Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday, 17 November 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department of Transport

WITNESSES

Mr William Avery Mr Philip and Mrs Alison Doggett Mr Patrick Fell Mr Tony Fish Ms Sheila Rankin Mr Tony Mogford Mr James Stevens Ms Katrina Wood Mr Clive Jones Mr Alan Turner Ms Sharon Henson Mr Wolf-Rudiger Feiler Ms Lind Aspey Mr Marcus Rogers Mr Stephen Lambert Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Managing Director, Rupert Taylor Ltd, acoustics and vibration expert ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

The Parochial Church Council of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Mary the Virgin Wendover, and others (cont’d) Response from Mr Strachan 3 Mr Thornely-Taylor, examined by Mr Strachan 4 Mr Thornely-Taylor, cross-examined by Mr Avery 6 Closing submissions by Mr Avery 9

Philip and Alison Doggett Introduction from Mr Strachan 9 Submissions by Mr and Mrs Doggett 11

Patrick Fell and Tony Fish Introduction from Mr Strachan 19 Submissions by Mr Fell 20 Submissions by Mr Fish 24 Response from Mr Strachan 27 Closing submissions by Mr Fish 28

Dr Sheila Rankin Submissions by Dr Rankin 30 Response from Mr Strachan 32

Tony Mogford Introduction from Mr Strachan 34 Submissions by Mr Mogford 35 Response from Mr Strachan 40

Wycombe District Council, Bradenham Parish Council and others Submissions by Mr Stevens 44 Submissions by Ms Wood 49 Submissions by Mr Jones 52 Submissions by Mr Turner 55 Submissions by Ms Henson 60 Response from Mr Strachan 66 Closing submissions by Mr Stevens 70

Wolf-Rudiger Feiler, Linda Aspey et al. Submissions by Mr Feiler 70 Submissions by Ms Aspey 72 Response from Mr Strachan 81 Closing submissions by Mr Feiler 84

Aylesbury Town Council, Coldharbour Parish Council and others Submissions by Mr Rogers and Mr Lambert 86 Response from Mr Strachan 97 Closing submissions by Mr Rogers 99

(at 14.00)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee, Mr Strachan?

The Parochial Church Council of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Mary the Virgin Wendover, and others (cont’d)

2. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Can I just show you P10332(1)? The Committee will know that, as a result of earlier petitions, the promoter has put forward a suggested extension to the Wendover green tunnel, some 100m and some additional noise mitigation, substantial noise mitigation in this location. That was the subject of a letter to the chair, and it’s the subject of a proposed Additional Provision 5, so it will be shown in more detail in that – this is the plan that was provided with the letter to the chair, so it’s showing the extension plus a six metre noise barrier running from the portal to the viaduct on the eastern side of the railway.

3. And the Committee heard yesterday about the benefits of that on this location for the purposes of the school, and the same point applies to St Mary’s church. And , if I could just show you the consequential predicted noise readings that we’re getting from the model at this stage, P10779(12), this, I think has come in, some information to the Committee very recently, but this will all be the subject of the AP5 additional information.

4. This is, if you look at St Mary’s church, at the bottom, 369223, we can see – you’ve just lost the top, if you just pull it down slightly – proposed scheme only, just go back down again, you’re – you have figures of 46 and 37 with an Lmax of 60/63, that’s for HS2 train or a TSI compliant train. And these are outside noise level readings.

5. If you combine that with the existing situation, you’ll have average levels of 56 during the day, and 50 at night, which represents a 1dB increase during the day, and a 0dB increase during the night. And the Committee will recall that at St Mary’s church, in the baseline noise monitoring, there were Lmax events I think as high as 81dB in the existing situation, which will be, no doubt, vehicles passing on the London Road, or the A413, possibly sirens, or something of that.

6. MR AVERY: Or like birds.

7. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So those are the levels we get with the proposed mitigation, and all I’d just like Mr Thornely-Taylor to just comment on what that means for the church environment inside, as well as, of course, the churchyard.

8. Whilst he’s just taking his seat, can I just explain; these noise readings, or predications are without the provision of the two metre noise barrier alongside the road. Because, of course, that is something that needs to be with the consent of the authority. We haven’t shown those effects, but they will obviously, if the noise barrier goes in, alongside the road, that will further improve the noise environment, principally for the churchyard, because what we’re really concerned about inside the church are the Lmax events, which are the 60/63 level.

9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that possible two meter high barrier on the road is to reduce road noise or reduce rail noise?

10. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Road noise, principally.

11. MR AVERY: So it would make it easier for us to hear the trains?

12. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s probably the most Pollyannish remark I’ve heard today.

13. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I just ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to deal with what it means. Mr Thornely-Taylor, for the benefit of Mr Avery, is obviously our noise expert. I think he also is an organist and a parochial church council member, but so he’s also played and been a chorister in churches, so I’m sure he’s able to apply…

14. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I thought all organists were deaf.

15. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So he doesn’t come without knowledge of what it’s like to play music inside a church. But, can I just get you, Mr Thornely-Taylor, to comment on what these – effectively, these readings are showing for a mitigated scheme for St Mary’s church, because everyone’s concerned about it. Can you just comment on the 60/63 Lmax outside the church, and what that would mean inside the church?

16. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes, the petitioner’s rightly pointed out that that is an important member of the set of numbers that we have. It is the maximum noise level

due to the passage of a train; the higher value of 63 is for a TSI compliant train, which would have come via the HS1/HS2 link, when it existed. HS2 trains are responsible for the lower figure of 60.

17. The question arises, what is that like inside the church from the point of view of acoustical conditions in the church for musical performances and for church services, and speech intelligibility. One of the consultants on the HS2 team went out and did full ISO 140 part 5 measurement of the façade sound insulation of the church, and the reverberation time within the church. That produced a full suite of numbers which enable one to calculate, from the actual spectrum of the noise of the passage of an HS2 train what the internal level is.

18. In conversation between Mr Avery and one of those engineers, it was pointed out that the difference between outside and inside noise level was 20dB when the source is traffic, so when it is 60 due to a passing vehicle on the road, it’s about 40 inside the church. But the spectrum shape of the passage of an HS2 train is different from the spectrum shape of road traffic, and the reduction outside to inside for HS2 noise is better than 20. And, as a result of that, the internal maximum noise level during the passage of a train will be in the low 30s, which is not an intrusive level, even for a concert hall. This room is constantly, I would estimate, in the low 40s. There’s some noise in the background which is at a constant level, which, in most locations, would mean we’re listening to the low 40s. It’ll be materially less than that, inside the church during the passage of a train, and the worrying concerns that the petitioners have had about having to shout and speech interference occurring and interference with musical performances occurring, is not justified, there will not be material interference with use of the church for its current uses.

19. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think there’s also a concern about the use of the churchyard and 60dB max from the trains in the churchyard. Assuming, for present purposes, that we don’t take into account the noise barriers for the roads, which will have a beneficial impact for road noise, could you just comment on that, Mr Thornely- Taylor, whether those levels will prevent the use of – or effective use of the churchyard in a way that has occurred to date?

20. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Well, at present, there is a very wide range of

maximum noise levels outside the church, up to 80 and slightly more, down to more frequent events at 50 and 60. Clearly, the thing about the passage of HS2 trains is it’s the same event every time, so it’s basically the same noise level every time, but it would only be at a substantial distance from the speaker that somebody would have difficulty hearing what was being spoken.

21. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Mr Thornely-Taylor, there may be some questions for him. I just wanted, whilst he’s there, just to put up on the screen P10788, where we sought to summarise the various mitigation schemes and their costs. This is less relevant to Mr Thornely-Taylor directly, but you’ll see we have provided cost estimates of different schemes, and you’ll see the AP5 scheme is – the difference would be in the region of £10 million. A draft surface enclosure scheme, i.e. taking the current green tunnel further to the viaduct, would cost approximately £40 million and then the draft tunnel – I know the costs are controversial – we predicting £275 million, but you can see, in terms of the benefits that that would produce, they are principally not in this location, there is a reduction in the number of dwellings, but the Lmax levels that are experienced at the church will be coming principally from the viaduct rather than mitigating six metre stretch alongside the railway, so there isn’t actually any significant change with the introduction of yet a further extension of the tunnel towards the viaduct.

22. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes that’s correct.

23. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So, unless there are any questions for Mr Thornely-Taylor, those are the principle points I wanted to address. I’ll just make one or two very brief remarks, unless there are any questions.

24. CHAIR: Do you want to question, Mr Avery?

25. MR AVERY: I’m aware of the exercise that was carried out on the church on the performance of the fabric from the point of view of its acoustic performance and we also, quite rightly did the inside and outside comparison of sounds. What Mr Thornely-Taylor is saying about the relative performance of the fabric of the church, doesn’t feel right to me, because, simply, as far as I know about acoustics, and I’m not an expert, but as far as I know about acoustics, glass is an excellent transmitter of high frequency sounds, and that’s…

26. CHAIR: Ask him about glass then.

27. MR AVERY: So, I would be very curious to know how you can say that the, effectively the performance of the church fabric is better for the noise of the train which is at high frequency?

28. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The starting point is that for any building with a partially open window, the outside to inside level difference is about 15, so to get the 20 that occurs at present with traffic noise, is about what you would expect, given the relative proportions of glass to all and openings in the glass. Many churches do have opening windows, which are quite often not very easy to close in an airtight manner. And it’s not – it’s not counterintuitive, that with the different spectrum of shape of the passage of a train, which those who’ve been to sound lab have heard, is not the same as a lorry going by. There is a greater reduction in the dBA level, which is what all the tables are expressed in, for train noise, than there is for traffic noise.

29. MR AVERY: I think what we’ll do is we’ll do a test and prove it.

30. CHAIR: Okay.

31. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I ask how you take the night time readings because it’s not inherently obvious to me why night time readings with a train going past should be any lower than a day time reading.

32. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: It’s a bit of a red herring; the maximum noise level will be the same day and night, there will be no change in operating conditions. It’s stated in the ES and in the tables for night, because the criteria for effects on people are different at night than by day, because, apart from shift workers, most people sleep at night and sleep disturbance is best expressed in terms of Lmax, so that’s reported as the night time indicator. It’s exactly the same number day and night.

33. MR AVERY: Mr Thornely-Taylor, I’ll ask one other question; are you able to indicate the ambient sound level for the period, say between seven o’clock and 10 o’clock in the evenings, as opposed to taking it over a wider spectrum of time period? Because that, for argument’s sake is one of the most relevant periods of time for activities in the church where sound is crucial. And at that time of day, just sitting in

church, you never hear anything even vaguely relating to decibels outside.

34. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Well, yes, the sound contractors did a measurement for four hours, between seven in the evening and 11 at night, being the period when musical performances would most frequently take place, and they found that that range of maximum noise events that I mentioned a moment ago was actually measured during that period.

35. MR AVERY: And that’s because, Mr Thornely-Taylor, while that was happening, I was there, and there were one or two people moving in and out of the church, creating those noises, but if you actually took a fair view of that information and period of time when there was nothing happening in the church, you would actually get a true answer to the question.

36. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes, the locally generated events are recorded in the engineer’s report, and somebody’s moving a chair and scraping the ground, and things like that, but there were a large number of events from the road, which show, as is normally the case, that although there’s a little bit of drop off in the evenings, we get past the afternoon peak, as far as traffic is concerned, you don’t get large falls in traffic noise until you’re well into the night.

37. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Strachan, you had a few other points you want to make?

38. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’m just going to conclude the general point I wanted to make, which is that the effect on the church has been very carefully considered and the current proposal, the mitigation package that’s been put forward, as the current proposal the further detail which will come, demonstrates that we will be able to achieve the levels of noise inside the church and indeed, in the churchyard, which mitigate the effects of the railway. I know there’re expressed concerns and they’re expressed concerns about noise generally, but when one looks at the analysis, you can see why I make that point, based on the levels that we’re showing, and they are based on very careful assessments that have been conducted, both using the methodology generally, but specifically for this location as you’ve heard from Mr Thornely-Taylor.

39. CHAIR: Brief final comments, Mr Avery?

40. MR AVERY: I think on behalf of everybody, I will remain very cynical of what HS2 are saying. A lot of what HS2 put forward in terms of acoustic performance just doesn’t sit comfortably with reality. When you’re actually sitting, or standing in the space that is around St Mary’s, when you sit there, at eight o’clock in the evening, for argument’s sake, you can count on your hand the noises that you can actually hear from outside. In other words, outside is much quieter than is actually portrayed by the information that HS2 is feeding us. And I really just keep on looking for ways in which I can show to you the reality of the situation. And I’ll have a think about that, and respond, when we have an opportunity to, in relation to AP5. Thank you very much for your time.

41. CHAIR: Okay, thank you for your evidence. Safe journey back. We now call petition 43, Philip and Alison Doggett. Do you want to do a brief introduction, Mr Strachan?

Philip and Alison Doggett

42. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Mr and Mrs Doggett live in Kings Ash, and you can see, on the slide for the regional plan, P010341, which is on the screen, the location of Kings Ash, and I can give you a slightly more detailed slide of where they live, P10342. I think this is an area that the Committee know well, of the corner of Hogtrough Lane, and just beyond that.

43. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How far is it from the line?

44. MR DOGGETT: 700.

45. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 700-800 metres?

46. MR DOGGETT: Yes.

47. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And of course, no land is required from Mr and Mrs Doggett, but the latest position, no doubt, Mr and Mrs Doggett may want to go into more detail on this. But the latest position is that Mr and Mr Doggett have applied, under the Need to Sell scheme, and their need to see application was – has been approved. I think they earlier applied and that was the ESH scheme which wasn’t successful, and indeed, under the Need to Sell earlier. Their application has been

approved and I think we’re very close to completion of that sale, it may even be taking place this month, or at least, I think there’s a forecast completion date.

48. MR DOGGETT: Next week.

49. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s where we are, although I know they may want to look back on the history.

50. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Part of the history we’ll come to that in 158412, don’t turn to it yet, but you might tell us in advance, what you’re trying to achieve this afternoon with us, please?

51. MR DOGGETT: I think we’ve suffered substantial financial losses which are in the 15891 and we’re looking to actually see if we can recoup some of those losses, that’s over a five year period.

52. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That won’t directly come from us, I don’t think, because I’m not sure it’s in the power of the Committee to achieve that.

53. MR DOGGETT: I wasn’t aware of that.

54. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we’re in danger of getting a lot of stuff which may be – we know that the exceptional hardship scheme didn’t meet all the needs, as it were, and that’s one of the reasons why the Secretary of State brought in the Need to Sell scheme which some, including me, would have liked to have called the ‘Wish to sell scheme’, although, for most of it, it was people not as close – not as far from the railway as you are. But you’re included, and you were originally turned down under the Need to Sell application, you were then accepted, there’s then an issue about a price change which we don’t need to know about, if you want to tell us, you can, but we don’t need to know that, and if you’re going ahead with it. I think you fall into the category of those where the issues – you’ve been pained and you may not have felt that you’ve been treated fairly, but you have made the application, you have been accepted, it is going ahead.

55. MRS DOGGETT: Yes, and for that we’re very grateful.

56. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So I think – that, in a sense is good. I think the

question of what you’re then presenting to us today, if it’s historyof the Chilterns, no thank you.

