’t see on that map, which we have seen in other maps that have been released by HS2, is that actual infrastructure which sits on the railhead site. And there are overhead gantry cranes, which obviously are big enough to lift things off trains that bring in pre-fabricated pieces of track. There is external lighting. We are talking about it being sunk to a depth of three metres, which, speaking as somebody who’s six foot two, three metres isn’t very deep at all.

57. That’s all I would like to say about the exhibits which have been produced so far. If I could just briefly explain how we will present our evidence to you today?

58. CHAIR: Good.

59. MR REILLY: I will commence with an overview of our petition. I’ll then hand over to Kevin who will speak about the nature of what we consider to be a trust, and then I will finish off by just summarising some of the key points that we feel we would like to bring to the attention of the committee. We don’t intend to take a lot of your time, and we hope that our petition will be easy to understand and straight forward.

60. CHAIR: Oka y.

61. MR REILLY: Chair, we sit before you today under the honest belief that we are, across the whole of the HS2 project, probably the most impacted on community out of everywhere that the line goes.

62. Why do we think that? Well, because we’ve already heard Mr Mould talk about a period of 20 years. We have already talked about a delta junction, which not only serves HS2 phase one, but it also serves HS2 phase two. And as you can see from the map that is in front of you, part of the HS2 phase two line is being constructed in this project. You will also see the railhead.

63. Now Kevin and I have found it exceptionally difficult to understand, fro m the various documents over time that have been released, about how long it will take to construct this railhead, and how long it will be in operation. As we sit here before you today, we believe that this railhead will be in operation – if you include its construction phase – for 20 years.

64. So when we say we’re a special case, what we are saying is we have significant elements of HS2 within our parish. But more importantly – and this point is important to the rest of our presentation – we are trying to talk to the committee and to HS2 about a period of 20 years.

65. Now 20 years slips off the tongue. But I had the joy of celebrating my 50th birthday earlier in the month. If things go to plan, when the railhead site is returned to

grass – as possibly maybe the case, but we’ve already heard from Mr Mould that it may well continue – I will be 75 years old. Now that really brings it home to me.

66. So when we make our presentation, we’re asking you not only to appreciate our physical location, but we’re also asking you to appreciate that we are trying to deal with a significant period of time, which is what I believe makes us unique.

67. We have thought about what we are going to report to the committee today, and we understand totally that the committee are interested in specifics. Please accept that we have chosen not to speak about specific interventions. We have had a series of contact, with a series of offers, from HS2 through the period of preparation, and particularly over the last couple of days, prior to our appearance here, where small projects have been offered to us as part of mitigation interventions.

68. We haven’t accepted those at the moment, because as I’ve said to you, we are trying to talk to you about a period that runs for the next 20 years, and we cannot plan now for what’s going to happen in two years time, five years time, 10 years time, 20 years time.

69. We do not sit before you, Chair, in opposition. We accept what is happening. As you can see, as a parish we are already used to significant developments. What Mr Mould didn’t point out on the map is the M42, and there’s also the northern relief road, i.e. the M6 toll road. So this has been going on around us for significant period of time. And really, I suppose, we view HS2 as another development, which we’d rather didn’t happen, but we accept is going to happen.

70. Our purpose for coming before you today, is that we seek to maximise every opportunity to influence the mitigation that will be done on all areas of the HS2 line, the railhead, the feeder line, and the Birmingham to Derby line that fall within our parish. Yes, I know that some of the line falls outside our parish parameters, but please forgive us. It’s so instrumental to what we are talking about in the parish. We are sticking within the boundaries that you see on the map.

71. Let’s just re-summarise what we are talking about, in terms of mitigating the

impact. So we are talking about pre-construction, construction and post-construction, in terms of impact. When we’re talking about mitigation, we are talking about the phase one line itself, the delta junction, the phase two line, and the railhead, and the feeder line from the Birmingham to Derby line.

72. Chair, as a community we have had exceptionally positive experience of working with the development of the Hams Hall national distribution site. As you will have seen from map 859, if you could pick that up again, it was a major development within the parish, and it brought with it all of the same issues that we would experience, or we anticipate we will experience, with HS2; around noise, around road impact, around light pollution and around having a major building development on your doorstep.

73. This presentation, and our petition and the presentation today, is based on our experiences of working in support of the Hams Hall distribution site development and post the distribution site. So we’re not adducing to you some nefarious scheme that has no grounds. This is all based on previous experience that has happened.

74. We propose to make one single request to the committee today. We have been told that we will probably be unlikely in this request, but we have accepted that, and we still choose to go forward and make it. And that is that we are asking for a special management facility specifically for our parish, and those parishes that immediately surround the P hase Two junction and the railhead.

75. You will hear us refer to this management facility as the HS2 Environmental Trust. And Kevin la ter o n in the presentation will go on to explain to you what we perceive to be an Environment Trust. We did outline this proposal in our petition, in paragraph 13, subsection 1 of our petition 12.90. However when we read the promoters response, we did not feel it in any way acknowledged that proposal, nor did it make any views in relation to the nature of the trust.

76. We are aware, Sir, as Mr Mould has already said, that there is a commitment from HS2 for a special management zone, which you’ve seen in the documentation to Steve Ma xle y. And we are totally conversant with what the proposals of that zone are. However we are also highly conscious that that zone is for the whole of the

Warwickshire county area, and as you will hear Kevin say, does not go into specifics.

77. Our comment here today is that nowhere else in the Warwickshire county area is impacted upon in the same degree as Lea Marston parish is. We’re also aware, Chair, that there has been a commitment made to North Warwickshire Borough Council, that they will be the lead agent for mitigation. Totally accept that, and we are pleased that there will be some local involvement.

78. However, as residents of a community, we do not consider that the arrangement of designated north Warwickshire Borough Council will properly empower local people, to either fully understand what is being proposed, or have any influence over what is being done. And part of that proposal around developing an HS2 environmental trust is to both make sure that people are properly informed – because goodness knows this has been a nightmare in times of drip-feeding of inaccurate information that changes. And I know it’s a majorly complex project. But at times it feels really chaotic. And it will empower us at least to have some say on what is being done to us.

79. I state again, we are not in opposition. This is about making sure that the mitigation that is offered is appropriate, and that it meets the needs of the local people, who as you will see from the two communities, particularly Marston and Lea Marston, are majorly affected by what is going on.

80. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. What I would like to do is hand you over to Kevin, who will explain to you about the nature of that solution.

