(London - West Midlands) Bill

May 2016

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

Petition No. 562: Buckinghamshire County Council

Promoter’s Response Document

INTRODUCTION

This Promoter’s Response Document (PRD) forms the Promoter’s response to Petition No. 562, from Buckinghamshire County Council.

In this PRD, ‘the Promoter’ means the Secretary of State and HS2 Ltd acting on his behalf.

The purpose of the PRD is to advise you and the Select Committee of the Promoter’s position in relation to the petitioning points raised. It is intended that the PRD will alleviate many of the concerns raised in the petition.

The Table of Contents overleaf lists the page number, petitioning points in the order they appear in the petition, and a summary statement of the issue(s) contained in the petition for quick reference. Other supporting material (e.g. reports, drawings and photographs) referred to in the response points are attached where applicable.

Copies of the HS2 Information Papers referred to in the response points can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill.

Department for Transport High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

BACKGROUND

Approximately 65km of the HS2 route is in Buckinghamshire. It passes through South Buckinghamshire, Chiltern District, Wycombe District and Aylesbury Vale Districts. Amongst other things, Buckinghamshire County Council, ‘the Petitioner’, is the highway authority for most public highways and is the traffic authority for most roads in their area. They are also the local planning authority in respect of minerals and waste, as well as being the Lead Local Flood Authority.

The route for the Proposed Scheme enters the county north-east of Denham, crosses the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty mostly in tunnel or deep cutting, passes west of Wendover and Aylesbury through countryside across Vale of Aylesbury to Calvert and Lower Boddington. To the north of Calvert there is the proposed Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot.

Key dates for the Petitioner in relation to the issuing of Promoter Response Documents (PRDs) and House of Commons (HoC) Select Committee appearance are as follows:

 The Petitioner was issued a PRD in March 2015 for Petition No. 520 against the original Bill scheme;  In June 2015 the Petitioner was issued a PRD for Petition No. AP1: 39 on Additional Provision 1 to the Bill;  The Petitioner appeared in the HoC Select Committee on 13 July 2015;  In September 2015 the Petitioner was issued a PRD for Petition No. AP2: 60 on Additional Provision 2 to the Bill;  The Petitioner appeared again in the HoC Select Committee on 12 October 2015;  In December 2015 the Petitioner was sent a PRD for Petition No. AP4: 262 on Additional Provision 4 to the Bill; and

 The Petitioner appeared in the HoC Select Committee on 20 January 2016.

Since February 2015 the Promoter has offered over 50 assurances to the Petitioner:

 21 assurances on traffic and transport, including: – The assessment and mitigation of HS2 construction traffic effects on 50 key; junctions and routes in Buckinghamshire; – £480,000 towards safety improvements on the A4010 and A4129; – Safety measures to be implemented near schools on HS2 construction routes; – £300,000 towards Automated Traffic Information Systems in the County; and – £150,000 and support for the development of a case for an extension to the Stoke Mandeville Bypass.  Seven assurances on landscape and design engagement, including: – The development of design principles in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the creation of an AONB Review Group to agree these, and a fund of £3m towards additional environmental enhancements in the AONB; – The creation of the Colne Valley Regional Park Panel and a fund of £3m towards additional mitigation in the Colne Valley; – A £1m fund for additional mitigation and engagement on detailed design with stakeholders in the Calvert and Steeple Claydon area; and – The publication of a route-wide Landscape Design Approach document to be discussed with local authorities.  Six assurances on ecology, including: – Two assurances to further protect ancient woodland; and – Three assurances on ecological monitoring proposals.  13 assurances on public rights of way, including: – Eight new public rights of way; and – A county-wide assurance to adhere to the County’s minimum standards.  Four assurances on minerals and waste, including three on HS2’s routewide minerals and waste strategy;  Three assurances on HS2’s routewide archaeology and heritage strategy; and  One assurance on monitoring groundwater. In addition, the Promoter made the following changes to the Proposed Scheme through Additional Provisions or otherwise, following discussion with the Petitioner and its Councils:

 Extension to the Chiltern Tunnel;  Promoting a Transport and Works Act order to relocate FCC sidings to south of Sheephouse Wood;  Extension of Wendover Green Tunnel;  Funding of noise barriers at Wendover and further mitigation at St Mary’s Church;  Two public right of way realignments; and  Reconfiguration or re-siting of balancing ponds.

PETITION NO. 562

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No. Petition Paragraph Issue No. 5-9 4 Extended Chilterns Tunnel 10-12 5-7 The line of Hawkslade, Aylesbury 13-17 8-10 Wendover 18-20 11-13 Great Missenden haul road 21-22 14 The Rivers Misbourne and Chess 23 15-16 Local Panels and Costs 24-25 17-19 Community and Environment Fund/Business and Local Economy Fund (CEF and BLEF) 26 20-21 Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre (HOAC) 27-28 22-23 HS2 and East West Rail (EWR) 29-30 24 Great Moor Sailing Club 31-32 25-26 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot Impacts 33 27 Steeple Claydon Footpaths 7, 8, and 9 34 28 A40 - Assurance 35-36 29-30 Iver and Langley HGV Traffic 37 31 Local Authority Costs 38-40 32-34 Chalfont St Peter haul road 41-42 35 Local jobs, skills and economic opportunities 43 36 Discretionary compensation schemes 44-46 37 Emergency services routes 47 38 Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) 48-49 39 Workforce trips 50 40 Business rates relief 51 41 Tourism 52-53 42 Waddesdon Haul Road 54-56 43-47 Ecology issues outstanding

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 4

ISSUE RAISED: Extended Chilterns Tunnel

PETITION 4. Your petitioner requests that the Chilterns AONB be further PARAGRAPH: protected by extending the presently proposed bored tunnel beyond Wendover, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals as developed by HS2 Limited, to ensure that the line passes through the whole of the AONB in a bored tunnel. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and preferable, environmentally, to the promoted scheme. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and within the local area forums, and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is included in the petitions of a number of local authorities and other groups who intend to present a joint case on it to the select committee, would substantially reduce the adverse effects complained of in the remainder of this petition and do away with the need for most of the proposed remedies otherwise required.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The effects of the Proposed Scheme on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have been the subject of extensive consideration both in the identification of the route and through the assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES). The options considered prior to deposit of the Bill in November 2013 are described in Section 2.6 of the ES, Volume 2, CFA8, CFA 9 and CFA 10 reports. The options considered since deposit are described in document available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-rail-in-the-chilterns

Alternatives

2. The impacts on the AONB have been considered at each stage of the evolution of the Proposed Scheme and in the evaluation of other options. As the ES, Volume 1, Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Proposed Scheme – Strategic and Route-Wide Alternatives sets out, in terms of the process of considering routes from London to the West Midlands, ‘consideration of the effects on the Chilterns AONB was particularly important in this

process’. In laying the Decisions and Next Steps document1 before the House in 2012, the then Secretary of State emphasised this, stating: ‘we must safeguard the countryside and its wildlife as far as possible, both for the benefit of those living there today but also for future generations’.

3. The consultation route through the Chilterns announced in February 2011 already proposed designs to minimise the impact of the Proposed Scheme on the Chilterns AONB. This included a 9.6km twin-bored tunnel from just inside the M25 to Amersham, followed by 2.4km of deep, partially retained cutting and a further 1.3km length of twin-bored tunnel towards Little Missenden. Cut and cover tunnels (or ‘green tunnels’) were also proposed past South Heath and Wendover.

4. In January 2012, the Government announced its ‘post consultation route’ for the Phase 1 Railway in the Command Paper ‘High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Decisions and Next Steps. Chapter 6 of that Command Paper (p.92) stated that the Government’s conclusion, following the public consultation was that:

 ‘The proposed route corridor, including the approach for mitigating its impacts, is the best option for a new high speed line between London and the West Midlands. Many people expressed a view on the line of route in their local area. HS2 Ltd looked again at the route in light of the consultation responses and, subject to the alterations noted below, we believe this route remains the best option in terms of its overall benefits and costs, including impacts on sustainability.

 A package of alterations to the proposed route should be made to further reduce its impacts on the local environment and communities. These include additional tunnelling in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in the Northolt area of West London.’

5. That package of alterations and the Government’s reasons for selecting it are set out in Chapter 6 of the January 2012 command paper.

6. The draft Environmental Statement (ES) included more detailed mitigation proposals and provided a further opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed route through the AONB. The Proposed route through the Chilterns set out in the Bill was assessed in detail in the ES.

7. The ES included an ‘Alternatives Report’, which explained and justified the selection of the Bill Scheme. Public participation took place in response to the ES under Parliamentary Standing Orders. A summary of the issues raised by the public’s responses was reported to the House at Second Reading in accordance with Standing Orders. Second Reading of the Bill established the broad alignment of the route through the Chilterns as part of the principle of the Bill.

8. The alternatives included:

 a realignment and extension of the twin-bored Chiltern tunnel to provide a single, extended, tunnel from the M25 to Mantles Wood near South Heath (approximately 13.5km long). This longer tunnel replaced the 2.4km section of deep cutting near Amersham with tunnel and the realignment below ground significantly reduced landscape and visual, cultural heritage, biodiversity and noise impacts. It removed any

1 High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Decisions and Next Steps, DfT, January 2012

potential impacts to the setting of the Grade 1 listed Shardeloes and its Registered Park and Garden and the tunnel realignment helped reduce impacts on significant groundwater resources;

 an extension of the green tunnel past South Heath northwards by 200 metres and a revision to the alignment, which allowed a reduction in the depth of adjacent cuttings from typically 15 metres to around 9 metres deep. These changes further reduced visual effects near South Heath; reduced the amount of excavation and land-take required; but retained similar performance in terms of noise impacts; and

 a revision and lowering of the route alignment by Wendover allowing the green tunnel past Wendover to be extended northwards by 800 metres. This ensured effective noise and visual screening alongside the main residential area of Wendover and allowed existing road infrastructure to be reinstated over the tunnel.

9. The Secretary of State has made clear that the Proposed Scheme sets out to achieve ‘the lowest feasible impacts on local communities and the natural environment’, with particular reference to the Chilterns AONB. As the ‘Strategy and Summary of Decisions Document’ sets out at paragraph 6.16, ‘the revised tunnel alignment through the Chilterns will avoid an important aquifer, significantly reducing impacts on water resources, and the changes made also mean a reduction in the impacts on ancient woodland along the route’.

