(London - West Midlands) Bill
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 5 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.