81. MR OAKLEY: Thank you. Good morning gents, if I haven’t already offered that to you. So our submission has got content within it, and we’re offering to the committee fo r – to look at a proposal for an environmental trust. I’d like to refer to exhibit A200, which is a script that we’ve compiled, explaining what an environmental trust is.

82. To whether the committee have come across an environmental trust before, I’m not too sure. It is something that we hadn’t come into play with until we were actively involved with the Hams Halls distribution centre. So proposing to you, ‘What is an environmental trust?’

83. The environmental trust is a charitable status trust, administered by a board of non-executive directors. Directors may be drawn from promoters, consultants, parish councils, landowners, local residents, local businesses. And the board would consist of approximately six to eight members, working under the trust.

84. It would promote the future community benefits and local landscape mitigation. The trust would obtain it’s funding from HS2. And such funding set at a fixed figure for future expenditure, obviously with no overspends. The funding will be held in an escrow based account, and released in phases of, say, quarterly expenditures.

85. It is considered the funding should be in place before pre-construction, as views on the community benefit by HS2, appear to release such funding following completion of the project. The completion of the project, as far as Lea Marston Parish Council is concerned, could exist 20 years into the future. In fact that could well be 23 years. And we may well be looking at phase one and two completion, before we could make an application to the community benefit fund, approaching the mid 2035s.

86. Now what is the purpose of the trust? It’s to involve local residents and business communities, in timely decision making about the mitigation of pre-construction, construction and post-construction. It’s a mechanism to progress the continuing work that’s been undertaken, and the development of the community area forum process.

87. The community area forum process – whilst obviously being its own mechanism in the past – has reached a stage – or did reach a stage, whereby it had somewhat of a cut off point. But that – but the continuity of the framework of the area forum work, needs to be carried on into the future.

88. We see the trust as a solution to address unforeseen and unintended consequences, arising from the construction and the use of the railhead and ancillary workings. Now, the phrase ‘unintended consequences’ is something that we’ve experienced as a parish. We have had the ‘boy racer’ syndrome hit the parish, in big time.

89. So much so that we were instrumental in getting injunction in place for it, and now

£0.5 million worth o f measures have been put in place to stop this happening. But as I say, that was an unintended consequence, which could not be foreseen when we were actually dealing with the first time period of Hams Hall development.

90. It would also provide a structured review process of future mitigation methods over the next 25 years. The future mitigation measures obviously is again process of design; progression from the community area forum. It’s this continuity that we wish to see along the next – for coming, what, 20 odd years that we’re going to be dealing with this.

91. So continuity is very, very important, as is the word specifics to us. We need to have specifics within that continuity process, which are, I suppose, applicable to the parish. So we need to safeguard the parish from the impact of HS2. And what I’d like to do is to hand back to Mr Reilly, to explain exhibit A203, which is an image habitat map.

92. CHAIR: David?

93. MR REILLY: Okay. Thank you, C hair. We’ve put two exhibits for you, which we prepared ourselves. So my apologies if they look a bit amateurish, but they are. Right, this is a habitation map. Why did I pull it off Google Earth? Well because I wanted to show to you, and demonstrate to the committee, that we are talking about green belt land. We are talking about land that is agricultural that will be used across. So we are talking about communities who currently have no interference within their daily lives from anything other than a farmer.

94. CHAIR: From? Sorry, I didn’t hear.

95. MR REILLY: A fa r mer.

96. CHAIR: Thank you.

97. MR REILLY: Caring for the land or caring for… I understand, Mr Chair, that the committee have been out and visited the railhead site. So you will appreciate that there

is nothing there at the moment. If I could take you on to refer to exhibit A201.

98. CHAIR: Can we just go back to that last one, sorry? I wasn’t aware that the freight distribution centre, in the bottom of the picture of the site, was quite as large as it is. So that’s access from the road to the south of the parish council? Yes, to the parish?

99. MR REILLY: Sir, when it was first designed, it was supposed to be a national rail distribution park. However, there was only one railway line that goes into it.

100. CHAIR: Yes.

101. MR REILLY: Now the volume of everything from that state goes out on the road. And the road you will see that it all goes out on, is a small dual carriageway, which runs at 45 degrees in the bottom left hand of your screen. There are major manufactures and distribution suppliers on that site. The large factory in the middle is BMW. It’s the engine plant where they build all of the engines, for all the vehicles in Europe. Everything comes in and out by road. What you won’t see on there is DHL, who are a major logistics company, who have a constant fleet of vehicles coming in and out.

102. Fortunately, Lea Marston is connected to the distribution site by a very small lane. However, Mr Chairman, that does not stop HGV artics coming down the lane, following the ir sat navs, breaking all of the enforcement regulations around weight limits on the road surface, getting stuck on the Z-bends that are in the middle of the village, and causing complete and utter chaos.

103. We are also, for anybody who wants to work at Hams Hall, who lives on the northern area of the map, which is a significant population, and they all come through our village at incredible speed, all the time. So thank you for pointing that out. It’s major. If I could take you to –

104. MR THORNTON: While we’re there, do you mind if I just ask one more question?

105. MR REILLY: Yes.

106. MR THORNTON: Thanks. I notice that where the M42 junction – is that the M42? Where the motorway junction is.

107. MR REILLY: Yes.

108. MR THORNTON: Now the distribution site, I understand it would be to the north east of that?

109. MR REILLY: Yes.

110. MR THORNTON: And down to the south of that there seems to be a large area of waste land.

111. MR REILLY: Can you just tell me where – are you speaking about top left, bottom left…

112. MR THORNTON: No, just if you’re looking at the motorway junction, and you just go slightly south east.

113. MR REILLY: Yes.

114. MR THORNTON: And that’s looking on my Google Earth, there seems to be a large area of wasteland there. Do you know what that is? Because according to Google, when I was looking on my map, it looks like it’s a complete and –

115. MR REILLY: Chair, could I stand up? Let me have a look. Right that is a soil tip site. So it’s connected to the motorway: the M42 and the M6 toll. And basically you’ve got lorries bringing in –

116. MR OAKLEY: Yes. Just to come in on that one, it is –

117. MR THORNTON: It is a rather good site for a railhead.

118. MR OAKLEY: It’s a recycling area –

119. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It wouldn’t be big enough.

120. MR OAKLEY: – which takes in hardcore building waste and recycles into reconstituted hardcore for sale.

121. MR THORNTON: So obviously that’s not big enough for a railhead site there. But it seems to me that that is, if a lot of the land’s already red, couldn’t you build it on that side, and then it’s also nearer a road, nearer the motorway. I mean, wouldn’t that be a better site for a railhead?

122. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Far too small.