10. Section 2.6 of ES, Volume 2, CFA 9 report provides further information regarding the tunnel options in the AONB considered during the evolution of the Proposed Scheme. The Promoter has responded to the ‘Green Route’, Chiltern Long Tunnel, CRAG and REPA proposals, amongst others and discussed these with those that proposed them.

11. The Promoter notes that the Petitioner’s preferred option is now the T3i proposal, a long tunnel option based on proposals put forward by the Chilterns Ridges Action Group (CRAG) and others, which the Promoter has previously discussed in detail with the promoters of this option.

12. As the Petitioner is aware, the House of Commons (HoC) Select Committee heard evidence on various proposals for long tunnels through the AONB including the T3i proposal now preferred by the Petitioner. As a result the HoC Select Committee concluded the following in paragraph 123 of their Second Special Report of Session 2015-16 of 22 February 2016:

‘In weighing the case for a tunnel throughout the entire AONB, we considered the extent of mitigation of the Promoter’s scheme in the AONB compared with that offered by the tunnel options, the feasibility of the tunnel options, the traffic effects of each scheme, and cost. We had in mind that substantially greater relative benefits might derive from a shorter tunnel extension option which we consider below. We announced on 22 July 2015 that we had not been convinced by the arguments for a tunnel under the entire AONB as presented by the bodies which might have been expected to present the most persuasive case. We remained of that view having heard other petitioners in the autumn of 2015.’

13. In October 2015 the Promoter deposited Additional Provision No.4 extending the Chilterns Tunnel northwards to South Heath and in December 2015 the Wendover Green Tunnel was extended by approximately 100m.

14. Of the 20.8km of route in the Chilterns AONB, approximately 57 percent of the length is now proposed to be in bored tunnel; approximately 6 percent in green tunnel and approximately 27 percent in cutting. Thus, in total, some 90 percent of the route in the AONB is now below ground level or in tunnel. The only sections on embankment or on viaduct lie between the Wendover Dean viaduct and the Wendover green tunnel – that is, along the most developed section of this part of the AONB, crossing the existing transport corridors of the A413 and the Marylebone to Aylesbury line. This section will be further screened by false cuttings, planting and noise barriers where appropriate.

15. In addition, the Promoter has agreed to set up the Chilterns AONB Review Group with funding of up to £3m. At the time of writing the Group has met twice. As set out in the Promoter’s assurance given to the Petitioner and other Chilterns AONB partners in a letter to Chilterns District Council on 20 January 2016:

‘The Secretary of State will require the Nominated Undertaker to engage with the 'Chilterns AONB partners' regarding the proposed terms of reference for the Chilterns AONB Review Group ("the Group"). The Chilterns AONB partners' will include Buckinghamshire County Council, Chiltern District Council, Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern Conservation Board, Natural England and the Nominated Undertaker. Attendance from other organisations should take place as appropriate, and discussed in advance with HS2 Ltd. Other members may be added following the agreement of the other partners.

Engagement on the proposed terms of reference will include, but not be limited to, extending the remit of the Group to include the identification of additional environmental integration and enhancement measures that may further integrate the scheme into the AONB. Engagement on the proposed terms of reference will also include discussion about the appropriate duration of the group.

The group will use the HS2 produced Landscape Design Approach as its principal reference document but will also develop a set of specific design principles that could reasonably applied to the design and appearance of HS2 works in the Chilterns AONB as per the assurances dated 10 February 2015 and 12 October 2015. These principles will be cognisant of the LUC document 'A Landscape-led approach to HS2 in the Chilterns' and those documents developed under the auspices of the Chilterns Conservation Board, and will be used to inform the identification of environmental integration and mitigation measures over and above that proposed in the Environmental Statement, the detailed design process and further negotiations with landowners.’

16. Please see the draft Register of Undertakings and Assurances, reference 1571 and 1572 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill- register-of-undertakings-and-assurances

The T3i proposal

17. The T3i proposal now being advocated by the Petitioner would entail an additional cost compared to the Proposed Scheme in the order of £300-350m which the Promoter considers could not be justified by the revised environmental impacts. Having considered the evidence, the HoC Select Committee concluded (in its Second Special Report paragraphs 140-1):

‘The major visible elements of the railway in the Chilterns will be the viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean and the approaches to them. A large part of the rest of the over ground line will become part of the landscape although it will be visible to those crossing it. A total of some 4km of footpaths will be diverted. The Promoter has taken steps to avoid ancient woodland and our suggested tunnel extension will result in the preservation of substantially more. We acknowledge that there will be major temporary construction impacts of the railway at the viaducts, at Wendover, and in the area of Bury Farm. There will be significant traffic impacts during construction, although these would to some extent accrue from any scheme.

On balance, we do not believe that these mitigated effects represent an intrusion into the AONB that is inconsistent with its status, having regard to the size of the AONB as a whole and the significance of the project. HS1 in Kent is a demonstration of the ability of high-speed rail to blend into the landscape.’

Additional construction effects of the T3i proposal

18. The Promoter can confirm that the tunnel extension requested would have significant construction impacts south of Stoke Mandeville. Tunnel boring would be required southwards from a point between Wendover and Nash Lee Road and would require a large construction compound to be sited close to this portal; the open fields between the HS2 alignment and the Chiltern Line would be the most appropriate compound area. With requirements for screening and storage the compound area could extend up towards the properties at the southern edge of Stoke Mandeville and adjacent to the Chiltern Line. There would also be significant additional traffic movements incurred on the local road network compared to the Proposed Scheme, including the need to manage and dispose of tunnel spoil from the Stoke Mandeville compound.

19. The inclusion of a railhead to manage material deliveries, including off-site fabrication of tunnel lining segments and to facilitate tunnel spoil removal, would further add to construction activity in this area and the size of the compound in order to level and create the appropriate railhead facilities. The railhead would also need to be able to ensure adequate train paths onto the Marylebone to Aylesbury line to maintain construction activity on tunnel construction and spoil removal and would also require 24 hour working close to residential areas.

20. The other major construction impact associated with a longer tunnel through the AONB would be the need for an intervention gap to be located at Wendover Dean. This would be a partly retained box structure, approximately 900m long and 40m wide at its base, providing necessary tunnel safety and access for firefighting, compliant with fire safety in tunnels as set out in the current European Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI). The intervention gap would require a larger construction site than would be needed for the Wendover Dean viaduct and there would be significantly greater construction activity locally. Over 0.5 million m3 more excavated material would have to be removed for disposal off site than would be necessary for the Proposed Scheme, with associated additional traffic impacts along the adjacent A413.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 5-7

ISSUE RAISED: The line of Hawkslade, Aylesbury

PETITION 5. The proposed line of route passes less than 200 metres from PARAGRAPH: properties in Hawkslade ward. At the point where the route is nearest to the properties, it is emerging northbound at grade from Aylesbury South Cutting. At this point, overhead line equipment will be some 8 metres above ground level. As a result, residents will be adversely affected by both noise and visual intrusion into their landscape.

6. Your petitioner proposes that the Aylesbury South Cutting be extended by up to 400 metres so that the scheme emerges from the cutting at a point where residential properties are further from the line and so less affected.

7. Additionally, your petitioner proposes that a narrow "green bridge" be constructed over the cutting at the point nearest to the most affected properties to not only increase the mitigation for residents but to also offer improved access to areas to the south and west of the line to the proposed linear park. Such a construction will also obviate the need for the foot bridge currently planned in the proposed scheme.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

Vertical alignment

1. At the nearest point to Hawkslade, the Proposed Scheme lies partly in cutting to the south, rising onto a shallow embankment as it runs northwards. Throughout this section there is a continuous five metre high noise fence barrier along the eastern (Hawkslade) side of the route to provide noise mitigation from the operational railway. To the east of the noise fence barrier there is a false cutting to provide visual screening from Hawkslade residential areas of the noise fence barriers and railway. The false cutting rises as the railway emerges from cutting onto embankment to maintain screening of the barrier, so is typically at five metres height above rail level past the Hawklslade estate, sufficient to screen much of the railway infrastructure. The

false cutting includes screen planting along its length to provide further visual screening of the railway.

2. A lowering of the vertical alignment as proposed by the Petitioner would introduce a greater risk of flooding at this location and would constrain the Promoter’s ability to install appropriate culverts across the watercourses immediately to the north. Further land would also be required for flood mitigation measures.

3. With regard to further noise mitigation, given that the Proposed Scheme already includes a 5m high noise fence barrier above rail level throughout this section of the route past Hawkslade, a further reduction in the level of the railway, whilst retaining the noise fence barrier, would be unlikely to materially change the current noise assessment at the properties in Hawkslade. The Promoter is in discussion with the Petitioner in relation to this matter.

Access

4. The Proposed Scheme does incorporate three crossings over a 1.2km length of the railway in the vicinity of Hawkslade, providing continuity of the existing footpath network in this area; these are crossings at Standalls Farm; the Oat Close bridleway and Welland Close footbridge. The conversion of the Oat Close bridleway crossing to a 'green bridge' would not further enhance the connectivity of the network, but would require a more expensive and intrusive structure to provide the appropriate structural form to provide the green bridge. Whilst the linear footpath has not yet been designed, it is realistic to expect that each of these existing crossings would link with this proposed new route, enhancing overall footpath options in this area as desired by the Petitioner.

5. It is the Promoter’s understanding that the ‘Linear Park’ being explored by Aylesbury Vale District Council is on the same side of the proposed route as the dwellings near to the railway.

Green bridge

6. As explained in HS2 Information Paper E15, Green Bridges have been designed to maintain safe movement and dispersal of animals from one side of the railway to the other and are proposed as mitigation measures for specific requirements identified in the Environmental Statement (ES). It is clearly not possible to provide a safe crossing point at every section of the route, but where appropriate and proportionate these have been provided in the design of the Proposed Scheme. Decisions on where to place safe crossing points to maintain habitat connectivity need to be proportionate to the likely harm that will arise. The potential impacts and level of additional mitigation/compensation also needs to be viewed in the context of the positive contribution linear infrastructure provides in connecting sites and habitats.