57. MRS DOGGETT: No, none of that, we’ve removed all of that. If you feel that what we’re saying is something that you don’t need to hear, then let us know. With due respect, we were going to make it very short.

58. CHAIR: Alright, great, carry on.

59. MRS DOGGETT: Is that okay? We’re only going to use from slides 6 to 21. And we can just whip through those, if that’s alright. Is that okay?

60. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you for informing us in advance, because it does help us.

61. MRS DOGGETT: Yes, and we are very mindful of the enormous amount of work that you have to do and how long it takes.

62. CHAIR: We pulled the other petitioners in because there were eight witnesses sitting here, and we wanted to get them away.

63. MRS DOGGETT: No, that’s fine, that’s no problem at all.

64. CHAIR: Carry on, please.

65. MRS DOGGETT: Okay, so as has been said, we live at Kings Ash and we moved there in 1999 because we wanted to live in the AONB, I’m an author, I have written a book on the Chilterns, it was very important to me that we lived somewhere beautiful and that’s why we moved there. It’s a rural location, it’s in the heart…

66. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve got that.

67. MRS DOGGETT: So, it’s a very pretty place to live. We had fantastic views, if we can move to the next slide please? And although we are a distance from the line, because of the location of the house in relation to the viaduct, you couldn’t avoid it and so we needed to move. Next slide. That’s the house.

68. CHAIR: Nice picture.

69. MRS DOGGETT: And that’s the outlook, and you could see that we would be looking over a lot of –

70. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you point to where the railway would be? Put your finger on it.

71. MRS DOGGETT: It goes right from the corner, so we would see 500m, slightly more than 500m of the viaduct, so all the way along.

72. MR DOGGETT: Just to give you an idea that at the extreme left there, that’s Jones Hill Wood and obviously, the Durham Farm down in the valley below.

73. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just to amuse us, can we ask if Mr Strachan roughly where he thinks the level is? Mid-hill?

74. MRS DOGGETT: Mid-hill.

75. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m going a bit too high.

76. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It would be visible.

77. MRS DOGGETT: Very visible.

78. MR DOGGETT: In fact, it’s trainspotters’ heaven.

79. MRS DOGGETT: Next slide please.

80. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We got that.

81. MRS DOGGETT: You got that, fine. We can just move on then. And this was just a way of displaying really, the length of time –

82. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We can understand that.

83. MRS DOGGETT: That’s fine.

84. CHAIR: We’ve had lots of people before us who’ve had similar –

85. MRS DOGGETT: Same sort of things. And that was our history, which, you know, I’m sure you’ve also –

86. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And included with this, you said the valuers came from Stoke-on-Trent and Winchester? They weren’t necessarily local people?

87. MR DOGGETT: Yes.

88. MRS DOGGETT: They weren’t. And that’s also interesting but they weren’t bad; I think one of the points that we would make was that we had taken a red book value for our house every year for the five years that we wanted to sell it, and that was extremely useful.

89. MR DOGGETT: Fortunately. I think it was an exceptionally – looking back, it was an exceptionally good thing to do.

90. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well documented.

91. CHAIR: With the internet and Land Registry, there’s no inherent reason why somebody from a different town or different area, shouldn’t come up with a reasonable value, but actually, when you’re in a very sensitive time of your life, you’re selling a house, you have an argument over price, it doesn’t help if somebody comes from Nottingham, or –

92. MRS DOGGETT: The one comment I remember was from the gentleman from Stoke-on-Trent, who just looked, and he’d got a file of different places that he was comparing, and says, ‘Is Kings Ash posh?’

93. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We read that.

94. CHAIR: Is it?

95. MRS DOGGETT: Yes.

96. CHAIR: Put that on the record then.

97. MRS DOGGETT: It is posh.

98. CHAIR: House prices have just gone up.

99. MR DOGGETT: For the avoidance of doubt.

100. MRS DOGGETT: And I think one of the things that we wanted to note was just how much work…

101. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Noted, noted.

102. MR DOGGETT: Noted, fine, move on.

103. MRS DOGGETT: Huge amount of work.

104. MR DOGGETT: Huge amount of work.

105. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We don’t need the refusals particularly.

106. MRS DOGGETT: No, that’s fine.

107. MR DOGGETT: Moving on.

108. CHAIR: We may pull some of this out when we have a look at Need to Sell and a few other things –

109. MRS DOGGETT: Yes, I mean that’s one of the reasons why we put it in, because we were aware that you were looking at the scheme, our MP made us aware of that.

110. MR DOGGETT: I’m not sure we need to say much more on that, though, that’s fine.

111. MRS DOGGETT: No, but I think it’s interesting for you to have people who’ve both failed and succeeded. And I don’t think you need to go there, because that’s the questions that were being asked.

112. CHAIR: We also have the Members of Parliament feeding information. I presume you’ve been in touch –

113. MRS DOGGETT: Yes, we’ve fed some to ours.

114. MR DOGGETT: Next slide please.

115. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is interesting but, you don’t need to go through it with us.

116. MR DOGGETT: That’s fine.

117. MRS DOGGETT: No.

118. CHAIR: Is your MP going to come up?

119. MRS DOGGETT: Cheryl Gillan.

120. CHAIR: Yeah, it’s Cheryl, okay.

121. MRS DOGGETT: And you don’t need to worry too much about that. That was the response from Simon Kirby for her intervention, and that was the detailed response which you also don’t need.

122. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which dealt with the first application or the second application in effect?

123. MR DOGGETT: The first application of the Need to Sell. I think we’ve covered a lot of this.

124. MRS DOGGETT: We’ve covered that, I don’t think there’s anything in there that we’ve not covered.

125. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: At the risk of probing too much, roughly how much was the reduction?

126. MRS DOGGETT: What, the final reduction? That was 10,000.

127. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it’s significant, but not enormous.

128. MR DOGGETT: Yes, but what was interesting, was that the two valuations were quite, quite different. The levels of them – the Stoke-on-Trent man was a lot lower than the Winchester man who’s a southern England kind of guy.

129. MRS DOGGETT: But the two together came very close to our red book valuation, so we accepted that.

130. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think that’s mature.

131. MRS DOGGETT: I mean, we knew what the valuation was.

132. MR DOGGETT: The issue as well, is that the final reduction was based on the survey and that was eight weeks old by the time we got a copy of that and it should have been done at the front-end.

133. MRS DOGGETT: It was a surprise I think, really.

134. MR DOGGETT: It was a surprise.

135. MRS DOGGETT: It was a surprise to come so late. More than anything, because you’ve already made plans with that bit of money that you think you’re getting.

136. CHAIR: You had to work very hard to earn similar sort of sums after tax, don’t you?

137. MR DOGGETT: Yes.

138. MRS DOGGETT: Especially when you’re retired. And you don’t really need to go into that but I mean, we did suffer considerable hardship, we had to sell things, there’s lots of things we couldn’t do and couldn’t have over five years. Of the sort of baby boomers best bit of your retirement, before we completely fall apart, so –

139. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Although many watch things on television and wonder why each of you are retired.

140. MR DOGGETT: Well, not quite is the answer.

141. MRS DOGGETT: He’s had to go back.

142. MR DOGGETT: I’ve had to go back, unfortunately. This is just a summary of some of the things we’ve lost really, a pictorial summary. And there’s a couple of saxophones in there which is true. And there was a lot of effort put in by HS2 Ltd, into details of how much these are worth and what the transactions were and so on, so that’s the kind of level of detail that’s gone into – the wood and that’s a Watchman on the right hand side, it’s an oil gauge. HS2 Ltd, don’t actually pay for wood or oil, for stock that’s left. Which is a little unusual because most…

143. MRS DOGGETT: It’s really upsetting.

144. MR DOGGETT: It’s really upset me, because it’s a few hundred pounds, in the

scheme of things, it’s not important, but it’s upset me, and I guess the other thing is the Sydney Harbour bridge, and the retirements, and effectively, our savings are very ,very substantially eroded by our inability to sell in the free market. And all the numbers are in that private dossier. So, that’s where we’ve come from.