123. MR THORNTON: No, no, that in itself is. But if that was part of it that would reduce the amount of land – tha t is probably equivalent to the amount of land you’re going to take away from the ancient woodland. So wouldn’t that be better to ruin that then ruin the ancient woodland?

124. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’re not running the ancient woodland. We’re taking, as you saw, a – it’s a very small loss of trees from the ancient woodland. And we are currently considering proposals for further planting in relation to it. The reason why the sidings have to be there, is because they have to be accessed from the Birmingham to Derby line. And if you look on the plan in front of you, you can see that if we were to try and provide sidings on the land that you have just identified, in order to serve a railhead, it would require a great deal more ambitious scheme, and a great deal more land take, than to put those reception sidings right next door to an existing railway lane.

125. I think, if I may say so, with respect, the consequence of that would be very much more damaging. I’m also told that that is an elevated area, and so it would require a great deal more intrusive excavation, generating a great deal more spoil, because we have to sink the railhead and its attendant sidings into cuttings, in order to alleviate – fo r operational reasons, but also to alleviate the environmental impact that those essential facilities would have.

126. CHAIR: I’m sorry to interrupt you, but we need to –

127. MR REILLY: Could I add to what you are saying, if you don’t mind. Mr Thornton, I think you make a very good proposal. You may be aware that there were originally two sites proposed for the construction of the railhead. And the area that you have identified was the original Hams Hall railhead s ite.

128. It wasn’t just the reclaiming yard that you have talked about. The site extended down from the area you’ve spoken about, encapsulated the traffic island, went up to the Birmingham and Derby line, and came back round past the power station and up to the junction, junction nine of the M42, where it joins with the A446.

129. MR THORNTON: Am I right, that’s further away from houses as well?

130. MR REILLY: It certainly is. What you don’t see on the far left of the map is Curdworth village, who are there. Now that site is interesting.

131. MR THORN TON: Yes. I can see that. Yeah.

132. MR REILLY: Because that site was used for the construction – it was used as a railhead, if I could use the phrase, for construction of the M6 toll. So there was a resident population needed storage materials, and there was a degree of storage of machinery and manufacturing.

133. The parish, though, is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Because if the railhead is to be sited there, then we have seen some early drawings which relocate the A446 and the feeder roads towards Lea Marston village. And at the moment, as Mr Mould has said, in terms o f the topography, the land is raised. However if the 446 and the feeder roads were to be moved, they would become – they’d come within the site of every resident within Lea Marston, on the wrong side of the hill.

134. From what we understand, from all of the information we’ve read from HS2, that site was not chosen as the preferred site for the railhead, on the basis purely of cost. The

Kingsbury Road site, and Mr Mould I’m sure you’ll correct me, is 170 million cheaper. Is that right?

135. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ll check that figure. But I can do it later, or if it would be helpful, as you’ve got it in mind, I can do it now. But the reasons why the scheme – the sites that in the bill that was chosen is summarised in paragraph 2.6.27 on the page 41 of the environmental statement. I can read that out now, if it would be helpful, so that the committee is aware of the reasons.

136. CHAIR: I think we want to hear from the petitioner. We’ve been –

137. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yep.

138. CHAIR: They were in full flow and doing very well, until they were – if you stand up Mr Reilly, the television cuts your head off. So…

139. MR REILLY: Oh, does it? I’ll slink down into my chair, sir.

140. CHAIR: So please carry on.

141. MR REILLY: Okay. Thank you, Sir. Right. So let’s just summarise then. We’re looking at A203 which shows green belt land, which shows farming land, which nicely demonstrates where the villages are, and shows the nature of the parish. Thank goodness for Google Earth.

142. Right. If we can please refer to exhibit A201. Again my apologies for the amateur presentation. I did my best with highlighters and biros. Right. Kevin and I sat down and we went through every HS2 document that we had access to, and we produced this map. Its intention, as the title tells you, is to demonstrate to you the impact of HS2. Because it was all very well to sit here and look at the original map hat I drew this on, which shows a nice, dark safeguarding zone, which doesn’t appear really to be that bad.

143. Right. So just look at the key. So that as you are already familiar with, me mbe rs

of the committee. We have the railhead coloured in orange – orange highlighter on the right. P lease note that I have included in there the bunding and the mitigation works. But as you will see with the village of Marston, which is the hashed area immediate below the cursor, this goes right up to the very edge of people’s gardens. If you look along the 4097, as I do now, and you are aware Chair there are properties along the Kingsbury Road, whose gardens are either encroached by the railhead or who border onto the railhead.

144. We move down, and what you can’t see particularly well is a yellow highlighter. But this has already been demonstrated by the previous maps, which shows the route of the feeder line. And as I’ve already said, Chair, the feeder line is important to us, because we are talking about significant amounts of rail traffic, coming along that loop, off the Birmingham to Derby line and into the railhead, for a significant period of time. It may well, as we have already been told, be a permanent structure.

145. The area in green is sand and gravel extraction. Sand and gravel extraction is important, not only because of the usefulness of the close proximity of significant deposits to any construction project, but you will also hear, fro m pe titio ner s who will appear before this committee later in the petitioning process, about applications to remove the sand and gravel. And to ask this committee’s support for the construction of br id ges a nd the changing of roadways as part of the HS2 project, to facilitate the removal of that sand and gravel.

146. So there will be a direct consequence, that areas for sand and gravel that were not previously accessible because of weight limits on the roads, will become opened up by the development of HS2. Particularly if there are mitigation interventions done for private landowners, to enable them to remove the gravel from site. Interestingly, the lakes that surround Lea Marston are now a fantastic wildlife centre. They were previously a sand and gravel extraction site, which was hellish when it was in operation.

147. CHAIR: I suppose the good news is you’re going to be surrounded by water at some point.

148. MR REILLY: At some point. We’re going to become the republican island of

Lea Marston. Yeah, you will see, C hair, at the bottom of the map, a blue shaded area, which is planned expansion for the continued development of the national distribution park Hams Hall. This will be opened up as we develop the rail-link, and also I presume that permissions for development through planning will be given because o f the significant other work that is going on in our area.

149. So the purpose of the map is to hopefully demonstrate to you that there is nothing left in the parish once you’ve brought in the HS2. There is nowhere in the parish that isn’t in any way impacted by what is going on. And I opened with my statement, and Kevin’s repeated it, Chair, we are talking about 20 years. 20 years of impact.

150. You know, I mean – interestingly, we don’t for – we’re not looking to speak to that hardship scheme today or conversation. But actually when you do read it, Lea Marston doesn’t fall into anything. So we’re in a tricky position, Kevin, aren’t we?