7. The design of the Proposed Scheme includes a number of green bridges along the line of route and, although they have primarily been designed for bats, they will also provide safe passage across the route for other species.

8. The baseline ecological survey information, including the flight paths of rare bats across the route for the Proposed Scheme, have been identified is summarized in Table 9, paragraph 7.3.22 of ES, Volume 2, CFA 11 report.

9. In addition to the green tunnels at South Heath and Wendover, five of the sixteen proposed green bridges are in Buckinghamshire. They are mostly at locations in the Bernwood Forest area – two at Finemere Wood north of Quainton and three in the vicinity of Decoypond Wood at Calvert. They will be designed specifically for the bat populations and will be capable of supporting growth of native trees and shrubs to maturity. The Promoter does not consider that any further green bridges or tunnels are justified.

10. For further information the Petitioner is referred to HS2 Information Paper E15, Green Bridges.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 8-10

ISSUE RAISED: Wendover

PETITION 8. Your petitioner does not believe that the mitigation package for PARAGRAPH: Wendover proposed by the Promoter is adequate. The package does not remove the concerns of the Wendover House Special School or St Mary's Church, nor those of many of residents. Wendover Parish Council and others presented compelling evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee about the costs of a tunnel compared to the costs of the surface mitigation.

9. The Wendover groups' calculation of the cost of a tunnel was significantly different from the Promoter's calculation. Owing to this, your petitioner understands that certain of the Wendover groups will request in their petitions that the Promoter commission (and publish) a fully independent costs analysis of the Wendover groups' full tunnel proposal, which should include a full cost-benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of that proposal. Your petitioner assumes that the House of Lords Select Committee would give appropriate weight to the conclusions of any such report and could recommend that the proposed scheme be amended in light of it.

10. As the highways authority, your petitioner has not been properly consulted by the Promoter on the proposed road noise barriers nor yet seen any visual impact study or indeed any information which supports the Promoter's view that noise barriers will bring the cumulative noise down to acceptable levels. Your petitioner requests that the Promoter is directed to consult with the local authority on these matters.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. At Wendover the Proposed Scheme runs to the west of the A413 Wendover bypass (Nash Lee Road) and the Chiltern Main Line to Aylesbury, which runs between and would separate HS2 from the town. A 1.4km green tunnel is proposed by the Promoter where properties in Wendover are closest to the alignment. To the north of the tunnel the route is in cutting. To the south of the tunnel, where it passes St. Mary’s Church and Wendover House School, the route is at grade or on an embankment and the original Bill scheme included noise fence barriers.

2. In response to the House of Commons Select Committee recommendation of the 27 July 2015 that ‘HS2 report back with a very convincing scheme of further mitigation’ in relation to Wendover, further consideration was given to additional noise mitigation measures to reduce the operational effects at this location. The Promoter put forward revised mitigation measures through. The Supplementary Environmental Statement 4 (SES 4) under Additional Provision 5 to the Bill. As paragraph 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 states:

“For the purposes of the assessment it is assumed that the revised mitigation measures will include construction of:

 an extension of the Wendover green tunnel southward by 100m;  a 6m high noise fence barrier approximately 780m in length along the eastern side of the route, between the Small Dean viaduct and the new location of the south portal, replacing the 4m high noise fence barrier proposed at this location in the SES3 scheme; and  a 6m high noise fence barrier located within the cutting at the northern portal of the Wendover green tunnel on the east side. This will run along the eastern edge of the access track and around the area where the portal buildings are situated, a distance of approximately 340m.

Earthworks would be constructed alongside the Wendover green tunnel south portal to reduce the visual impact of the noise fence barriers and extension of the green tunnel”.

3. In evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee, the Promoter submitted a report (‘Wendover Further Noise Mitigation, Exhibit P8161) on the additional noise mitigation proposed at Wendover, which included the following in the conclusion:

‘The trackside noise fence mitigation along the eastern side of the railway for the Proposed Scheme, in addition to improvements to the modelling of LAMax1 around tunnel portals would provide a similar outcome to that achieved with a tunnelled option, in that the forecast sound levels at the Church would no longer be likely to cause a significant effect. Secondly, LAMax at the School caused by HS2 trains is predicted to be reduced to a level only 1 dB above the residential LOAEL for LAMax of 6odB. Finally, all properties in Wendover are forecast to experience levels from HS2 trains at or below the same threshold, with the exception of about 10 dwellings in the South Street and Church Lane area and about 10 dwellings in Bacombe Lane.

With the trackside noise mitigation in place, at outdoor locations in the Church yard or School grounds, the noise levels with the Proposed Scheme would be comparable with those experienced at present in these areas and materially quieter, by more than 15 dB, than when vehicles pass on London Road. Sound from the operation of the Proposed Scheme trains, whilst audible outdoors, would consequently be unlikely to disrupt conversation, school or church activities any more than current local noise events do.

The inclusion of further noise mitigation at Bacombe Lane is forecast to reduce airborne sound levels such that the operational airborne noise impacts at dwellings on Bacombe Lane become 4 minor impacts. The residual effects would not be significant when assessed on a community basis, so the community significant effect at Bacombe Lane reported in the ES would be removed’.

St Mary’s Church and Wendover House School

4. In addition to the changes brought forward by the Supplementary Environmental Statement 4 (SES 4) under Additional Provision 5 to the Bill, the Promoter has offered to fund further noise mitigation to St Mary’s Church over and above that which would normally be proposed for the levels of noise anticipated and is in ongoing discussions with Wendover House School about mitigation measures. The Church and the School are 200-250 metres to the north east of the proposed route.

5. The assurances offered by the Promoter to St Mary’s Church, Wendover on 25 January 2016 included the following:

‘On the basis that St Mary's Church ('the Church'), Wendover, is frequently used as a concert venue, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to support the Church to obtain reasonable and appropriate noise insulation for the Church fabric. This assurance is subject to the following provisions:

1. the Parochial Church Council of St Mary's Church, Wendover will be required to obtain all and any relevant consents;

2. the Promoter will contribute to the cost of noise mitigation works on the internal use of the Church required as a result of the Proposed Scheme up to a maximum of œ250,000 ('the Contribution');

3. Subject to the Promoter reaching prior agreement with the Church on the extent of the noise mitigation works required, the Contribution shall be paid to the Church upon the commencement of the works as a single payment, in full and final settlement of any future claim by the Church in respect of noise mitigation measures; and

4. In the event that the Contribution or any part thereof is not applied in accordance with this assurance, within five years of the receipt of the Contribution to refund to the Promoter such unexpended contribution or part thereof (as the case may be) together with interest thereon calculated at the base rate from the date of such payment until the date of repayment.’ (See U&A reference 1663)

6. The Promoter is in active discussion with St Mary’s Church in relation to this assurance.

7. In terms of Wendover House School the Promoter gave the Petitioner the following assurances on 25 January 2016:

‘The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to engage with the Chiltern Way Federation, Wendover House Campus ('the School') and Buckinghamshire County Council with a view to managing the HS2 works in the area so as to reduce as far as reasonably practicable impacts on the School.

Implementation of any measures identified in pursuance of the above assurances will be subject to obtaining any necessary consents from the appropriate statutory bodies.’

‘The Promoter will consult the School and Buckinghamshire County Council to understand the potential impact of the HS2 works on the School and to identify what reasonably practicable mitigation measures as identified within the Code of Construction Practice (and not covered elsewhere in these assurances) might be provided in the event that the construction of HS2 does significantly impact the School or impact on the viability of the School.

Implementation of any measures identified in pursuance of the above assurances will be subject to obtaining any necessary consents from the appropriate statutory bodies.’

‘4. The Promoter will remain in discussion with the School with a view to reaching agreement on suitable noise attenuation installations and any other reasonably practicable solutions proposed by the School, recognising the specific needs of many pupils at the School as recognised in Jean Mockford's report shared with the School in November 2015 (attached), including as follows:

4.1 the installation of high quality double or secondary glazing and air conditioning (where necessary and appropriate) in the proposed residential block;

4.2 the installation of high quality double or secondary glazing, soundproofing and air conditioning (where necessary and appropriate) in teaching rooms;

4.3 re-landscaping part of the playing field nearest the construction site to include more vegetation to help reduce visual disturbance (as offered in an assurance issued on 2nd November 2015);

4.4 reducing noise reverberation in the School by carpeting teaching areas and investigating soundproofing ceiling or wall tiles where possible;

4.5 liaising with the School regarding ways they can obtain accurate information about when to expect significant drilling/machinery noise and the predicted duration of such noise so pupils can be prepared, activities be scheduled inside or noise protectors to be worn outside; and

4.6 the feasibility of constructing noise barriers during a summer break. There could be some engagement with the School regarding extending the length of the break to include training days.

7. Implementation of any measures identified in pursuance of the above assurances will be subject to obtaining any necessary consents from the appropriate statutory bodies.’

8. The Select Committee report agreed with the Promoter’s assessment and proposed mitigation measures. Please see paragraph 136 of the House of Commons Select Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2015-16 which the Committee stated, ‘We believe that the SES4 proposal constitutes a proportionate and adequate package of mitigation for Wendover’.

Wendover – full tunnel proposal

9. The Petitioner’s proposal for a full tunnel would cost up to an additional £265m compared with the Proposed Scheme brought forward under Supplementary Environmental Statement 4 (SES 4) Additional Provision 5 to the Bill. The proposed tunnel would be on a section of the route where

the railway runs next to a main road and railway, where there are relatively few properties in the immediate vicinity.

10. In the light of the provisions above and additional expense involved the Promoter does not accept that a full tunnel at this location is necessary or proportionate.

Road side noise barriers

11. In addition to the measures outlined above, the Promoter also provided the following assurance to the petitioner:

“1. In relation to the Promoter's proposal to provide support to the local highway authority to provide noise fence barriers alongside the A413 bypass past Wendover and along a 500m stretch of London Road past the church and school, the Promoter can clarify that such support would include reasonable: a) related local authority project management costs; b) capital and installation costs; and c) costs of any landscape impact study required.

2. The Promoter will supply funding for the barriers, subject to Buckinghamshire County Council getting the necessary consents and approvals for them and keeping the Promoter up to date on progress”. (See Undertaking and Assurance reference 1861).