145. CHAIR: So what else don’t they pay for? We’re talking wood, we’re talking fuel.

146. MRS DOGGETT: Well, any other purchaser would pay for those things. If you sold your house on the open market, they’d pay for the remaining wood that you leave, and the oil, and the fuel and anything else, because it’s expensive. You know, you’ve got a huge oil tank –

147. MR DOGGETT: About £600. But it’s a non-negotiable point.

148. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: About the cost of about 20 minutes of this Committee.

149. MR DOGGETT: Well, even five.

150. MRS DOGGETT: But we’re not paying for you.

151. MR DOGGETT: Well, hopefully we have saved some of the Committee’s time this afternoon.

152. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You have, you’ve been very –

153. MR DOGGETT: I think that really takes us to the end of our presentation.

154. MRS DOGGETT: Yes, I mean that’s all we really wanted to say.

155. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we wish you well.

156. MRS DOGGETT: It’s very nice of you to hear us.

157. MR DOGGETT: We really appreciate it.

158. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s much better than you have come to an acceptance with HS2 rather than still being at loggerheads.

159. MR DOGGETT: And we’re very happy about that, we are very happy about that.

All we wanted to express was the challenge and maybe if it was made a little bit easier, it would be helpful for a lot more people.

160. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we did enjoy the parish maps as well.

161. MRS DOGGETT: Excellent. I think one last final point is that all the people who came to the house were extremely professional and excellent, and our case officer was extremely helpful, from HS2, and we did appreciate the fact that if you wanted to phone anybody in HS2, all the phone numbers were on emails, you phone them up, they’re very charming and very helpful. And, you know, that is something I would like to say because they get mocked in every way, but actually, if you phone them up, you will get somebody to speak to who’s very helpful.

162. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I say on behalf of the promoter, we’re very grateful for that acknowledgment, for a lot of people who work very hard behind me.

163. CHAIR: We are – those comments have come from other people who’ve said that although sometimes they don’t get the right decision, or they ask for more information, people are actually very courteous.

164. MRS DOGGETT: they are very courteous and very helpful.

165. MR DOGGETT: Yes, our case officer was particularly helpful. He helped us in terms of our reapplication and what we needed to present and so on, and that was very valuable for us.

166. CHAIR: We are aware of the stress and all the other factors, and can another look at the compensation scheme. Thank you for your evidence, I think there’s a few bits, that you’ve reinforced what other people have said and a few bits we may well use when we report to the Government on compensation.

167. MRS DOGGETT: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity, thank you.

168. MR DOGGETT: Thank you very much.

169. CHAIR: Thank you. Right, we now move to 595, Patrick Fell and Julia Fish. In person. Is there a Patrick Fell and Julia Fish here? Which one is Julia?

Patrick Fell and Tony Fish

170. MR FELL: I am Paddy Fell and this is Mr Tony Fish.

171. CHAIR: Right, do you want to do a brief introduction, Mr Strachan?

172. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sir, I’ve just shown – got the plan up, we’re in Ellesborough Road, both Mr Fell and Mr Fish live on Ellesborough Road, which, as you’ll recall, is just to the south west of Wendover, in the vicinity of the Bacombe Lane, which we looked at previously. And I don’t know if you need to see – if I show you 10468 of the construction. The petitioners’ property is where the road marks are, and obviously, to the north-east of them, the green tunnel is being constructed for Wendover. The live on Ellesborough Road. These properties also have accesses to the rear of their properties and we have shown, I think, in a number of slides, how we will retain access to the properties, both to the front and rear of the properties during the construction phase.

173. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How far are the properties from the line?

174. MR FELL: From the centre of the alignment.

175. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The line itself, of course, will be in the tunnel in this location, so –

176. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Bored tunnel?

177. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s green tunnel. 10469.

178. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it’s a construction issue more than an operational issue?

179. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Exactly.

180. CHAIR: Right. Who’s going to kick off?

181. MR FELL: Could we have slide number two please?

182. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You wouldn’t like to just to look at 160412? Please. These are the issues you’re going to build up to?

183. MR FELL: I don’t know, what’s on 160412?

184. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s on the screen.

185. MR FELL: Oh, I beg your pardon.

186. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s the impact during the construction.

187. MR FELL: That is what we’re here to discuss.

188. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You may need to move during construction, is that what the second paragraph’s about? A move is forced upon the petitioners by the information –

189. MR FELL: We feel that the construction is going to have such adverse effects.

190. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You can’t easily live there whilst it’s going on?

191. MR FELL: Correct, yes.

192. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And because it’s not your choice, the promoter should cover the costs of that if it happens?

193. MR FELL: Yes.

194. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that the full costs of moving – is this last point, if you choose to go to the Need to Sell and don’t come back, or is that if you move out and move back in again?

195. MR FELL: If we go to Need to Sell, we don’t get the cost of the moving paid.

196. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That last one is about a Need to Sell thing rather than a temporary move out?

197. MR FISH: Yes.

198. MR FELL: Yes, indeed.

199. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do go back to the beginning, but I just – just to keep it in mind, it’s very helpful to us.

200. MR FELL: That’s fine. Right, okay. So, firstly, good afternoon and thank you for your time. You met Mr Fish earlier in his capacity as Chairman of the Governors of the local junior school, so he’s been here before. He and his wife have lived there for 13 years, they have two sons of 10 and eight. My wife and I have lived at this address for 19 years, we have twin daughters of 15.

201. In 2007, my wife and I extended our property as far as was permitted under the rules in the area of outstanding national beauty. Mr and Mrs Fish were planning to do so when HS2 was announced, and since then, of course, that plan has been on hold.

202. As well as it being our homes, all four of the adults do work from those addresses, for at least part of their working week. Okay, if we can go onto the next slide, please. Lovely. You can see again the location, the other highlighted place is the spot when on both your visits you stopped to ensure you had a distant prospect of Aylesbury.

203. I imagine you are fairly familiar by now with Wendover, so Ellesborough Road is the road that goes to the south west from the centre of the town.

204. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are there just the two properties together or are there more…?

205. MR FELL: They are side by side.

206. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There aren’t any others very close?

207. MR FELL: As we said earlier, they are 1920 metres from the centre of the alignment and I think, unless you have any problems with the location, we can move on. To the next slide, please. The original petition had three asks; I’m not going to say anything about a fully bored tunnel, except three short sentences. We also wish to record that we want it, it’s the best solution for Wendover and it’s the only one that takes the AONB seriously. And secondly, had there been one, then our second and third wouldn’t have arisen.

208. End of tunnel. Our second ask was about access to the rear of the properties, which has already been alluded to. It was not in fact, until we received their exhibits that fully convinced that they were actually going to provide this, so the only question in mind over that is to as to whether those exhibits are now built into statute, as it were.

The third ask is what we’re really here to discuss today, and that is about compensation. Sir Peter has already drawn that out, we can move on. Can we move onto the next slide please?

209. Right, so the brown area is obviously the main…

210. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So there are side houses?

211. MR FELL: There are indeed, yes, and there is a separate slide on those. The main brown area is of course the main area of the line. Which will be in construction for a period of up to three years. The diversion of Ellesborough Road, itself, will take a period of approximately a year and nine months, or two years. At the start of that period, the road will be built, at the end of our gardens, and at the end of it, it will be taken away. And for the rest of the period, the middle of that period, the road will be, as I say, at the end of our gardens, with attendant noise, fumes, etc.