151. MR OAKLEY: Very tricky position, yeah. And the impact – we have to impress upon you the word impact. And we consider that the word impact should have specific measures placed against those impacts.

152. You know, in our petition we raised 18 points which we were looking to HS2 to take a look at. Now, some of those points, probably three of the points, referred back to property compensation etc. etc. Now I want to put all of that to one side, because the property compensation factor comes under a different mandate, as far as we’re concerned, because of HS2 and their property compensation schemes.

153. But within those balance of 15 items, we consider that they could be accommodated, and would be accommodated nicely, into the previous details which I was talking about, reference a trust; an environmental trust.

154. Now I want to go onto the fact that HS2 have listened to WCC, Warwickshire County Council. They’ve listened to North Warwickshire Borough Council. And we have this special management zone put forward, of which we totally accept; totally accept that. But as far as Lea Marston is concerned, it does not go far enough.

155. We would like to see the whole of the special management zone taken to the next level. And the next level would incorporate decision making. The environmental trust would have the facility of decision making. We do not wish to see the throwing around of various meetings and conversations, verbal rhetoric, written rhetoric, and not getting to an end result, whereby decisions are taken. And those decisions obviously will be mitigation decisions.

156. So we feel as though the trust, with our past experience o f the format o f s uc h a trust, would accommodate our 15 items. It might be more than 15, if one wanted to drill down into it. But with having that experience, on a previous involvement with the environmental statement, we can set it up and deal with an external – the higher level, the decision making level that we really consider is to be the route forward.

157. Now obviously such a trust would need to be in place at very, very early stages within the framework of HS2. And it needs to basically work with HS2 in a way that we create the ongoing format, of the direction of where we’re going to pre-construction.

158. Now I’m a retired project construction director. And I looked at the situation of the proposal of HS2 on procurement. Now HS2’s procurement route will be such that they will be putting a contract brief out into the marketplace, and that brief will contain various items, whatever they want to see. And that brief will go to contractors; European, UK, whatever it might be. And the contractor will be submitting tenders fo r the proposed work, on a design and build basis.

159. Now on the design and build basis, that not entirely allows the contractor to have carte blanche with what he can do or what he can’t do. But that design and build contractor will have to meet the parameters of what his tender is going to be at its tender stage, and he basically will have to work within that tender remit.

160. Now we, with the trust, would basically enable the consideration of involvement from a very, very early stage. This brief of HS2 to the contractors would not incorporate local knowledge of the parish, other surrounding parishes, that have got local knowledge of trafficking impact, landscape mitigation etc. etc.

161. So we see it as a way, of not exactly holding HS2’s hand, but going forward with them jointly, to appreciate that these are specific areas – traffic impact, landscape mitigation – that need to be picked up at a very, very early stage. And it comes back down to that comment I passed about the continuity of the community area forum.

162. So picking up at a very, very early stage, pre-construction, and then going onto construction matters and post-construction, with the trust, would involve future decision making that would be implemented, because there would be funds available for that decision making to be made.

163. And having the previous experience of working with such a trust, we feel as though we have got firsthand experience, knowledge and the involvement to appreciate the process of engagement in consultation. We have been somewhat critical of the process of consultation and engagement by HS2.

164. We consider obviously the generalisation of what HS2 have put forward in their environmental statement, to be very generic. That will probably evolve possibly with the design stage progressing. But we are not seeing – and I’ll come back to the word – specific environmental impact objectives. And the word specific is very, very important to Lea Marston Parish Council and the residents of Lea Marston.

165. Now just going on from the special management facility, we were a little bit perturbed last week to receive details of an assurance that HS2 had given to Warwickshire County Council, I believe, on local traffic impact. There is reference in their letter to the A446.

166. Now HS2, I can only say, offered a deal to Warwickshire County Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council, to provide a restricted flow of transportation during the construction works, because the A446 is a problem area. North Warwickshire Borough Council have requested that it becomes a dual carriageway, to link up the two areas that are now a dual carriageway, to make it one continuous dual carriageway.

167. But the way we got perturbed about the content of the letter, was such that again

we see by the efforts and what HS2 are doing, is that they are not appreciating local traffic impact. They have not consulted with the parish councils on the reasons why the A446 gets very, very congested. And partly, or mostly, the A446 gets congested because of the impact of local parishes, lanes, whatever it might be, converging on that particular area.

168. Now going back from there, we have cross-fertilisation of traffic impact that comes in from Tamworth, from Nuneaton, from Coventry, and they find a way through Lea Marston to satisfy their needs by short cuts etc. etc. So just to put the case forward, there was no consultation with this parish council on the assurance that was given to North Warwickshire Borough Council by HS2, on the 446.

169. And if that’s the type of attitude that HS2 want to go forward with, that just shows that they are not basically getting into the true format of consultation and appreciating local impacts. Now I think that probably I’ll leave it there, David. And if you wish to come in?

170. MR REILLY: Okay. Thank you. C hair, Kevin has raised a number of issues which are contained paragraph 13 of our petition. We have chosen not to list them, but I can do if you want to, because when we went through them we considered that the promoter’s response did not adequately address the points that we were making.

171. In fact, if you don’t mind, I’ll just summarise a couple of key points that Kevin made in his presentation. I go back to the issue that we are talking about a 20 year time period. So we’re not here asking the committee to consider specific interventions, because we can tell you a whole raft of specific interventions that we would like around roadworks, around planting, that are totally pertinent to November 2014. We do not know what is going to happen in November 2015, November 22, November 27.

172. So we have taken the decision that we can’t get into that detail with this committee. What we do want to do is we want to get into that detail with a specially formed trust, who will empower residents to have some say. There are a number of exhibits that are listed by HS2 today for this committee, which when we have looked at them, they are wrong. They are wrong. They are prepared by people who have no

understanding of the nature of the location. And if decisions are being taken on the basis of incorrect information, then it is meaningless.

173. We are talking about a continuation of the community area forum process, which we thought was exceptionally good. There is no discussion anywhere in a ny o f the documents that we have seen how that will go forward. We are talking about unforeseen and unintended consequences. Now please bear with me on this, but this is, from my perspective, a significant issue.

174. Kevin has referred to the issue of the boy racers on Hams Hall. Now when Hams Hall was built, lovely straight roads, dual carriageways, boy you can get a speed up down there. Now when that was all designed and passed, nobody ever, ever, in their wild est d rea ms, could have foreseen that it would become a race track.

175. Now for the two and a half years that it took to problem solve the amount of anti- social behaviour to the residents o f the Lea Marston, the danger to every road user who has to drive through Hams Hall, because that is the way that the road network is set out, to drive down Hams lane and out of Lea Marston, and the time and resource that it took Warwickshire police to do a problem solving initiative around it, is just phenomenal.