12. The Promoter continues discussions with the Petitioner in relation to this issue.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 11-13

ISSUE RAISED: Great Missenden haul road

PETITION 11. The Promoter proposes to construct a haul road from the link PARAGRAPH: road roundabout in Great Missenden. This proposal is unacceptable to the residents in the area due to transport delays and safety concerns, landscape impacts, impacts on community facilities and losses to local businesses from diverted footfall. The Promoter has offered an assurance to your petitioner that provides for an option to construct an alternative haul road whose alignment is further north along the A413. This is on the basis that any alternative proposed by your petitioner can be constructed within a reasonable timescale, does not create significantly worse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated, does not increase the costs or otherwise affect the economic, timely and safe construction of the railway, and requires your petitioner to secure all necessary powers and permissions. It is likely that a Transport and Works Act ("TWA") order would be necessary to deliver the alternative road.

12. As part of the process of considering any alternatives to the proposed haul road, your petitioner will take into account the views of the local community. For instance, your petitioner shared 5 different options with the Promoter in April 2016 and is awaiting comment on the viability of these options before consulting the local community.

13. Your petitioner, while grateful for the assurance, considers that the reasonable costs associated with an alternative road should be covered by the Promoter, including those for design, modelling and safety audit costs, EIA costs and additional mitigation costs to address congestion and safety issues. Your petitioner has raised this point with the Promoter and hopes that an agreement on it can be reached. If not, your petitioner reserves its right to appear on this point before the House of Lords select committee.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter continues to work closely with the Petitioner as the local highway authority with regard to potential improvements at the A413 junctions with the Great Missenden Link Road and with the B485 Chesham Road to provide measures that would mitigate the potential congestion and safety effects of the HS2 construction traffic at these junctions. It is recognised that these could also provide the opportunity for more general longer term benefits to traffic flow at these junctions.

2. The Promoter also considers that appropriate junction improvements could be introduced that would safely provide the additional capacity required at these junctions and does not expect losses to local businesses from diverted footfall if there is no additional delay experienced at these junctions arising from HS2 construction traffic.

3. Alongside this work, the Promoter continues to work with and provide the Petitioner with information in support of the assurance provided in respect of an alternative haul route location between the A413 and the HS2 trace.

4. It is noted that a number of high level potential alternative options were put forward by the Petitioner and the Promoter has now provided initial comment on the potential viability of these options in respect of the construction requirements for HS2.

Costs

5. In respect of the request for additional costs to be reimbursed to support the work undertaken by the Petitioner in developing an alternative haul road option, the Promoter recognises that there is a community desire to look at alternatives. However, the proposal for the Petitioner to develop an alternative option was accepted by Select Committee, subject to the provisions set out in the assurance, which did not envisage additional design work by the Promoter.

6. Design costs to date to inform an understanding of the land necessary for the construction works for the Proposed Scheme have been borne by the Promoter. The costs to which the Petitioner refers are considered to form part of the work necessary by the Petitioner to demonstrate that a viable alternative can be provided. However, should the alternative route be taken forward, detailed design would be undertaken by the Main Works Civil contractor, as it would be for the Proposed Scheme.

7. The Promoter is undertaking modelling work associated with the Proposed Scheme to demonstrate what junction improvement measures may be necessary. It will be necessary for Petitioner to similarly demonstrate appropriate A413 junction requirements and capacity associated with their proposal, not least as it will be required in the Planning Application.

8. The Promoter has undertaken a Stage 1 Road safety Audit for the Proposed Scheme temporary haul road and we would expect that the Petitioner would need to undertake a similar Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the A413 junction that would be required with an alternative scheme, as this would be needed to support the design for the Planning application. Should the alternative haul route be adopted, then subsequent Road Safety Audits would be taken forward by the main works contractor.

9. The Promoter considers that the preparation of an Environmental Statement is an integral part of the Planning application of which the Petitioner would have been aware of when requesting the assurance and as such these costs are not covered by the assurance. The Promoter

has undertaken and reported an environmental assessment for the Proposed Scheme, including a haul road at the Great Missenden roundabout and would be able to share any relevant base-line data that may have been collected during the assessments to date that may assist the petitioner in preparing a specific assessment for their proposed alternative route.

10. The Petitioner further requests additional mitigation costs to address congestion and safety issues as a result of adopting an alternative haul road. The Promoter notes that the investigations at the A413/Link Road junction to address capacity concerns of additional HS2 traffic will identify an agreed solution at this location, the costs of which would be met by the Promoter (or a portion in line with other assurances should the proposed changes be made permanent). Should the alternative (Petitioner’s) haul road proposal be adopted and the A413/Link Road roundabout improvements not be incurred, then these cost savings could be used to support the Petitioner’s alternative scheme.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 14

ISSUE RAISED: The Rivers Misbourne and Chess

PETITION 14. Your petitioner still has concerns about the effects of the project PARAGRAPH: on rivers in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Your petitioner asks the Promoter to provide detail of active hydrological monitoring proposals for sensitive areas of both the Misbourne and Chess catchments and to agree prescribed mitigation/alleviation proposals (and threshold levels) at which these proposals would be automatically and immediately enforced to protect the integrity of the river bed and continuity of flow. (Paragraph 145 of the final House of Commons Select Committee report asked the Promoter to address the matter of hydrological surveying as a priority and your petitioner echoes that request).

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The ground investigation for the area between Wendover and Chalfont St Giles is currently planned for early 2017, and includes a period of approximately 12 months of baseline monitoring prior to construction. This includes investigations to determine the current threshold at the crossing locations of the River Misbourne, which would be used in deriving threshold levels for impacts.

2. Under the protective provision, Section 32 Part 5, of the Bill, the approval of any works likely to affect Main river flows, level or quality are required by the Environment Agency, prior to undertaking any works. No works affecting the flow, level or quality of water in the River Misbourne can commence until the Environment Agency is satisfied that any impacts from construction are properly understood and any required mitigation, including threshold or action levels, is adequate.

3. In addition, the Nominated Undertaker provided the following assurance to the Petitioner:

‘1.The Secretary of State will require the Nominated Undertaker to engage with Buckinghamshire County Council in respect of:

a) The requirement for and nature of groundwater monitoring, for the purposes of establishing a baseline to assess and identify the risk from groundwater flooding. This shall include the Misbourne valley; and

b) Any required mitigation if monitoring and assessment indicate that the Proposed Scheme has resulted in a significant increase in groundwater flood risk (as defined in the Scope and Methodology Report).

2. The Secretary of State will require the Nominated Undertaker to consider the results of the monitoring (which shall be shared with Buckinghamshire County Council, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority) to establish if the condition in paragraph 1.b above has occurred.’

(See Undertaking and Assurance reference 1001)

4. The Promoter will continue discussions with the Petitioner on this issue.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 15-16

ISSUE RAISED: Local Panels and Costs

PETITION 15. Your petitioner is pleased that the Promoter recognises that PARAGRAPH: there is a requirement for funds for additional mitigation in parts of the county. The Colne Valley Panel (consisting of the local authorities in the vicinity of the Colne Valley Regional Park) was established in October 2015 and funding of £3m was announced for additional mitigation, with £300,000 committed to cover the costs of administering the fund.

16. Subsequently, and as a result of requests from a range of petitioners, the Promoter agreed to establish a panel for the AONB (with funding of £3m) and for the Steeple Claydon/Calvert Green/Charndon/Twyford area (with funding of £1m). However, no allowance has been made to cover the local authorities' costs to administer and oversee these funds. Your petitioner requests that additional funding is provided to meet these additional costs.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. As the Petitioner is aware, the House of Commons Select Committee heard evidence on the issue of additional funding to cover local authority costs over and above the amounts that the Promoter has already agreed. There were no specific recommendations on this matter in their Second Special Report.

2. The Promoter is in discussion with the Petitioner in relation to these issues.

3. At the meeting of the Chilterns AONB Review Group on 27 May 2016, the Promoter confirmed that a separate fund of £300,000 would be made available to the group for the administration costs of running the group. This fund is in addition to the £3 million that the Secretary of State has confirmed will be made available to support the delivery of additional enhancements and landscape integration to be brought forward in the AONB.

4. The Promoter is currently considering the request from Bucks CC to make funds available to support the administration of the fund for Calvert.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 17-19

ISSUE RAISED: Community and Environment Fund/Business and Local Economy Fund (CEF and BLEF) PETITION 17. Your petitioner presented the route-wide evidence that the £30m PARAGRAPH: announced for these funds was unlikely to meet demand. We welcomed the fact that the Select Committee recognised that the funds should be 'substantially increased' in their February 2016 report. The Promoter has subsequently committed to provide an additional £10m, making a total of £40m available for these funds.

18. Your petitioner does not believe that the additional £10m represents a 'substantial increase', given the scale of the impact on so many local communities and the environment, the length of the line and the number of years of construction. Your petitioner is also concerned that the indicative fund allocations may be based on Local Economic Partnership areas, which have no expertise in managing highways safety mitigation measures and whose boundaries are not always the same as local authority boundaries.

19. Your petitioner understands that the Promoter has not yet clarified whether Iver Parish Council can bid to the CEF and BLEF. Iver is adversely affected by the relocation of the Heathrow Express Depot to Langley which was introduced by AP2. The parish council understand that Slough Borough Council has been offered an assurance of a contribution of £6.25m towards discrete and defined projects within and around the proposed Heathrow Express (HEx) depot site. Your petitioner supports Iver Parish Council's request that they should be able to bid to the CEF and BLEF or have a discrete fund of their own.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. As the Petitioner notes, and as is set out in HS2 Information Paper C12, The Community and Environment Fund and Business And Local Economy Fund,

‘in response to the Select Committee’s Second special report, published on 22nd February 2016, HS2 Ltd and DfT have committed to providing an additional £10 million of funding, making the available total £40 million. The aim of the Funds is to support

good quality bids, therefore the drawdown of the full £40 million will depend on enough good quality bids coming forward’.

2. These funds are provided in addition to the comprehensive mitigation outlined in the Bill and ES (which are already included in the Proposed Scheme) to address the environmental impacts of Phase One, as well as those which will be developed at detailed design.

3. Indicative fund allocations are currently being considered by the Promoter and further details will be announced in due course.