212. The diversion of Bacombe Lane, that road will be diverted for about a year and again, it has to be built in the first place, and at the end, it has to be taken away and the land restored to its original condition. The new diversion starts pretty much opposite no 48, which is my address. The construction site for the Wendover – I think it’s called the south construction site is actually on the other side of Bacombe lane but it will be in active use for two years and nine months.

213. The area immediately to the west – well north west of our properties, is a temporary stock pile, which I take to be a euphemism for a spoil dump. With attendant activities of dumping and then removing. Just beyond the edge, there will be the north compound for building the Wendover green tunnel. The pink area shows the total area that the Bill limits and does not necessarily mean that there will be destructive work for the whole period of construction, but, having said that, it is land that it is open to HS2 to use, for any construction purpose, and perhaps we should bear in mind that detailed construction plans are by no means complete, and that additional provisions have already increased land take in some places. Could we move on please?

214. This is to answer Sir Peter’s question. Which is to say, why you may not have received petitions from other properties in this area.

215. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, you’re in the sandwich? The six, rather than five?

216. MR FELL: There’s five properties in this patch.

217. MR FISH: Six.

218. MR FELL: No, six.

219. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s changed from the previous picture.

220. MR FELL: Only lived there 19 years, yes. The property on the right has already been bought by DfT and is, in fact, partly, at least, in the safeguarded area. The property next to that is currently unoccupied following the sad deaths of the owners recently.

221. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So executors could sell?

222. MR FELL: I presume – we don’t know, to be honest.

223. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Executors can sell to the HS2.

224. CHAIR: If they Need to Sell.

225. MR FELL: If they – oh, yes, yes.

226. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I know we’re talking about Need to Sell, if I just mention, it’s rural support zone; these properties are within the rural support zone where there is the option of a cash offer of 10% of the unblighted market value up to £100,000, or voluntary purchase scheme so they can require the properties to be bought, so it’s…

227. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But without the extra costs which would be covered if it was blight?

228. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Without the extra costs, but there is no requirement to show a Need to Sell, under the Need to Sell scheme.

229. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that applies to – does that apply to both 46 and 48, or does 46 come in and 48 not?

230. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): They are both within it.

231. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They’re both with?

232. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

233. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s a relief.

234. MR FELL: The two beyond our properties are both already purchased by the DfT. In both cases, they actually had reasons to sell; one was an older couple for whom the advent of HS2 crystallised the decision, and the other were a family who went to live in Africa, so in contrast to those people, neither Mr and Mrs Fish, nor myself and my wife, want to move. If we move onto the next slide please.

235. The top left-hand view…

236. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, yes. We understand that without you having to explain it.

237. MR FELL: Okay. Can I add one thing about the lower picture, which is that the visualisation does not show the temporary road, I think partly, I don’t know whether it’s deliberate, it may well not have been in view.

238. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We understand you’ll have the best possible view of a lot of work.

239. MR FELL: And a road at the end of our garden. Okay, at this point, I’d like to hand over to Mr Fish to take us forward.

240. MR FISH: So, if we move onto the Environmental Statement, you’ll see the three first bullet points there are all points that were mentioned in the Environmental Statement in terms of the impact on our properties. You will know those. There’s additional quotes in the Environmental Statement, section 5.4.12 in particular; talks about the major adverse effect on our properties, our homes, I think we will call them, rather than properties.

241. What was quite shocking for us was on the fourth bullet point, the diversion of the road around the back of our house into open fields, completely adjacent to our boundaries, was seen as a minor impact, compared to what we will be facing during the construction period, which really cemented our views that this is going to be quite

unbearable for us. Move onto the next slide, please.

242. And the Select Committee has acknowledged this, so in your own interim report on 23 March, I will paraphrase here, but, ‘Property owners will face situations so adverse that their degree of choice will be minimal. Examples, we believe, include those whose properties will be particularly close to, or surrounded by long-term construction activity’. And as we’ve obviously rushed through here, but we are effectively an island surrounded by construction for a period of up to three years. Move onto next slide please?

243. So if we just turn to the compensation that’s on offer to us, we are in that yellow band with the two arrows, that’s our two properties. What I think is absolutely clear when you look at this is those are just lines drawn on the map, without real understanding of the impact on our lives to live through the construction period. We are surrounded by construction, wind, noise and additional lighting impacts have been acknowledged by HS2, that we will suffer being completely on the boundary of the construction zone. We have young children who will be studying for exams throughout this whole construction period and we would like to run a normal family life as best we can during this period, but we feel that is going to be impossible for us. And our choice about whether we want to live there or not has been taken away from us.

244. So, if I just turn to the next slide and the summary of compensation available to us, as has been referred to, we are in the rural support zone; that means that we believe we would have any application for our house to be bought, to be bought at fair market value, or we could take the lump sum compensation, 10%, capped at £100,000.

245. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well take the one then the other. If you do it.

246. MR FISH: One or the other.

247. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, you could take the one, and then you could take the other, netting off the cost of the compensation payment, if you do it before a year after the scheme’s finished.

248. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, if you take the cash offer, you can then decide to apply, under the Need to Sell scheme, and if you sell under the Need to Sell scheme,

then you net off the cash offer, so you don’t… Forgive me; anything I say may be wrong, anything he says is more likely to be right, we agree. If you take what is literally compensation, assuming you’re going to go on living there, and if you then decide to apply under Need to Sell and it’s accepted, under this, I guess it would be, you could expert it would be, I think is a better way of putting it, they will then give you the market price, but take off the compensation you would have had, staying on there during the works.

249. MR FELL: And we have to pay the costs of moving.

250. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That applies to everything except for compulsory blight. You have to pay the costs of moving under voluntary blight, and you have to pay the costs of moving under Need to Sell as well.

251. MR FELL: Yes.

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think I’m right in saying? Just to save time.

253. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, that’s right.

254. MR FISH: And so, just building really on your interim report, the letter to MPs that was recently issued by the chairman in October where you mention cases of particularly adverse effect, ‘e.g. special proximity to construction works are deserving of special compensation’, and really, that’s the reason that we are here today, we feel that we are being forced out of our homes, we do want to live here, but we can’t continue to do so. Any mitigation that is put in place, isn’t going to make that bearable for us, it’s only going to just dent the surface of it. The others that have moved have moved for a reason, they’ve moved abroad, they’re elderly people, they’ve gone into a home. We don’t have that reason.

255. As the offer stands to us, and this is where I may move onto the final slide, I think, we will have to bear the costs of that, that is financially unaffordable, certainly for us, I’ll allow Mr Fell to speak for himself, and therefore we are seeking that as that decision has been taken away for us, that we are considered as a special case and are seeking to be treated as if we are compulsory purchased, or the same terms of compulsory purchase.

256. CHAIR: Okay.

257. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m not sure our remarks went quite as far as that necessarily, but it’s a point we need to consider.

258. CHAIR: Mr Strachan, do you have any comments to make?

259. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Can I just show you the P10468? And we can just zoom in on the properties. As the petitioners have identified, yes, of course, the green tunnel is being constructed in this location and you can see that the area of brown – I’m just showing with the arrow here, is the temporary stock pile area. That is where materials taken for the construction of the green tunnel are stored before of course, materials are placed back onto the green tunnel once constructed.

260. One of the things that you’ve heard about in relation to construction activity, yes of course, I accept that there’s going to be an impact on these properties, we have already identified that in the Environmental Statement, but there is the opportunity, as one would expect, in this location, for that stripping of materials, when it’s placed along the edge of these worksites in itself, to provide some screening as well as bunding, away from the principle continued construction activity, which is along the line of the trace, a bit further to the north.