176. Now we are convinced that with the development of the HS2 railhead there will be unforeseen and unforcastable consequences. And we see that the project, the trust enables us to address those when they move forward. Because as we sit here today, Chair, and I’m very grateful that we’re having our time in court, so to speak, but what happens when we walk out of here? What happens for the next 20 years? Where do we go?

177. And I’m afraid that the offer of a friendly face of HS2 to be in a management zone who has no other authority, from what I can read, other than to act as a point of communication and reference, doesn’t really do it for us. It doesn’t cut it for us. We’re saying please make a provision to involve us. Now we have been told there that our proposal is too complex and too costly. We’ve been told that if you consider our proposal you will be setting precedents for the rest of the HS2 route. I accept that.

178. However, I have repeated myself on a number of occasions today, to say that we genuinely consider that we are a special case. We are 20 years of impact, just in construction. We are going through phases of pre-construction, construction and then use.

179. Throughout this process, and Kevin has referred to this, we found it incredibly difficult to understand what was going on. We appear without legal representation. Our precept is £4,000 a year. We couldn’t afford to commission legal support. That’s not to say that we’re – we’re no fools. Kevin has already told you that he was a construction project director. I have two degrees from Red Brick universities. But Chair, I cannot understand the stuff that is being pumped out to us.

180. And it changes on such a frequent basis, even now. I received map s at 3pm yesterday, knowing that my presentation was written, knowing that we’d done all the research, having met – you know, it’s bonkers. And if we are supposed to be making pointed recommendations to this committee about mitigation for 20 years time, on the basis of stuff that is being decided just in time, or – and it is just in time. It’s not on the hoof. Fair play.

181. We did talk about complexity, and that was some of the feedback we were given that HS2 is such a complex project that there was no way that special provision could be made. Well, there is a very fine line between chaos and complexity. At the moment, it really, really feels as though we are going through a number of years of chaos at the moment with decisions being changed, with no consultation, with no information being put forward, with proposals being made and then finding out subsequently that those proposals have been withdrawn. The Trust will help us address some of those issues. The Trust will help us provide local information and local knowledge.

182. You will also see in the Trust paper that Kevin wrote about, which was one of the incredibly successful aspects of the Hams Hall site that there was a Community Mitigation Fund. Well, Mr Mould has already said that there is £30 million available for the whole of the line, Mr Chair. £30 million. You’re joking. We’re not asking for 30 million. We’re not asking for a significant sum. What we are asking for is that we have already been told that by switching from Hams Hall railhead site, which was the

original proposed site, to the railhead site on the Kingsbury Road, £170 million has been saved. Well, that’s fantastic. If we could have a share of that saving that we could spend in conjunction with HS2, in conjunction with the lead planning agent from North Warwickshire Borough Council, and in conjunction with any representatives from Warwickshire County Council, that would be fantastic. We are hoping by saying that we are here as members of the parish – we are not presenting personal agendas or personal interests as we come forward. We hold a lawful office and we are sitting here hoping that you will appreciate that there is no personal gain in this.

183. In terms of the sharing of information, Chair, I am genuine when I say that there has been a major lack of transparency in terms of the sharing of information by HS2. It has been compounded by the complexity of what we are being shown because we see maps that we really do not understand what they mean, and we have found that despite numerous requests there is a piecemeal approach to providing information. We see the Trust as being a key area for us in which to be empowered, in which to understand and which to help. I have some closing remarks, Chair.

184. CHAIR: Do you want to make them after the promoter has responded?

185. MR REILLY: Yeah, I don’t mind Chair if Mr Mould wants to respond to what we’ve raised, then we can.

186. CHAIR: Yeah, and then you can pick up on anything that Mr Mould says.

187. MR REILLY: Thank you C hair.

188. CHAIR: Thank you very much gentlemen. Mr Mould?

189. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Can we just put up P873 please? The focus of the petitioner’s presentation I think is on the need for the advantages that will come to the project and to the local community of continuing to seek to build on local knowledge because through local knowledge one understands, one perhaps gets a better understanding of local impacts. I think that is a key theme of what is being said. I just thought that I ought to show the Committee a snapshot of the engagement that has taken

place in relation to the locality from April 2012 onwards. It’s set out on the screen in front of you. The thing I should say to the Committee, which you may have been told already, and if you have forgive me, but the final decision on the location of the railhead was made relatively shortly before the Bill was introduced into Parliament. The decision, I think, was finally made in September of last year. I did say that there is an explanation of the site selection process and the decision in the environmental statement. For those who wish to know the references, it’s paragraphs 2.6.11-to-2.6.27 in Volume II.

190. I did say that I would just refer the Committee to paragraph 2.6.27, which summarises the reasons why the location that is before you today was ultimately selected, and they are these. Although it’s accepted that the Kingsbury Road option has slightly greater environmental impacts than other options, it still provides the desired connectivity for construction, has relatively low disruption to existing infrastructure, and relatively low cost. Additionally, and I’ve made this point already, the potential to reuse the site for Phase Two could provide further environmental and cost benefits as another site would not be required during the construction of Phase Two. I’ve made that point.

191. The cost in question – it was a question that was posed – the Kingsbury Road proposal, it was being costed at £110 million. The cheapest alternative option that was considered was at Hams Hall and that was costed at £177 million, so cost was an important consideration but as I’ve just indicated to you it was not the only consideration. There were other operational reasons.

192. Now, the other point to make about location is that of the options considered, all but one were also located in this locality. There was the Hams Hall option which included broadly the area that Mr Thornton raised in his question a few moments ago. There was a variation on that in design terms. And then there was a site in South Staffordshire that was considered. And, it’s fair to say that petitioners have not, I think, pushed hard for consideration of an alternative location. Their concern is to seek to ensure that the mitigation that is provided to the Bill proposal is the best that it reasonably can be. I think that’s really what they’re about.

193. Anyway, to come back to this slide, this is an indication of the engagement.

Because the proposal found its way into the scheme relatively soon before the Bill was introduced, the project did carry out events in the locality at the end of last year, as you can see – in November and December of last year – in order to inform people. That would at least provide people the opportunity to comment in response to the environmental statement which, as you know, was out to public participation during the early months of this year, 2014.