4. Applications for both CEF grants will be invited from community-based voluntary organisations, charitable and not-for-profit bodies, social enterprises, schools and local authorities. As noted in the information paper

‘Detailed criteria and guidance for applicants will be finalised by the grant-management body. All applicants will be required to demonstrate that proposed projects will benefit communities or businesses affected by temporary or permanent disturbance, arising from construction works.’

‘In the assessment of applications additional marks will be awarded to eligible projects which will benefit communities which lie within 1km of the route.’

5. As explained to the Petitioner, Iver Parish Council will be able to make an application to the CLEF and BLEF. The Promoter does not believe a separate fund is necessary in this regard.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 20-21

ISSUE RAISED: Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre (HOAC)

PETITION 20. The House of Commons Select Committee, at paragraph 199 of PARAGRAPH: their final special report, said they hoped that the alternative location for HOAC in New Denham, Buckinghamshire would come to fruition. Your petitioner shares this wish and continues to progress work with the Promoter to make it happen. For instance, public engagement was held on the proposed planning application in March and April 2016.

21. Your petitioner recognises that relocation cannot take place at any cost and that all parties must act reasonably to agree on the long- term financial support for any new centre. Your petitioner is grateful for the Promoter's assurance to pay your petitioner's costs in relation to HOAC's relocation. However, in order to secure the relocation, it is likely that further financial assistance from the Promoter will be required in respect of land ownership and tenancy costs. Your petitioner has raised this point with the Promoter and hopes that an agreement on it can be reached. If not, the petitioner reserves its right to appear on this point before the House of Lords select committee.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter continues to be in active discussion with the Petitioner on the relocation of HOAC, including in relation to land ownership and tenancy costs.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 22-23

ISSUE RAISED: HS2 and East West Rail (EWR)

PETITION 22. In their letter dated 10 February 2016, the Promoter offered PARAGRAPH: your petitioner a presentation on the HS2-East West Rail Integration report and stated that the report would then be shared with your petitioner at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Promoter held a meeting on 18 February 2015 with your petitioner regarding the report; however, it only covered the Calvert intersection and not where HS2 will intersect with the Risborough Line in south west Aylesbury. Your petitioner requests that the Promoter (i) shares the full Integration report with your Petitioner as soon as possible and (ii) if it has not already done so, undertakes a similar study for the intersection of HS2 with the Risborough Line.

23. Your petitioner has a number of concerns about ecological mitigation in the Calvert area from the cumulative impact of both schemes and would expect this to be included in the integration report.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter has now shared the HS2-East West Rail Integration report with the Petitioner as requested.

2. As the Petitioner is aware, and as explained during the meeting held on the 18 February 2016 the report covers HS2 and East-West Rail (EWR) interface at Calvert. This looks at the way the two projects can be better integrated. A separate piece of work regarding the HS2 interface with the Princes Risborough line will be taken forward with Network Rail.

3. The HS2 EWR integration report is at Network Rail’s Governance of Railway Investments Proposals Stage 2 (GRIP 2) design stage. This means that it focuses on construction and considers a number of scenarios for construction of the railway infrastructure. As the design develops, environmental input will be included as part of the assessment criteria.

Cumulative effects

4. The Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Scheme assesses cumulative impacts. Future projects coming forward which require environmental assessment will also include in their

Environmental Statement consideration of cumulative effects, as required by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

5. Cumulative effects can be either temporary or permanent and can broadly arise from the following:

 A number of individual environmental impacts (e.g. noise, dust and traffic) on a receptor that, in combination, are likely to have a significant effect;  The accumulation of individual effects on a type of receptor (e.g. an ecological species) which when summed in a regional context or across the Proposed Scheme, are likely to result in an effect of greater significance than the sum of the individual effects; and  The effects from other developments in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme (during their construction and/or operation), which when combined with the effects of the Proposed Scheme are likely to have an incrementally significant effect on the receptors that experience both effects.

6. Where developments are expected to be completed before construction of the Proposed Scheme, effects arising from them have been considered through extrapolation of existing conditions as part of the future baseline within the ES.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 24

ISSUE RAISED: Great Moor Sailing Club

PETITION 24. Your petitioner, as the local highways authority, supports the PARAGRAPH: concerns expressed by Great Moor Sailing Club with regards to its access. Your petitioner supports the Club's request that the nominated undertaker be instructed to provide a new access to the Club, with suitable compensation for any loss of amenity.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter has considered a number of options in relation to access arrangements at Great Moor Sailing Club and is in active discussions with the club and the Petitioner on this matter. It is the Promoter’s assumption that if a new access is opened and another closed this should be able to be done so that there is no net impact on amenity.

Compensation where no land is taken

2. As HS2 Information Paper C8, Compensation Code for Compulsory Purchase points out, ‘by virtue of Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, where no land or interest in land is acquired from a claimant, compensation is payable in a case where the construction (rather than operation) of the public works interferes with the landowner’s enjoyment of, or diminishes the value of his land, either permanently or temporarily, in a manner for which he could sue the promoters, had they not the immunity conferred by their statutory authority to carry out the public works’.

3. Hs2 Information Paper C8, Compensation Code for Compulsory Purchase goes on to add that: ‘Compensation is assessed by reference to any diminution of value of the claimant’s interest in land caused by the interference with his private right.’ And ‘compensation is also available in respect of properties which are depreciated in value due to ‘physical factors’ resulting from the use of public works (i.e. the operational stage of the development) pursuant to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. ‘Physical factors’ for the purposes of Part 1 compensation are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claim is being made of any solid or liquid substance. Claims for Part 1 compensation can only be made once the scheme has been in operation for 12 months, and compensation is assessed by reference to the diminution in value of the property.’

4. This is explained further in HS2 Information Paper C8, Compensation Code for Compulsory Purchase. Other sources recommended for reference include the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Guides to Compulsory Purchase, a copy of which can be found at www.gov.uk, and the Land Compensation Manual, which can be found at www.voa.gov.uk.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 25-26

ISSUE RAISED: Infrastructure Maintenance Depot Impacts

PETITION 25. Your petitioner remains concerned about the impacts of the PARAGRAPH: proposed Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) at Calvert. Your petitioner was pleased to note the late removal of the sustainable placement site at Shepherd's Furze Farm but is concerned that this has introduced further uncertainty as to the impact of HS2 and the IMD on the communities, ecology and cultural heritage in the area, in particular through visual impacts.

26. Your petitioner asks the Promoter to provide any revised plans and profiles for the railway and to mitigate any impacts. In addition, your petitioner asks to be consulted during the development of detailed design, particularly with a view to further reducing any visual effects.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Bill scheme provided for an area of sustainable on-site placement of excavated material adjacent to School Hill, the Aylesbury Link railway line and the Bicester to Bletchley Line. Changes in the quantities of excavated material generated by the scheme and the requirements for this material in its construction means that sustainable on-site placement is no longer required in this location. An assessment of the changes in landscape and visual effects compared with the Bill scheme was undertaken by the Promoter. This considered the removal of the sustainable on-site placement area and any potential revisions to mitigation that would need to be implemented compared to the Bill scheme.

2. The assessment found that the removal of the Shepherd’s Furze Farm sustainable placement site would result in the retention of trees, hedgerows and agricultural land on the former sustainable placement site. The scale of the new structures in the area which remain part of the scheme means however, that effects reported in the main ES on landscape and views remain unchanged except on Viewpoint 152.4.001: View south-west from School Hill, east of Calvert, where the effect would be reduced from moderate adverse to minor adverse in year 1 and from minor adverse in year 15 to negligible. The effect in year 60 would remain the same.

3. The improvement in effects from the removal of the sustainable placement area means that the inclusion of new visual mitigation would not be required under the Proposed Scheme at this location.

Calvert and Steeple Claydon – Detailed Design

4. The Promoter has given an assurance to Aylesbury Vale District Council, as the local planning authority responsible for approvals in accordance with Schedule 17 of the Bill, regarding engagement on the detailed design in the Calvert area. The assurance is consistent with the commitments set out in HS2 Information Paper G6, Design Development – Detailed Design and the Role of Planning Authorities.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 27

ISSUE RAISED: Steeple Claydon Footpaths 7, 8, and 9

PETITION 27. Your petitioner is concerned about the realignment of PARAGRAPH: Footpaths Steeple Claydon 7, 8 and 9, which will be severed by the proposed Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD). A single footbridge will be provided instead of the 3 footpaths. Your petitioner supports the local community's request to move the proposed footbridge. The alignment has been discussed with Network Rail who are the Promoters of the East West Rail scheme. Your petitioner asks that the Promoter works with the local community to bring forward this proposal.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Petitioner has expressed concerns regarding potential conflict between the proposals from the Promoter and East West Rail (EWR) for the realignment of Public Rights of Way and the provision of a crossing over the EWR corridor. The Promoter has met with EWR to discuss these proposals and in the event that the EWR project is approved, will continue to work with EWR to coordinate the approach to the network in this area. The Promoter believes that the proposed alignment as described in the Bill is suitable and no assurances are proposed in relation to this matter.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 28

ISSUE RAISED: A40 - Assurance

PETITION PARAGRAPH: 28. Whilst we are grateful that HS2 Ltd has removed the A40 through West Wycombe from the construction route, your petitioner requests that HS2 Ltd provides an assurance that the A40 will not be used as a construction route at any point during the construction phase.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promotor understands that the Petitioner is requesting that the section of A40 through West Wycombe, between M40 Junction 5 (Stokenchurch) and A4010 Bradenham Road will not be used as a HS2 construction route under any circumstances.

2. The Promoter cannot give an unqualified assurance that it will not in any circumstances use the A40, between M40 Junction 5 (Stockenchurch) and A4010 Bradenham Road. This is because it might be required to do so in unusual circumstances such as if directed by the emergency services or Highways England, due to problems on other routes.

3. The Promoter remains in active discussion with the Petitioner in relation to this matter.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 29-30

ISSUE RAISED: Iver and Langley HGV Traffic

PETITION 29. Your petitioner has concerns about the cumulative effect of the PARAGRAPH: volume of local heavy goods vehicles in this area from a number of different developments, including the Western Rail Link to Heathrow and the M4 Smart Motorway Project. The Promoter has agreed to require the nominated undertaker to engage with the Promoters of committed major transport infrastructure projects in the immediate vicinity of the Heathrow Express depot construction site to understand the environmental impacts of these projects.