261. In addition, we have put forward a scheme which enables access to be maintained, to the properties, during construction, both to the rear and the front, which I know is of concern. I’ll just show you that, P10470(3). And you can see the red was the existing access from Ellesborough Road to the back of these properties, running down the back of these properties, as well as the Ellesborough Road, and we maintain that throughout the construction. And if I show you 104704, you can see, whilst the temporary link between Ellesborough Road and Bacombe Lane’s being constructed, there’s no change and then slide 5, this is about 12 months in, and then six, and then finally – I can skip eight, about 24 months in, the same temporary access is still maintained whilst we created the temporary offline diversion of Ellesborough Road in use.

262. Now, sir, I readily accept that there are going to be construction impacts on the property which have been identified in the Environmental Statement, but with the benefit of the Code of Construction practice and the measures to screen the principle

construction effects, plus the continuation of access to the properties, and the overall timescale, which is, as indicated, I think two years, seven months, but let’s say, up to three years, that’s the reason why these properties, the ones which, whilst having an impact, they can continue to be used.

263. I do hasten to add, of course, that the petitioners are given a choice, because they’re in the rural support zone, that they have that choice either to stay and take the cash offer, and if they chose to move after that, to then to apply to the Need to Sell, or of course, require us to purchase the properties now, if they don’t want to stay there, pending the construction. I should say, they can exercise that choice during the construction process, so they could actually see how bad they think it is, if it’s not going to live up to their fears, bearing in mind the measures I’ve indicated to minimise the effects.

264. Once the construction is completed of course, the green tunnel is in place, so there are no operational effects on these properties in this location, because the green tunnel will be reinstated. So there is that opportunity for them to exercise that choice. It’s for that reason that we have identified that, as a rural support zone, the general discretionary policy applies, as it has applied to others who fall within the rural support zone, we don’t, under that discretion policy, pay for all of the costs that are associated, where land is actually being taken from someone under compulsory purchase, where statutory blight procedures apply, and that’s the difference in this location.

265. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Brief final comments gentlemen?

266. MR FISH: There was just one point I wanted to mention which I think I missed, which was from the PRD, or the petition response, which was around the noise impact, and I forgot to mention it. But in details that were provided to us, that have been referred to today, in P10472, in the key at the top, it talks of daytime noise above 65dB, being significant effect on dwellings, and also talks – that’s in panel A, in panel B, it talks about major adverse effect, if it’s above 10dB.

267. So, if we bear that in mind and then look at Exhibit P10474, you’ll see the two reference points, it’s actually the lower of the two, 359570, which is an adjacent property to us, shows that the noise levels that we’ll be experiencing during the construction period are moving up from 57dB to 72 average, with highest at 81. So

we’re regularly expecting there to be 15dB more noise per day. And potentially, 25dB. I realise you’ve heard a lot about noise already today, but in HS2’s own words, that talks about major significant adverse impact, that’s what we will have typically for two and a half, or three years.

268. CHAIR: Okay.

269. MR FISH: We are not convinced that distributing a bit of spoil is really going to solve that as a problem for us and make it bearable.

270. MR FELL: The noise will go over the top of the bund.

271. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s just important to distinguish between operational noise, which is dealt with in information paper E20, which is dealing with the significant observed adverse effects levels, which is what you were referring to earlier, and construction noise, which is dealt with in information paper E23, where the construction noise, depending on the time it occurs, range with a significant observed adverse effect levels is between 70-75; it’s 75 during the main parts of the day, 70 in the shoulder, seven to eight a.m., so that’s why this is at or below the significant observed adverse effect level for construction noise in the assessments that’s just been referred to.

272. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much gentlemen, for taking your time and –

273. MR FELL: Thank you.

274. CHAIR: We now move onto the next petitioner, 46, Sheila Rankin. Hello.

Dr Sheila Rankin

275. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We’re in the same location but Mrs Rankin’s property is land which is required for the scheme, it’s further along Ellesborough Road and you can see that at P10335 and I’ll just give you a slightly better close up of that.

276. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 10336 shows it quite well.

277. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. It’s pretty much on the line of the route. Before the green tunnel construction. And I think we have written to Mrs Rankin, identifying that she is subject to the statutory blight procedures, in a letter, not

recently, some time ago.

278. DR RANKIN: We did, yes.

279. CHAIR: Carry on.

280. DR RANKIN: Okay, so slide – thank you. I’m just going a little bit into the background of why I moved into Wendover.

281. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The Chairman normally asks if you’re a medical doctor or a –

282. DR RANKIN: I’m a medical doctor.

283. CHAIR: I’m a bit slow today. I get worn down slowly.

284. DR RANKIN: It’s a long day and there’s a long way to go yet.

285. CHAIR: Okay. Always lucky to have a medical doctor.

286. DR RANKIN: Yes, I’m not that kind of doctor. I’m a consultant radiologist at Guy’s and Thomas’s and have been for 30 years. And when I came to think about retirement, I wanted to move somewhere in the country, that had easy access to London, but would provide me with a house with a huge garden, because that’s what I like doing, and allow me to go walking in hillsides, not on flat domestic, suburban parks, but somewhere proper. So, after quite a long time, next slide, I found Wendover, next slide, and as you’ve already seen, this is my house, which is very conveniently situated, so it’s about a three minute brisk walk to the station, which has the trains to Marylebone. It’s a four minute walk down to the village with the post office and the pub and the shops. And it’s a three minute walk up the hill to the bottom of the Ridgeway’s Track. It goes up the monument and on to the Ridgeway. And next slide.

287. MR BELLINGHAM: Did we stop outside your house when we were there? We drove up Ellesborough Road.

288. DR RANKIN: Yes, you did.

289. MR BELLINGHAM: Didn’t we? And we then got into the countryside and we stopped on the concrete pad and looked down at the ridge.

290. DR RANKIN: Just the top. You stopped just at the top of hill. The entry on to the ridgeway.

291. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes, I do remember.

292. DR RANKIN: This is my house. The garden as you can see is still a work in progress. And next slide. So, I’ve been there five years. I bought it and three weeks after I bought it, HS2 was announced. I haven’t quite forgiven ABDC for not telling me about it. I gathered that was government instructions. And my house, as you can see from that laser image is in the line of the train, but, because it’s not a bored tunnel, but it is a green tunnel, my house gets demolished so they can cut down on to the line rather than bore through it. The field behind me, with those little people walking across the middle of it, that’s where the green tunnel continues. And the little people are approximately where the green tunnel comes out. Next slide. I’m very angry about the whole thing, particularly the destruction of the AONB.

293. Anybody who looks at our increasingly obese population is clearly aware that we need to encourage people to exercise rather than put them off. And walking is hills is good. Walking in beautiful countryside is good. And we need all the help we can get in that respect. But, over the last five years, I’ve actually come rather sad for the people of Wendover. My house will be compulsorily purchased by HS2. I will leave. And I’ll be not left in Wendover, whilst construction goes on for three to four to five years intermittently with the associated noise, which you’ve heard about; the light pollution from the construction site; the atmospheric pollution because when they cut through the chalk there will be a huge amount of chalk dust in the atmosphere, which will very detrimental for the people with chronic lung disease; the traffic disruption you’ve already heard about, the 413 is a pain in the neck now, it’s going to be an even bigger pain in the neck when you’ve got 350 trucks going down it during the day. And probably more concerning is what will happen when they cut the green tunnel through the chalk aquafers along the bank of the Chilterns.

294. Now, I’m not a hydrologist. And I have no idea who’s right. But the two sides, HS2 on one side, the opposition on the other, have come out with totally different scenarios of what is going to happen to the water and what will be required to keep the trap dry. Now, if HS2 is wrong, and the opposition is correct, they will have to install

pumps that will run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to pump out the track. And this is all the time, not just in construction, but, also in the running of the train. They will need holding tanks for the water that they pump out. And they will need additional piping to move the water down to other water sites like Hunt’s Pond or Wendover Canal or whatever. I don’t know who’s right. But it’s going to be a very expensive mistake if HS2 is wrong. Next slide.