194. Now, that was then. The point that is made is that engagement should continue and that it should enable a local input into the detail of the mitigation arrangements that are provided in order to enable the construction operation of the railhead to be mitigated as best as it reasonable can. The first point I make is this: as you know, the purpose of the Bill is to provide the full panoply of mitigation that is judged to be needed in order to safeguard local communities, local residents, local businesses from the effects of the project. The environmental statement sets out those arrangements in considerable detail. If these petitioners, having considered the mitigation that is proposed in this area, if they think that there are other matters that can be introduced into the scheme in order to improve on the mitigation, they should tell us. They can tell you as well, because, as we know, that’s part of your function – it’s to consider whether there are ways in which the mitigation that is proposed could be extended or improved upon at reasonable cost so as to improve the overall output of the scheme. That’s the first point.

195. The next point is, we have recognised – and petitioners have kindly acknowledged this – we have recognised that the scale of effects in the vicinity of this Parish is significant and arguably more significant than at many other places along the line. The presence of the railhead is a good way of illustrating that. It is for that reason that we have agreed to introduce the special management zone to which reference was made during the course of the petitioner’s presentation. That is intended to enable these petitioners and others in the locality to engage with the project through a dedicated single point of contact so that the mitigation arrangements that are put forward in this area are as attuned to local needs as they reasonably can be. That’s one of the purposes of the proposal.

196. What it doesn’t do is to give the local community, if you like, a decision-making role. The reason for that is quite straightforward. The intention is that the project

should procure, the Secretary of State should procure the construction and delivery of this railway through the contractual arrangements with the nominated undertaker and that the full panoply of mitigation measures that are required in order to deliver the project so that its effects are as carefully and fully mitigated as is reasonably possible, that those are built in to the contract which the nominated undertaker signs up to. So, the purpose of the exercise is that the cost – if you like – of mitigation should not be incurred by a local Trust, but the cost of the mitigation should be incurred through the main contractual arrangements between the promoter and the nominated undertaker.

197. CHAIR: Can I ask, Mr Mould, about the special management zone of which an undertaker has been given? Is it an individual on the telephone or is it rather more than that? Will the individual be accountable to representatives of the County Council, District Council, or indeed would the parish councils be invited along? I mean, will there be some kind of consultative committee so that people can sound off so they can pick up what’s going on?

198. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, the arrangements are P870(2), P870, Round 2. They will be a community engagement team, so it won’t be a single person. At the very top of the page – there you are. It will include a single point of contact for local authorities in the area, named individual points of contact for affected property owners, and a senior manager accountable for effective implementation of the code of construction practice in the north Warwickshire area. The duties of the individuals would include but not be limited to – and then they are set out: being the first point of contact for communities and local authorities along the line of route; coordination between both proposed phases of the railway including alignment of powers in construction approaches; managing relationships with the local communities, businesses, local authorities and other stakeholders; raising issues from the community with HS2 Limited for escalation resolution or clarification; monitoring progress; insuring the stakeholder engagement framework is appropriately implemented for the whole scheme; attending regular meetings with the lead contractor, the local authority, local community and other stakeholders to discuss construction issues and forthcoming programmes of works and advising on the appropriate support mechanisms to be provided by the nominated undertaker which will be available to local businesses, landowners, voluntary and community organisations that may be affected by the work.

199. Now, there’s an awful lot of language there and sometimes it’s difficult to get beyond the language to envisage what is actually going to be proposed, but I hope you can see from that certainly what is intended is that there will be a real and tangible opportunity, not just for the Borough Council and local landowners but for the local community more generally, including its local representatives on the Parish Council, to engage on a regular basis with a dedicated team to ensure that the mitigation arrangements which are included in the nominated undertaker’s contract, which are required in order to discharge the license consent that is granted by the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act, that those matters are dealt with and implemented and discharged properly – and that the local community should be able, if you like, through this process, to operate as a kind of informal auditor of that process. That’s the intention here. It is intended to be a proactive regime recognising the particular concerns that people in this area have about the scale of impact of the project upon them. As I say, I think – if I understand it – thus far the petitioners are pleased that this initiative is in place.

200. Now, what they say is: it should be taken to the next level but taking it to the next level, in a sense, they’re foreshadowing what will happen in the future. I mean, when this process begins – if we look forward to a world in which the project has consent and the contract for implementation has been entered into and the nominated undertaker is beginning to plan out his work, then the detailed construction arrangements – which this community engagement team will be addressing in conjunction with the local community – will become much clearer. We can’t do that now because we’re that far removed from that stage in the process, but it doesn’t mean that we won’t do it. It simply means that one has to look forward and imagine this process taking effect, bidding in, in two or three years’ time. But what we do know is that this will be built into the contractual arrangements with the nominated undertaker so that this Special Management Zone Initiative is actually delivered. That is the intention of the promoter. That is the intention of the Secretary of State. That is why this assurance has been given in the terms that it has.

201. There’s an awful lot been said about details, references been made to the duration of the railhead, references been made to the degree to which the project understands the

locality. I could spend quite a lot of time responding in details to those matters. I’m not at all sure that you would find that terribly helpful because I think the key question here is the concern that – if you like – HS2 in this area will be imposed upon the local community through the detailed arrangements for construction of the project and through its delivery, and that the local community will not have an adequate say in how it is constructed and how it is delivered and how the detailed mitigation arrangements set out in the environmental statement will be introduced. I have sought to address my response to that issue and to seek to give some comfort both to the Committee and to the petitioners that this arrangement that we have in front of us is specifically designed to address those concerns. I have also mentioned the community fund but I don’t think that’s really the issue here. I think this is more about the mitigation of the Bill proposals rather than the sort of matters that could be dealt with under the Community Fund Initiative.

202. If one turns back to, finally, the petition itself, and if one goes to the page introducing there what you might describe as the business end of their petition – you see on the petition is set out, paragraph 13, ‘Your petitioners consider the following proposal should be implemented to satisfy the environmental impact objectives in achieving quality mitigation, design and enhancement measures, all as HS2 endorse within their generic project statements as above. 1) Your petitioners request the Parish and surrounding area be granted a special management facility to ensure comprehensive coordination of the full project scope from pre-construction and phased completion of the work. The Parish must be safeguarded.’

203. Well, it’s to that end that the Special Management Zone arrangement that I have just spent a little time describing to you, which we have committed to the Borough Council and the County Council to deliver – that is our response to that request. As I say, if the Parish Council feel that there is more of substance in terms of mitigation in this project – more of substance that should be included in the Bill, more of substance that should be included in the contract, the tender that goes out to the nominated undertaker for the railway in this area, then they should tell us and we will look at that. I won’t say that we will necessarily accept it because I’ll have to see what it says, but we will look at it and we will look at it in the knowledge that the Special Management Zone Initiative is there to seek to ensure that the local community have a real and direct voice

to be heard in the delivery of that package of mitigation and in the delivery of the project in this area.

204. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Reilly, would you like to give your brief final remarks please?

205. MR REILLY: Chair, if I could ask your permission to address three points that Mr Mould has raised before I make some closing remarks.

206. CHAIR: Certainly.

207. MR REILLY: The first of those three points is about the special management zone. Sir, we have both acknowledged in our thanks to Mr Mould for explaining further the context of the scheme. The word that Mr Mould did not use was ‘empowerment’. This is about empowerment. It is not about being done to. Yes? It is about having some influence over what is happening to us for twenty years. Mr Mould has obviously made the offer to us that we should tell the Committee about specific mitigation interventions that we want. Well when we opened, sir, we told you that we were putting all of our money on red and we were going with one proposal to the Committee which was the formation of the Trust because there are actually so many specific mitigation interventions that exist at the moment, and there will be as we progress into the future, so many that we can never foresee as we sit here today with what we know, that it doesn’t do it for us. We need a special Trust that will focus on the communities impacted upon by the railhead Phase Two junction and the Phase Two line as well as the Phase One line.

208. Consultation, yes. That was interesting. Mr Mould put a slide up which, if we could have back up again, please? It is P873. Chair, I feel that I have to, again, give this Committee some flavour of the reality of what we are talking about. The information events on 5 December. Right, that meeting was held at Kevin’s instigation. We had to ask to have that meeting. Why we asked was because, as a Chair, Kevin had received correspondence which had explained about the building of a railhead on the Kingsbury Road. That was some surprise to us. Why did we call the meeting or ask for the meeting? It was because we knew we would be lynched should the community

know that we knew something that they didn’t about such a significant development. So, this isn’t a proactive element where HS2 are coming out and doing things for us. This is stuff that we are having to engender and demonstrate ourselves.

209. Letters to residents: Those letters didn’t go to every residence in the parish. I say that now. I never received either of those letters. What’s more, for the 27th of November meeting, sir, I wrote to every parish member and hand-delivered invitations to the meeting. Nobody else did that. I did it on the back of the Parish Council. Now, it looks fine. It looks like you’re being presented with a complete bill of works which is well coordinated. I have said before to the Committee: what is the difference between chaos and complexity? It’s a bloody fine line. Excuse my French. It is a fine line. But, at the moment we do not see a well-oiled machine coming forward which picks up all of our concerns.

210. The special management zone, yes. It is a start. It is a start as far as we are concerned. We first learned about this last week. It was the first we knew – when we had an informal briefing with North Warwickshire Borough Council, which we were told a series of issues which Warwickshire Borough Council couldn’t expand on exactly what the nature of the zone was. Then, when we saw the letter that was being put up as an exhibit to Mr Maxley it provides a bit more meat on the bone. It still doesn’t tell us anything besides the fact that there will be points of contact who will be able to speak to us and raise our concerns for us. It’s a step forward. It’s not a big enough step. Precedent? Yes. Precedent for the rest of the line for every community that will appear before you? Well, yes, but what we are proposing to you, Chair, is not some pie in the sky idea that we’ve dreamt up over a couple of cups of coffee in my kitchen. We are telling you about a project that worked and worked exceptionally well when a major construction development happened at Hams Hall.

211. If I may, Chair, I would like to refer to some of the exhibits that HS2 have provided today, just to help illustrate my point that they are not demonstrating any local knowledge. I won’t call them all up but there are issues with all of them.

212. Can we just bring up H69 please? So, Mr Mould put this map up to you when he first opened the presentation today. It is, as he says, a map of Sych Wood, ancient

woodland, a lovely place. There is public access to this woodland which consists of a circular path that goes all the way around. The wood is part of the Hams Hall Environmental Study Centre which is an education facility which caters for environmental teaching at the local schools within the community, so Birmingham, Solihull and Warwickshire. It’s really good to see on that map that we only lose .9% of Sych Wood. What Mr Mould doesn’t appreciate is that by closing off the top area which adjoins Church Road, there is now no landowner or community access to that wood because how you get onto the site is that there is a footpath which leads down from C hurch Lane. So great, but it’s not addressing the issues because there is not local knowledge that is going into the preparation of these decisions that are being made.

213. Chair, if I could bring up Exhibit 868, which as you will see is a beautiful photograph of the existing Birmingham to Derby railway line. In our submission, we were talking about lines of site that ran from Church Lane, which we’ve already spoken about because it adjoins Church Wood. That, without a doubt, sir, is the Birmingham to Derby railway line. The trouble is, it’s taken from the railway bridge at Lea Marston, which is one mile away from where we’re talking about. So, it demonstrates that there is no visual impact because you haven’t got a line of sight. Why do I pull it up? Why do I raise it? Because it demonstrates, again, a lack of local understanding about the areas that HS2 are talking about. In my view, that photograph is worthless.

214. Chair, if I can refer you to Exhibit 865. What we have here, Chair, are a series of maps which go through and talk about sound monitoring. I think – I don’t quite understand them – some of them talk about vibration monitoring, etc. Why do I pull it up? I pull it up because we spoke to you about the hamlets of Lea Marston and Marston, which you can see on the map in the middle of the parish and on the top left of the parish. It’s incredible to see that the topography of the land around there is totally flat. There are no measurements taken from anywhere near any residential properties in the villages.

215. If we can just pull up Exhibit 864. Again this is another map. One was about construction. One was about operation. Again, the sample areas that are being used do not take readings on the areas of habitation. It may well be that the decision is being made to keep them within a specific distance of the line, but, sir, we have HGVs reverse

on Hams Hill Industrial Estate and I am really pleased that nobody is knocked over. I’ll tell you why they’re not knocked over: because you can hear the bleeping of the HGVs reversing. I am talking about units of DHL who are on the far right of the parish map. If we’re talking about sound and noise travelling, then in this location, it really does travel, particularly at night.

216. We spoke about the Birmingham to Derby railway. We spoke about the sidings. None of the measurements pick up the increased traffic that will be on the Birmingham to Derby railway line. Within the last 12 months, sir, we have watched Network Rail lower the railway line under every bridge along the Birmingham to Derby railway line as it stands currently. Where they couldn’t lower the railway line by six inches, they rebuilt the whole bridge so there are two bridges which have been completely rebuilt. We are told that’s because they need to get freight and pre-fabricated pieces of HS2 construction traffic under the railway. So, great that they’re doing the work, great that we’ve got some infrastructure in place already – but all I can say, Chair, is if we’re spending this sort of money, the volume of traffic that is going to come down these railway lines is going to be significant. If they are talking about goods trains that are stopping to go into sidings and moving off from sidings, the noise is going to be absolutely awful. It is going to be throughout the day because it’s a 24/7 site. All we are going to hear is trains slowing down and starting up as they get signal authority to move into the junction.