30. Your petitioner also requests that the Department for Transport produce a Transport Appraisal of all the schemes in this area and then propose a suitable comprehensive mitigation package funded by these nationally significant infrastructure projects. Your petitioner has raised this point with the Promoter and hopes that an agreement on it can be reached. If not, the petitioner reserves its right to appear on this point before the House of Lords select committee.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. Additional Provision 2 Supplementary Environmental Statement (AP2 ES and SES) (see paragraphs 2.2.25 and 2.2.26, AP2 SES, Volume 4, Off Route Effects) takes into account committed developments (such as the M4 Smart Motorway) and assesses the cumulative effects between 2017-2019 during construction of the proposed Heathrow Express depot and post-2019 during operation. Where a cumulative effect has been identified it has been included in the assessments for HS2, including potential additional traffic generated from these committed schemes. As such, the current assessment completed as part of AP2 and SES considers the cumulative impact of committed schemes, including the M4 Smart Motorway, in the area.

2. The AP2 SES assessment does not take into account cumulative impacts of non-committed schemes such as the Western Rail Link to Heathrow (WRLtH), as it is not considered feasible to do so. However, as each new scheme is brought forward its baseline assessments would need to include all committed schemes.

3. A letter has been sent from the Secretary of State to Network Rail, the Promoter of the WRLtH scheme, to explain the requirement to complete an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In line with the applicable legal requirements and with current best practice, it is expected that the WRLtH scheme would take into account the environmental effects, including impacts on local roads of the Heathrow Express depot relocation in its EIA baseline, should the two construction programmes overlap.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 31

ISSUE RAISED: Local Authority Costs

PETITION 31. Warwickshire County Council is leading on this route-wide issue. PARAGRAPH: The first draft of a new Service Level Agreement has been produced by the Promoter but the local authorities do not consider it will adequately cover their reasonable costs in fulfilling their duties in respect of such a major and lengthy development. Your petitioner requests that the local authorities' reasonable and properly incurred costs incurred in fulfilling these duties will be covered by the Promoter and fully supports the case that Warwickshire County Council will present on this issue.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter notes that the Petitioner supports Warwickshire County Council on the issue of Local Authority Costs.

2. The existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been extended until the end of 2016. A second draft of the Service Level Agreement, which is due to replace the MoU, has been discussed at the Planning Forum on 18-19 May 2016.

3. HS2 Information Paper C13, Local Authority Funding and New Burdens arising from HS2, outlines the Promoter’s and the Department for Transport’s position on funding for local authorities for carrying out HS2-related activities.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 32-34

ISSUE RAISED: Chalfont St Peter haul road

PETITION 32. The Parish Council have presented their evidence for a haul road PARAGRAPH: from the rear of the vent shaft site joining with the A413 and your petitioner, as the highway authority, supports it.

33. Your petitioner also asks that the temporary road proposed by HS2 Ltd between Chalfont Lane and Horn Hill Road should not be constructed. This will result in a saving for the project which could be offset against the costs of providing the Parish Council's preferred haul road.

34. All traffic should use Rickmansworth Lane/Hornhill Road to access the A412 and your petitioner asks that the junction of Roberts Lane/West Hyde Lane be closed to protect residents from vehicles using the route to cut through and ensure HGVs are prevented from using these lanes.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

Chalfont St Peter vent shaft haul road

1. The Promoter has undertaken an assessment of the proposal for a haul road put forward by the Parish Council. It is the Promoter’s view that the estimated level of Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) traffic estimated to be generated by Chalfont St. Peter vent shaft would not justify the cost and adverse environmental effects of building a temporary haul road to the A413. The adverse effects of the Parish Council’s proposed haul road include:

 An increased cost of approximately £1m (excluding costs of land) to mitigate an effect of a maximum of 24 lorries movements per day, which is not a significant effect.  Additional problems created would be a steep gradient requirement for a cutting generating a further 4-5000 additional two way lorry movements on the existing network to facilitate construction of the haul route.

2. As explained in HS2 Information Paper E13, Management of Traffic During Construction:

‘The CoCP [Code of Construction Practice] will require the nominated undertaker to also prepare local traffic management plans in liaison with the relevant highway and traffic authorities and the emergency services. As appropriate, these will include:

 the contractors’ construction traffic flow assumptions;  the local routes to be used by large goods vehicles (approved where applicable), including lorry holding areas; and  significant works affecting roads and public rights of way, including temporary and permanent closures and diversions.’

Proposed temporary road connecting West Hyde Lane to Hornhill Road

3. The temporary road connecting West Hyde Lane to Hornhill Road was proposed in order to enhance local connectivity when Chalfont Lane is closed. It would not be for use by construction traffic. However, the desirability of providing the temporary road and any local traffic management measures during construction will be matters for discussion between the nominated undertaker and the local highway authority following Royal Assent.

4. HS2 Information Paper E13 also explains the consultation arrangements for local highway and traffic issues during construction:

‘Liaison will continue on a more local basis during construction to discuss specific day- to-day issues around construction traffic management as they arise. This is likely to involve the nominated undertaker, the HS2 contractor(s), highway authority officers responsible for traffic management, highway maintenance, street lighting, traffic signals, walking, cycling and public transport services (as well as utility company representatives where necessary)

Once contractors have been appointed, regular local traffic liaison meetings will be arranged with highway authorities, bus operators, taxi and trade representation (as appropriate), and the police - other emergency services will be included, as appropriate. These meetings will provide an opportunity for contractors to present proposals for future works affecting the highway, including methods of construction and proposed programme, and for a review of the associated traffic management requirements.

Some traffic management proposals may require Traffic Regulation Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 to cover measures such as the introduction of one- way streets, banned turns and temporary speed limits. These will be discussed at the liaison meetings. Applications for these orders will be made to the relevant traffic authority and advertised locally in the normal way.

The nominated undertaker will require contractors to communicate regularly with parties affected by the works. Local residents and businesses will be informed - appropriately and in advance - of the dates and durations of any closures of roads or public right of way, and will be provided with details of diversion routes at least two weeks in advance or when final details are available. Advance warning signs of road closures will be provided for users of roads and public of rights of way.’

5. The Promoter has offered a number of assurances to the Petitioner on traffic management at Chalfont St Peter with particular focus on the local school:

‘The nominated undertaker shall engage with the Petitioner prior to completion of the detailed design of the traffic management associated with the construction work at the Chalfont St Peter ventilation shaft, with a view to reducing as far as reasonably

practicable any disruption caused by such works to the efficient arrival and departure of pupils, staff and other visitors to and from the school premises.

The nominated undertaker shall, in accordance with the Code of Construction Practice, give reasonable advance notice of the construction works of the Chalfont St Peter ventilation shaft to the Petitioner’. (Undertaking and Assurances Reference 1078 and 1079)

‘The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to implement or fund any local road safety measures reasonably required in the vicinity of schools in Buckinghamshire located on a HS2 construction route used by Large Goods Vehicles (>7.5 tonnes) to mitigate the impact of increased lorry traffic resulting from HS2 construction work, subject to the powers in the Bill or securing any additional consents from the highway authority where required. Measures will be consulted on with Buckinghamshire County Council on a case-by-case basis as part of the Local Traffic Management Plan. The amount of payment towards traffic management measures is not capped, but is subject to any measures being reasonable.’ (Undertaking and Assurances Reference 1848)

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 35

ISSUE RAISED: Local jobs, skills and economic opportunities

PETITION 35. The construction of the works authorised by the Bill may provide PARAGRAPH: additional employment in the county, not just directly on the construction sites, but indirectly as well. Your petitioner requests that the Promoter prepares a local procurement strategy which will include a commitment to use the local workforce and supply chain during construction of the scheme, offering opportunity for skill development and apprenticeships.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. As outlined to the Petitioner in response to their petition before the House of Commons (No. 520) the design, planning, construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Scheme will create a significant number of employment opportunities. It is forecast that the Proposed Scheme is expected to create around 25,ooo new construction jobs and around 3,000 permanent jobs in operation and maintenance.

2. HS2 Information Paper G4, Approach to Training and Employment sets out the Promoter’s approach to training and skills. Paragraph 2.5 states:

‘The nominated undertaker shall, insofar as it is lawful to do so, ensure equality of opportunity in order to encourage the recruitment of local, disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. This is in accordance with the HS2 Ltd Sustainability Policy, which states that contractors will work with HS2 to improve skills, jobs, education and the economy through its investment along the route. This holistic approach to sustainability will build on best practice developed by London 2012 and other major projects’.

3. Paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 goes on to explain:

‘Contractors will be required to help local, disadvantaged and underrepresented groups to access the training and employment opportunities generated by HS2 by:

 placing all job vacancies with Jobcentre Plus and any other job brokerage mechanisms that may be nominated by the undertaker;  participating in relevant external recruitment and training events and communicating and publicising employment opportunities;

 nominating a suitably qualified member of staff to act as a liaison officer, with responsibility for managing the training and employment opportunities between the contractor, its supply chain, and training and employment stakeholders; and  performance managing, monitoring and reporting progress on the achievement of training and employment milestones to HS2 Ltd or the nominated undertaker.

In situations where agencies are used to source labour, contractors will set out proposals to ensure that those agencies, including those of its subcontractors, directly support the delivery of the aims and objectives of the HS2 Ltd. Sustainability policy.’

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 36

ISSUE RAISED: Discretionary compensation schemes

PETITION 36. The House of Commons Select Committee recommended PARAGRAPH: amendments to the operation of the discretionary compensation schemes with a view toward greater fairness and a more functional property market in areas near to the proposed line. On behalf of its residents, your petitioner wishes to draw this to the attention of the House of Lords Committee and ask them to support these amendments.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter published a Command Paper on 26 May 2016 announcing details of discretionary property compensation measures for owner-occupiers along the Phase 2a line of route. Alongside that announcement the Promoter also announced a number of changes to the discretionary property assistance schemes which will apply to Phase One and Phase 2a discretionary compensation schemes. A number of these changes follow-on from the recommendations made by the House of Commons High Speed Rail Bill (London to West Midlands) Select Committee. The changes were implemented with immediate effect and included the provision of additional guidance to the need to sell scheme to help make sure wider consideration is given to people’s health and mobility and the suitability of their current property when assessing applications.