295. And the same really holds true after construction. They will lose forever areas of special scientific interest, the AONB, which cannot be replaced or moved somewhere else. The noise is again the statements from two sides are very different and the sound barriers suggested are incredibly visually intrusive, thus destroying even more of the AONB and there’s the hydrological impact. Next slide. So, as far as I can see the best mitigation, apart from changing the route of the train which clearly isn’t going to be one of these options, if for a fully bored long tunnel through the AONB which will get rid of, okay the construction problems will still be there, but, the final problem, the waterways will be saved; there’ll be no impact on Wendover Canal, Grand Union Canal or Weston Turville Reservoir. There will be no noise and the AONB will protect it and that’s what I want to do.

296. CHAIR: Okay.

297. DR RANKIN: Thank you.

298. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Any response to that Mr Strachan?

299. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I think you’ve heard from us about hydrology in some detail and I’m not sure it helps going into that again. I just looked up the letter. It was 10 December 2014 that we wrote to Dr Rankin to confirm of course her eligibility under the Express Purchase Scheme. And that of course entitles on to full market value of the property plus payment up to the value of £53,000 and of course the reasonable expenses of having your land compulsorily taken for the railway. So, I just wanted to, I think I’ve got the write letter.

300. DR RANKIN: You did send a letter. It’s sad because I didn’t want to sell the house.

301. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask a question which isn’t her question, but is for my interest? If a person in the position of the owner of that property wanted to say I wanted to rebuild a home on that land after the green tunnel has been built, what are the possible ways of achieving that? It might be interesting if somebody could actually just say where that to be proposed, I just wanted to ask.

302. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll find out because I don’t want to go wrongfully. I believe if I’m right in thinking that the depth of the tunnel underneath is some two metres.

303. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, it may not be an appropriate place to have a house.

304. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So, it may be precluded in that distance, in this particular location.

305. DR RANKIN: It’s going to be humped up. There’s not going to be any flat.

306. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Right. Okay. If it’s not a realistic question, it’s unimportant. Don’t answer.

307. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I will check and if I’m wrong about the two metres then I will respond in more detail to Dr Rankin directly. But, I think I’m right.

308. DR RANKIN: No. As far as I know, the contour is humped somewhat.

309. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The other issue is the potential to maintain access to the top of the tunnel in future. So, it would be probably unlikely that could be possible.

310. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you. Forgive me for disturbing the process of the Committee again.

311. CHAIR: Any final comments Dr Rankin? Do you have anything else to say?

312. DR RANKIN: No.

313. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.

314. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you.

Tony Mogford

315. CHAIR: Right. We’re now 599, which is Mr Tony Mogford. Are you all the same family or?

316. MR TONY MOGFORD: My son and somebody who has just helped me get here today.

317. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We have to warn you that he may be left off the television pictures.

318. MR TONY MOGFORD: Thank you.

319. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s it. That’s perfect.

320. CHAIR: Mr Strachan, would you just like to give a brief introduction, and then we’ll go through?

321. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. I’m just showing P10258. We’re in the same vicinity. And the petitioners own various parcels of land. They live, I think, if I get this wrong they’ll tell me, but, within Wendover, in the farm itself, which I’m just pointing to with the arrow, which actually fronts on to the High Street. There’s a large parcel of land behind. And in addition, they of course own the parcels of land where we’re proposing to construct the green tunnel, which I’m just showing here. And of course where the tunnel portal comes out in the other section.

322. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that includes the cricket pitch does it?

323. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): They don’t own the cricket pitch, I don’t believe. But, that’s, the cricket pitch is just to, if I move the cursor to the right. So, I’m in that corner area there. So, it’s not part of their holding, I do believe.

324. MR EDWARD MOGFORD: We do farm the land proposed for the cut and cover.

325. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If you look in the grey area? I think that’s showing land which was included in limits of the amendments. That is the proposed location of the cricket pitch which we’ve heard about.

326. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which we discussed earlier on.

327. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Which I don’t think the petitioners own, but they farm under some agreement.

328. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, it’s affected.

329. MR TONY MOGFORD: Of course.

330. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): They farm with the agreement of the owner.

331. CHAIR: Okay.

332. MR TONY MOGFORD: Good afternoon gentleman. I’m here to ask the Select Committee to instruct HS2 Ltd to provide a tunnel under Wendover to protect the community, the historic buildings, particularly of Pound Street and the farm that I’ve farmed for some 63 years. Slide 2, please. It’s just an indication of how close I am to the centre of Wendover and I will be referring to it later on where they stand at the moment, about 100 yards from the farm.

333. MR BELLINGHAM: How long ago was that taken?

334. MR TONY MOGFORD: About four years ago. But, we do it annually, but this is the best one I could find for you.

335. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: One of those sheep’s is a right wing rebel.

336. MR TONY MOGFORD: I think if you look a lot more closely, sir, there’s more than one. My second request to you is to ask for fair compensation for the reduction of the viability of my farm for many years to come because of the land take required by HS2.

337. My case is in three parts, dealing with the protection of the village of Wendover; the historic buildings belonging to the Abel-Smith Trust and to Bank Farm. I’ve lived in Bank Farm, in the centre of the village, for some 63 years. And during these years I have been privileged to have been able to devote a considerable part of my life to the community of Wendover. Wendover is a thriving community of some 9,000 people with excellent facilities, top performing schools containing well over 2000 children and

this is over and above the special school which you’ve already heard about. There’s some 80 vibrant organisations run by wonderful people who give up their time and energies to make Wendover such a desirable place to live. The whole community will be extremely affected during the construction of the viaducts, the green tunnel and the temporary access roads to HS2. Construction traffic will cause noise, vibration delays on already heavily congested roads, disrupting normal daily period for some seven to 10 years. The visual intrusion and blight will be permanent. And now we hear that a six metre high noise barrier are proposed for the southern end of our village in an attempt to protect St Mary’s Church and Wendover House Special School. These monstrous constructions will spoil the beautiful AONB without any guarantee that they will be effective in mitigating the damage and noise of some 36 trains every hour, one every 100 seconds. The solution, sir, is to construct a bored tunnel under Wendover, either a long bored tunnel through the Chilterns or a Wendover tunnel. This would do away with the need to build a viaduct and the ghastly six metre high concrete sound barriers.

338. Among the many other things, the tunnel will save six houses already bought by the HS2 that could be sold back to recover the capital costs. It would save a house and grazing from demolition, save the need to relocate the Wendover Cricket Club. Insider information quotes a cost of £2 to £2.5 million. This is only one of the 80 vibrant organisations I’ve referred to earlier. They put out some three adult teams, seven youth teams, and actually have 150 youngsters in their club regularly playing and learning to play cricket. Not the least, these young people will be denied of this for a number of years during the construction of a new ground.

339. Give us a tunnel, there’ll be no need to remove five pylons particular in my field saving millions of pounds. Avoid what I believe a hydrology risk to the Grand Union Canal of the Wendover Arm to the Weston Turville SSI, the risk being shown to be obvious, but, the enormous cost and scale of mitigation has not been properly acknowledge or researched by HS2. We know that water works in wondrous ways underground. A few years ago, the water in the spring at the church pond by St Mary’s dried up. We put it down to the increasing depth of the extraction at Wendover Dean, the pumping station at Wendover Dean. A few years later it started up again. The solution of HS2 Ltd propose is inadequate and thus will have no accurate indication of the costs of resolving this serious problem. A tunnel deeper will avoid tussling with

nature underground.

340. The tunnel certainly will relieve a considerable are of much construction, upheaval, noise and dust and vibration. And most importantly it will save this part of the Chilterns AONB for generations to come.