217. Chair, I won’t take any more of your time referring to other exhibits, but there is a constant issue, from our perspective, that decisions are being taken – whether they’re being taken in Atherstone, which is where North Warwickshire Borough Council is based, or whether they’re being taken in Warwick, which is where Warwick Council are based, or whether they’re being taken in London, they do not understand the local issues.

218. We are really grateful for all the help everyone is trying to give but it’s not in the right place. Our Trust chair would address that.

219. My closing comments, Chair. We have played red. We have gone with one mitigation which is the formation of a Trust. The complexity of speaking about a series

of mitigation interventions which are appropriate now is too great. We have had offers. It’s been great HS2 been offering to plant woodlands. They’ve been offering to look at road speeds. It doesn’t do it for me in two years’ time. It doesn’t do it for me in five years’ time. It doesn’t do it for me in 10 years’ time. It doesn’t do it for me in 20 years’ time. I hope I’m still upright in 20 years’ time.

220. Chair, I think I’ve said all I have to say. Do you have anything to say?

221. MR OAKLEY: I would just like to go back over Mr Mould’s timeline.

222. CHAIR: You’re going to have to be brief.

223. MR OAKLEY: Yes, details.

224. CHAIR: Because normally we only allow one person to give a final brief.

225. MR OAKLEY: Just to give you an idea of the timeline proposal that you put on the screen: Obviously that was issued in September 2013. This is the railhead details but the validation details of the three options were looked at in 2012. In 2013 in that September when it was released to the Community Area Forum, there were no specific details put forward. There’d been no consultation put forward whatsoever. We then went through a process of seeing what was in the environmental statement. There was no consultation, no engagement whatsoever on that railhead. We were told at the two meetings that we went to – in December I think it was – that these were not consultation meetings. These were information meetings. Now, there’s a subtle difference between consultation and information. That just gives an idea of that.

226. The special management zone. I do feel as though Mr Mould has put forward, obviously, the case for HS2. I think it’s more of an interpretation of the future of that special management zone – the interpretation and the workings of it – but I am fearful that by the wording of ‘Back to Code of Construction Practice’ it bears a lot of resemblance to the fact that contractors are going to be involved with it and we’re not going to get local information from the parish. That’s it.

227. CHAIR: I think the Zone is a helpful thing but as Mr Mould said, there’s an intent. How it will involve will depend, I suspect, on how the people in that area want to play it. We’re going to have a situation where if Warwickshire County Council and North Warwickshire District Council want to operate in a particular way and negotiate with HS2, I’m sure when the nuts and bolts were done, inevitably, parish council are going to be involved because there’s quite a lot of parish councils – apart from yours – which are involved with this project. So, Mr Mould didn’t fill in details because he said it’s well ahead, which had a degree of symmetry with your case because you’re trying to foresee what you can’t foresee. Clearly timescale is one of the problems that we face with the project, trying to look at a crystal ball. Thank you very much gentlemen, Mr Oakley, Mr Reilly, for coming along. Safe journey back. If we could have a few moments to clear up? Sorry, last?

228. MR BELLINGHAM: I just want to ask Mr Mould just to give me a bit more of a feel for it. The Parish Council, the Chairman and the Clerk, have both said that there has been a distinct lack of proper consultation, proper liaison, and then being treated like grownups. I mean, what is your response to that, because you, you know, won’t prove the timeline of engagement, but they have said it’s not quite what it says on the sheet.

229. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I have made the point that the decision to locate the railhead at Kingsbury Road came relatively late in the period and it came after, came towards the very end of the community forum area process which they said was a success. In fact my recollection is that it was raised, the decision to locate the railhead at Kingsbury Road was raised with the final meeting of the community forum in this area, which is the meeting of the September 2013. So, the point that the meetings that took place toward the end of last year in December, that those were information meetings rather than meetings which had an opportunity to influence the shape of the Bill introduced into Parliament, that point is well made, because the Bill was introduced at the end of November. It is true to say, though, that the Parish Council and those who live in the area, did have the opportunity to comment as consultees on the Bill scheme and the environmental statement and the mitigation that is proposed in this area, under the aegis of the Parliamentary Standing Orders because, as you recall, under the Parliamentary process now, the environmental statement is subject to public consultation by virtue of Standing Order 224A. You recall that point? I don’t know,

I’m afraid, whether the Parish Council did submit a consultation response but if they did it would have been considered by the independent assessor as part of his role in reporting to second House. It isn’t in fact the case of these petitioners that the railhead should be located somewhere else.

230. MR BELLINGHAM: No.

231. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So I think in a sense this point is... I’m not sure where it goes in practice. But, the other point I would make, Mr Bellingham is this. We have had a fairly regular theme of people saying the consultation engagement with the project – that the project has not been very good at it. I do say, with all due respect to these petitioners and with others, one of the things that often leaves people with a sense of frustration, is when they have very strong views about how the project should be formulated in a particular area in relation to a particular matter, then the project, for reasons that it sets, out, decides not to accept that view because if you participate in a consultation process and it doesn’t result in your views being accepted, it does create a sense of frustration.

232. That’s understandable, but it is unfortunately the way of these things that people don’t always find that those who consult with them agree with what they say. So, I acknowledge the frustration that must have come for people from having the final decision on the railhead made relatively late in the process. I accept that, but I do say that what you see on the screen here does reflect at least the fact of a series of meetings, information events, and so forth, that were in part put forward to explain to people – albeit late in the day – why the decision had been taken and the reasons for it. I hope that’s it.

233. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you, but if you’re trying to sell the special management zone concept over and above their idea of this Environment Trust, then we do need to have a really good engagement and a rebuilding of a relationship that obviously has, to some extent, broken down.

234. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There’s no doubt that that initiative must be made to work. I accept that, yes.

235. MR OAKLEY: Chair, can I just come in? Mr Bellingham obviously was talking to Mr Mould there. That is our environmental statement response dated 14 February. It is 19 pages long. Now, obviously...

236. MR BELLINGHAM: Is it in the petition? What page are we on?

237. CHAIR: It’s in that.

238. MR OAKLEY: Basically that is 19 pages of our response and that’s their consultation back to HS2.

239. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much for that, Mr Oakley. Okay, right, thank you very much gentlemen. If you could give us a few minutes just to clear our thoughts. Order, order. We meet tomorrow at 9.30, I presume.