2. The changes also mean that property owners will be able to use any RICS registered local surveyor when obtaining valuations for the need to sell and the rural support zone. This will give property owners the opportunity to appoint a valuer who has experience of the local market.

3. The Command Paper can be found at the following link and also sets out details of additional issues in relation to the discretionary compensation schemes that are still being considered - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525850/west- midlands-crewe-property-consultation-2015-web-version.pdf

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 37

ISSUE RAISED: Emergency services routes

PETITION 37. Your petitioner has statutory fire, public health and emergency PARAGRAPH: planning duties and is concerned about the potential impact of HS2 on the emergency services whose response times could be affected during the construction and operational phases of the scheme. As the House of Lords select committee will appreciate, the scheme's possible effect on the emergency services is a cause of great concern to your petitioner's residents. Owing to this, your petitioner requests that the Promoter engages with the emergency services to discuss any concerns they might have arising from the scheme.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The draft Code of Construction Practise (CoCP) requires (section 14.2.2) that the nominated undertaker will ensure that a Route-wide Traffic Management Plan (RTMP) will be produced in consultation with the highway and traffic authorities and the emergency services and other relevant key stakeholders. The RTMP is to include the arrangements for liaison with the relevant highway authorities and emergency services (including air ambulances) and protecting corridors for emergency vehicles. In addition, the RTMP is to consider emergency access protocols.

2. A draft RTMP has been prepared and was consulted on with key stakeholders during the Summer of 2015. As well as the highway authorities along the HS2 Phase 1 route, consultation was undertaken with representatives of the Police, Fire, Ambulance and Air Ambulance Responders on a route-wide basis as well as the Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade and London Ambulance Service given their experience of projects similar to HS2. The revised RTMP was issued in November 2015.

3. The RTMP sets out (in section 3.6.1) that prior to commencement of main construction, and during the construction phase, regular local Traffic Liaison Group (TLG) meetings will be established with local highway authorities so that matters such as local traffic management schemes can be reviewed prior to submission or approval and the implementation of schemes reviewed and other monitoring reported, along with other matters of interested discussed and co-ordinated. The geographic areas for TLGs and initial terms of reference including attendance and initial frequency of TLG meetings will be discussed with the Highways Sub Group to the Planning Forum. One of the key objectives of TLG meetings will be to ensure that local authorities, emergency services and bus operators are aware of programmed construction activities that could have an impact on the local and SRN or other strategic routes. The RTMP recommends that membership of the TLG includes a representative of the local traffic police, who would liaise with other emergency services.

4. Section 3.7.2 of the RTMP sets out the proposals for engagement with the emergency services and notes that strategic level discussions have already been held with relevant Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services and Ambulance Trusts regarding the strategy of signing of worksites and RVP points for emergency services as well as access protocols.

5. The RTMP goes onto confirm that it would be expected that regular local emergency services liaison will be necessary throughout the construction period, so that emergency services can be consulted on:

• Significant road schemes which may impact on response and access; • Schedule of access points, locations, Grid References and internal Rendezvous Points (RVPs) which would be available for emergency service use (and any signing or postcoding updates); • Planned construction activities within sites which may present specific hazards to fire/rescue services (such as confined working, working at height, storage of materials and other fire hazards); and • Other impacts such as movement of abnormal loads, temporary road closures for construction works.

6. Protocols for access arrangements will be developed through these consultation forum and will typically consider:

 Arrangements for calling the emergency services within the worksites;  Access arrangements at the site access points;  Wayfinding within the worksites;  Provision of RVP points within worksites; and  Provision of information packs at site access points.

7. In addition, the Promoter has given the Petitioner a number of assurances on this matter on 10 February 2016:

‘The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to prepare Local Traffic Management Plans in liaison with Buckinghamshire County Council and the emergency services.

The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker, to produce Local Traffic Management Plans (LTMPs) within Buckinghamshire prior to the commencement of any works under the Bill and keep them updated, in consultation with the highway and traffic authorities, the emergency services and other relevant key stakeholders. The LTMP(s) will include, as appropriate:

a) details of permitted access routes and accesses for construction traffic;

b) details of site boundaries and the main access/egress points for worksites and compounds;

c) details of temporary and permanent closures and diversions of highways and other public rights of way (including timing); and pick-up periods and any commitments set

out in the register of Undertakings and Assurances; d) details of phasing of works; e) the proposed traffic management strategy; f) other measures which will affect the highway, such as lorry holding areas (including timing of use); g) proposals for the regular operation of traffic liaison groups with key stakeholders to ensure that programmes of HS2 works are shared and which will assist with the highways authorities to carry out their network management duties; and h) a register of applications for consents associated with temporary traffic management measures.

9. In relation to lorry management, LTMPs will include details of the following, where appropriate; a) timing of site operations and timing of traffic movements; b) local routes to be used by lorries generated by construction activity; c) lorry holding areas; d) lorry holding areas on- or off-highway, how they will be laid out and operated (including timing of operation); and

Lorry routes will be set out in the LTMPs and as set out in the Planning Memorandum, the nominated undertaker will have forward discussions, where reasonably practicable, on lorry route applications prior to submission.

The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to ensure that Traffic Liaison Group (TLG) meetings will take place to enable consultation on the temporary management programme, enable the highway authority to carry out its obligations to ensure there is a co-ordinated approach to traffic management in its area and ensure that local authorities, emergency services and bus operators are aware of programme construction activities that could have an impact on the local strategic road network. The TLG meetings will take into account concurrent construction activities from other schemes.’ (See Undertakings and Assurances reference 1839).

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 38

ISSUE RAISED: Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)

PETITION 38. Your petitioner has engaged with HS2 Ltd through the Planning PARAGRAPH: Forum to seek clarification, revisions and improvements to the CoCP. Your petitioner notes that the Promoter has clarified that contractors will face a sanction for any breach of the CoCP but has not said what these sanctions may entail. Your petitioner requests that there is consultation with local authorities on what those sanctions may be and at what levels.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Promoter gave an undertaking to Parliament on behalf of the Secretary of State concerning the enforcement of the Environmental Minimum Requirements (which include the Code of Construction Practice): ‘Insofar as the Environmental Minimum Requirements are not directly enforceable against any person appointed as the nominated undertaker, the Secretary of State will take such steps as he considers reasonable and necessary to secure compliance with those requirements.’ (Undertaking and Assurance Reference 63) 2. The contractual relationship between the Nominated Undertaker and its contractors is a commercial matter and it is not the responsibility of the Petitioner to take any statutory role in this. The Petitioner should be assured that the commitments in relation to managing construction impacts have been set out in the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and will become contractor requirements. In addition, should the Petitioner have concerns that the commitments set out in the CoCP are not being followed, the mechanisms set out in HS2 Information Paper E1, Control of Environmental Impacts will address this.

3. The Promoter therefore considers that there is sufficient commitments in place with respect to the draft CoCP and the Environmental Minimum Requirements and that it is not appropriate for the Petitioner to be consulted on commercial contractual matters regarding the implementation of these between the Nominated Undertaker and its contractors.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 39

ISSUE RAISED: Workforce trips

PETITION 39. The Route Wide Traffic Management Plan has recently been PARAGRAPH: released. There is a concern in areas that will be experiencing a high number of daily workforce trips, such as the area around the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot, that there will be no controls on the routes followed by private vehicles or visitors. Your petitioner requests that, in areas where this will cause most concern, trips will be managed and monitored by the nominated undertaker and the construction routes will be mandatory for all workforce and visitor trips. This should be included in the Local Traffic Management Plans with adequate steps in place to discourage other routes being used. Records to demonstrate that monitoring and enforcement is being carried out should be made available to local authorities upon reasonable request.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The Environmental Statement, submitted with the HS2 Phase 1 Bill, sets out ‘realistic worst case’ assumptions concerning the volume of construction traffic, including heavy vehicles, light vehicles and workforce cars.

2. The HS2 London-West Midlands Environmental Statement includes a Framework Travel Plan at Annex A of Volume 5, Technical Appendices, Transport Assessment (November 2013).

3. Chapter 6 of the High Speed 2 Phase One, Route-Wide Traffic Management Plan (RTMP), sets out the detailed requirements for Main Works Civils Contractors (MWCC) to: (a) prepare interim travel plans appropriate for the geography of the contractor area before commencement of main works, (b) undertake travel surveys (c) produce a final plan and then to undertake annual monitoring surveys and update the revised travel plans as appropriate. The RTMP was consulted on with all the highway authorities along the HS2 phase 1 route during the summer of 2015.

4. The RTMP also sets out that engagement will be undertaken with the relevant highway authority concerning the results of the travel surveys and the travel plans as well as any resulting physical measures to implement the travel plans. Once the local Traffic Liaison Group meetings are established, they are to consider if Local Travel Plan meetings are to be arranged as sub- group meetings. The RTMP includes the requirement for principal contractors to employ dedicated travel plan co-ordinators.

5. The nominated undertaker will engage with highways authorities concerning the production and implementation of the workforce travel plans and provide guidance on undertaking the travel surveys.

6. Until the travel surveys are undertaken, it is not possible to fully develop an understanding of where the workforce will be resident when working on the Proposed Scheme and therefore provide further details of planning and enforcement. However, as described in paragraph 3 above, and as set out in paragraphs 14.3.1 and 14.3.3 of the Code of Construction Practice, interim workforce travel plans will be developed in conjunction with highways authority. Although the interim travel plans may provide some indication of the contractor’s plan for recruitment, HS2 construction compounds may require different skills, trades and numbers of workers at different times throughout the construction programme.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 40

ISSUE RAISED: Business rates relief

PETITION 40. Your petitioner's county is one of the most prosperous, PARAGRAPH: productive and entrepreneurial parts of the UK. Up to 10% of Buckinghamshire businesses are within 3km of the HS2 route. Your petitioner considers that business affected by the construction and operation of the project should be entitled to business rates relief and that your petitioners should subsequently be compensated by the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker for the impact on its revenue.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. Local Authorities in England and Wales are able to offer discretionary Business Rates Relief in specific circumstances. The decision to do so rests with the individual billing authority based on the interests of their local taxpayers.

2. The Promoter has worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to explore the likely impacts of HS2 on local authority business rates income, using North Warwickshire Borough Council as a case study and as a local authority that will potentially be affected by both business rates losses and gains. In doing so, the Promoter appointed property consultants and rating specialists, to review the findings of the report prepared on behalf of North Warwickshire Borough Council (lead local authority on this issue). The property consultants produced a report giving its views on the potential impact of the Proposed Scheme on the rateable value of the business properties and rates income in the case study. The Promoter, together with Department for Transport, DCLG and the property consultants met with representatives from local authorities (including the Petitioner) on two occasions in March and July 2015 to discuss the findings from the property consultant’s report and the implications for the Petitioners’ income from business rates.

3. Having considered the findings in the report and wider developments with respect to the business rates retention policy, the Promoter considers that it is too early to come to a definitive position over whether HS2 funds should be used to provide a contribution towards mitigating losses in local authority revenues.

4. The Promoter has made a commitment to review the situation from the start of 2018/19. This will allow the Promoter to assess more accurately the likely revenue impacts on local authority incomes before coming to a definitive position on how to respond to any revenue losses.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 41

ISSUE RAISED: Tourism

PETITION 41. Tourism is critical to your petitioner's county. Over 2.3 million PARAGRAPH: tourists visited the HS2 corridor area of the Chilterns AONB in 2013. Tourism generated £79.76m through direct and multiplier impacts and it supports an estimated 2,768 jobs in the area, according to a Tourism South East report in February 2015. Your petitioner requests that the Promoter should compensate affected businesses. The scheme's negative impact on tourism provides further justification for increasing the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. As explained in the Promoter’s response to Petition 520 in the House of Commons, the Promoter does not agree that the Proposed Scheme will have a major visual impact on Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) such that it will have any significant impact on the county’s tourism economy, nor that there is an ‘absence of any gain’ for Buckinghamshire.

2. Just over 20km of the route for the Proposed Scheme lies across the AONB, of which 12km will be in tunnel and over 5km will be in cutting. The remaining 3km includes two viaducts, one of which is in order to cross a major transport corridor south of Wendover (the Chiltern Main Line and the A413).

3. Whilst it is not impossible that there may be some visitors who will be deterred from visiting during construction, only a very small part of the AONB will be affected so it is much more likely that such visitors will merely visit another part of the AONB. The only significantly affected tourist related business in Buckinghamshire identified in the ES is the Denham Grove Hotel, located outside the AONB at the northern end of the Colne Valley viaduct.

4. The Proposed Scheme will offer considerable opportunities to businesses and residents along the line of route to supplying goods and services and obtain employment. The Promoter is committed to working with its suppliers to build a skilled workforce that fuels further economic growth across the UK.

5. A response on the Community Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund is provided in response to paragraph 17-19 of this petition.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 42

ISSUE RAISED: Waddesdon Haul Road

PETITION 42. Waddesdon Parish Council undertook an informal consultation PARAGRAPH: with residents from 13 August 2015 to 10 September 2015, on various options for a relief road. There is already significant development in both Aylesbury and Bicester with Waddesdon located between both these growth areas. HS2 will add up to 600 additional vehicles per day at the peak of construction. The majority of residents voted for a temporary haul road. The parish council then presented evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee to ask that a temporary relief road or haul road be constructed to relieve pressure on the A41. Your petitioner requests further consideration of this request.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. The effects of the Proposed Scheme in Waddesdon have been the subject of extensive consideration through the assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES). The ES considered a number of options regarding the alignment of the A41 prior to deposit of the Bill in November 2013 and these are summarised in Section 2.6 of the Main ES, Volume 2, CFA 12 report.

2. Following representations from Waddesdon Parish Council and others, the Promoter reviewed both the estimated construction traffic that would be generated by the Proposed Scheme, and the options for mitigating its effects on the local road network. Average daily large goods vehicle traffic on the A41 through Waddesdon is not predicted to exceed 400 vehicles per day (two way) during the busiest nine months of construction.

3. Three potential mitigation options were considered:

Option A (baseline): the Proposed Scheme comprising use of the A41 through Waddesdon village centre by HS2 construction vehicles; Option B: a temporary bypass for HS2 construction traffic on an alignment identified by Waddesdon Parish Council to be removed on completion of the HS2 works; Option C: a permanent bypass for use by all vehicles if the costs of removal were considered to be a key reason for not progressing with the bypass

4. It was concluded that Option A would provide sufficient mitigation to address the short term effects of additional construction traffic through the village. In relation to Options B and C the report concluded:

‘Both Options B and C would add significant additional cost to the project to address short term construction issues. Option B, the temporary bypass, would incur additional costs of approximately £6.7 million. Option C, a permanent bypass, would add a minimum additional cost of £9.0 million. If further mitigation was included on the permanent bypass (higher noise bunds and grade separation of Quainton Road) the total additional cost would be some £18.3 million.’ 5. The conclusions of the study were presented to a meeting with the Parish Council on 22 April 2016, and the report has been provided to both the Parish Council and the Petitioner.

6. The Promoter has provided the Petitioner with a general assurance in relation to improvements to the capacity of junctions across Buckinghamshire over and above Option A, which includes the junctions identified as ‘sensitive junctions’ at either side of Waddesdon on the A41. Should it prove necessary to have temporary or permanent traffic mitigation measures, these works would be undertaken at these junctions.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION OF: Buckinghamshire County Council

PETITION NO: 562

PARAGRAPH NO: 43-47

ISSUE RAISED: Ecology issues outstanding

PETITION 43. Your petitioner presented extensive ecological evidence to the PARAGRAPH: House of Commons Select Committee. Your petitioner wrote to the chair of the Committee, Robert Syms, on 14 January 2016, to summarise our position on a number of outstanding issues.

44. Your petitioner asks that the Committee instruct the Promoter to carry out a thorough connectivity analysis in partnership with local authorities and wildlife groups. The results of this analysis should be used to inform the location and design of green bridges and ecological mitigation in partnership with local authorities.

45. The Promoter agreed to set up an Ecology Review Group (ERG) however, since January 2016, your petitioner has received little detail about how it will operate, report, be set up, or be financed. Your petitioner would like the opportunity to comment on the ERG's terms of reference prior to Royal Assent and, unless they are provided voluntarily, requests that the House of Lords Select Committee instruct the Promoter to provide this information to your petitioner.

46. There are also other matters which may be taken up by other local authorities in their petitions and which are of general concern to local authorities along the route of the proposed railway. The petitioner may lend its support to those local authorities should they present a case to the select committee of your right honourable House.

47. There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand, will prejudicially affect the rights and interest of your petitioner and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

PROMOTER’S RESPONSE:

1. In response to ecological concerns raised by the Petitioner during the Select Committee process the Promoter has continued to engage with the Petitioner since their appearance and has provided a number of assurances to the Petitioner on ecological matters.

Connectivity

2. The Promoter wrote to the Petitioner on the 20 January 2016 in response to a number of matters, including on the issue of ecological connectivity, referenced by the Petitioner in paragraph 44.

3. As previously set out in response to the Petitioner’s House of Commons Petition No. 520, ecological connectivity has been a key consideration in the approach to the design of the Proposed Scheme’s ecological mitigation. Sections 9.4 and 9.5 of the EIA Scope and Methodology Report (CT-001-000/1) explain that connectivity and habitat severance are issues that are considered in the Environmental Statement (ES). Section 9.5.6 confirms that the assessment included the effects on landscape-scale ecological features, including habitat connectivity. The ES has identified the areas where connectivity is a particular issue and has included the appropriate measures to mitigate these effects. Consistent with the Lawton review, the Promoter has sought to increase the size of areas of existing priority habitat by creating new areas of habitat adjacent to them, and sought to join up fragments of habitat wherever practicable.

Green Bridges

4. Wildlife connectivity is provided along the route by means of bored tunnels, cut and cover tunnels, viaducts, bridges and underpasses.

5. As explained in HS2 Information Paper E15, Green Bridges have been designed to maintain safe movement and dispersal of animals from one side of the railway to the other and are proposed as mitigation measures for specific requirements identified in the Environmental Statement (ES). In these locations it is proportionate and appropriate to provide measures to maintain ecological connectivity. It is clearly not possible to provide a safe crossing point at every section of the route. Decisions on where to place safe crossing points to maintain habitat connectivity need to be proportionate to the likely harm that will arise. The potential impacts and level of additional mitigation/compensation also needs to be viewed in the context of the positive contribution linear infrastructure provides in connecting sites and habitats.

6. There are five green bridges within Buckinghamshire which are provided specifically to create connectivity for wildlife and will have a minimum green width of 30 metres for protection of Bechstein’s bats.

Ecology Review Group

7. As the Petitioner notes, the Promoter has agreed that an Ecology Review Group will be established as a requirement on the nominated undertaker for the specific purpose of reviewing the outputs from the ecology monitoring programme. It would not be appropriate, in the Promoter’s view, to set up the Ecology Review Group in advance of Royal Assent.

8. The Ecology Review Group will receive reports on an annual basis and will be asked to make recommendations for remedial measures to the nominated undertaker where progress against objectives is considered not to be sufficient. The composition of this group will include the Woodland Trust, Natural England, local authority representation, appropriate nature conservation non-governmental organisations and relevant specialists as necessary.

9. On the 22 December 2015 (included in the assurances issued to the Petitioner on 1 February 2016), the Promoter gave the Petitioner an assurance in relation to the Ecology Review Group, which sets out that:

‘The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to establish an ecological review group to provide independent advice on the monitoring of ecological mitigation measures. The terms of reference for the ecological review group shall include:

 receiving annual reports from the nominated undertaker detailing the results of monitoring of the ecological mitigation measures for an appropriate period of time to be agreed with Natural England;  scrutinising relevant data gathered for the purpose of these reports; and  where ecological mitigation measures are not meeting the project's objectives, reviewing and advising on remedial actions suggested by the nominated undertaker and recommending further reasonable remedial action where it is considered appropriate by the ecological review group. The nominated undertaker will have regard to these recommendations.’

(See Undertaking and Assurances Reference 1975).