341. Have we had number two? You’ve seen this before. My second concern is the 17 cottages in Pound Street belonging to the Lionel Abel-Smith Trust. A wonderful asset to the village and very dear to my heart. I have been involved in the Trust since its inception in 1977. It is of immense value to the village, having distributed some £1. 5 million in grants to help individuals in need, organisations from the youth club, run by volunteers, to the Village Hall, equipment for children with disabilities and facilities, such as wet runs for disabled adults. Could I have number four? This indicates where the particular properties are close to the HS2 line. These 13 properties are potentially at risk from the construction of HS2. My concern is that there should be an independent survey of these fragile cottages, to protect the integrity of the buildings. You will hear more about those tomorrow from the Trustees of the Lionel Abel-Smith Trust. I’d have to say unless there’s some secret alternative, we can see no way that the traffic can get from the A413 on to the Ellesborough Road without going into the village and over the bridge to get to Ellesborough Road. But there may be an alternative that we in the public have yet not been told about.

342. May I now please move to Bank Farm? Perhaps you’ll excuse me showing this 20 second short video.

343. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s London Bridge.

344. MR TONY MOGFORD: There was more than one drifted out of line, sir. That point where the video finishes is literally 100 yards from the entrance of my farm. Right. I now move to Bank Farm in the video. I came to Bank Farm in 1952. It is now the only remaining farm in the Central Wendover. The farm is barely 100 yards from the High Street and as you’ll see my sheep going down the High Street. My wife and I depend on the viability of the farm, as does my son, wife and his three young children. HS2 describes the farm’s sensitivity to change as ‘medium’. I would argue most strongly, and will demonstrate to you, it is far more severe and devastating to the viability of the farm, the future and my family. Can we have another? The farm I think

you can see is where I’m pointing.

345. MR BELLINGHAM: The main farm buildings, Mr Mogford, are at Bank Farm, so, as well as moving stock very occasionally, you’re presumably moving tractors for field operations from there through Wendover to the different parts of the farm? So, presumably, the tractors and other equipment are on the go quite regularly?

346. MR TONY MOGFORD: Unless we’re moving a lot, moving small sheeps we move them obviously with vehicles, it’s when we want to bring the big lot in to sheer in January for lambing.

347. MR EDWARD MOGFORD: And considerable machinery which is used.

348. MR TONY MOGFORD: All the corn machinery has to come from the productive corn fields around the village.

349. MR BELLINGHAM: And was there originally the farm? Presumably, the farm was all joined up before the expansion of Wendover, was it, going back?

350. MR TONY MOGFORD: When I came to Wendover, as I said there, there were five farms virtually in the middle of Wendover, belonged to Wendover Estate. But, they were all very small farms. As time went on obviously they didn’t survive the estates.

351. MR BELLINGHAM: And most of the development to the north of Bank Farm and the development to, well, basically, to the east of the left hand holding, but, these houses were built when? We didn’t actually go there on our visit. We went down the High Street and then we went down in a different direction. We didn’t look at the residential areas. But, when were those houses built?

352. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The cottages?

353. MR BELLINGHAM: I’m talking about the big development to the east of Bank Farm.

354. MR TONY MOGFORD: Oh, right up the top?

355. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes. Yes.

356. MR TONY MOGFORD: The top end was actually Royal Air Force married quarters and they’re part of our 9,000 people. I haven’t obviously included in that the troops that are trained at Royal Air Force Halton. The village has grown in that direction since have been originally as a tenant on the farm.

357. CHAIR: Okay. Carry on.

358. MR TONY MOGFORD: My farming is based on successfully growing top billing quality wheat supplied to farm mills some four miles away. It is critical to have our own machinery to ensure that we meet the necessary time scale in producing top quality wheat. The farmers amongst you and I believe there are some, or with farming interests, will know that the economics of funding one’s own machinery is a borderline with 141 hectares. The next one, please. The 34 hectares is this big field which in the middle of it, down the bottom there, is where the portal is going to come out. Anyway. Under the current proposal that HS2 intend to take 34 hectares plus I lose five acres from elsewhere to replace the cricket ground, the ground for the cricket club. Can I have the next slide, please? In actual fact that does show, you originally referred to, the cricket ground at bottom of Ellesborough Road. And this is still the same field that you looked at a moment or two ago. Number 8, please. This is the field that HS2 want to move the cricket ground into. Anyway, this means that our own machinery becomes uneconomic. We would have to hire machinery or contractors, significantly increasing the costs of production and removing the chance of making a living from the farm.

359. In addition, there is little or no margin. We keep sheep. This enables us to fully employ skilled staff that we are able to cultivate and harvest our usually profitable milling wheat. If I lose 30% of my arable land as is proposed under the current HS2 intentions, I have no alternative but to make at least 50% of my staff redundant. This will be devastating to my family and to the excellent young couple that work with us. But, it doesn’t just stop there. I’ve already lost 24 hectares of rented land from grazing at Hyde Heath Farm which has been bought by HS2 although it’s no longer needed due to the new proposals for an extended tunnel. In addition, my landlord of the grazing land on the old Nash Lee Road now tells me that HS2 are going to take that as well. Experience from other major construction projects such as motorways indicate that land taken for this purpose takes many years to return to a condition suitable for arable farming. And may never return to that in full production. Should any land be returned

by HS2 after construction it must be economically workable in agricultural terms. I believe that saving productive farming land is vital. Export of agricultural products plays a valuable part and is vital in retaining the balance of payments. We cannot afford to lose productive farms and farmland and mine is not only the only farm locally to be destroyed by the HS2 proposals. A tunnel, I am sure, will substantially reduce the loss of my productive land.

360. This will mean that Bank Farm is no longer viable as it is today, with a devastating effect on my family, my employees and I would suggest the village of Wendover as a whole. So, what I’m asking from the Select Committee that the income from the farm is likely to reduce significantly so I ask for fair compensation, please. It must take into account the whole impact of the reduction of viability of the farm, not only during the construction, for many years to come. Go back to slide 2. A bored tunnel beneath Wendover, whether it’s a Chilterns long tunnel or the Wendover tunnel is the only way in which the village of Wendover, the Pound Street cottages and Bank Farm can be protected from HS2. The extension of the tunnel at Hyde Heath, which you have already agreed, benefits only but a small number of people. A tunnel in Wendover will benefit thousands. I support all the requests that have been made to you and you’ve already heard and those that are yet to come for a bored tunnel and urge you to recognise that this is the only satisfactory solution. Although not the most important consideration, but a tunnel will make an elderly person’s remaining years peaceful.

361. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr Strachan, can we concentrate on compensation for the farming operation?

362. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

363. CHAIR: And what compensation is available.

364. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well, can I just revisit the plan, just to show you the landscape, which we have assessed in the environmental statement? If one turns to P10262? : Although, some, I think we have 31. 7 hectares, but Mr Mogford’s referred to 34 hectares, are affected by the scheme.

365. MR TONY MOGFORD: It’s the cricket ground.

366. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m happy to work in the region of some 30 plus hectares affected. This is the operational phase of the railway, after the green tunnel is constructed, the land parcel that Mr Mogford was referring to, with the cornfields, will be capable of return to use for agriculture. We’ve written to Mr Mogford about that. The land obviously where there is permanent land take is to the left of that where the tunnel portal is and the cutting coming out of the tunnel, which I think the total loss is in the region of, in the environmental statement, 8. 3 hectares, which was identified as 4% of the farm. So, the way in which these things work is that there is land that can be returned once the scheme is operational. There will be of course though compensation both for the land taken whilst this construction goes on and of course for land taken permanently under the scheme. That compensation will be in accordance with the Compensation Code, which provides for payment of losses as well as the land value of any permanent land taken. What we have written to you with Mr Mogford is to explain about the potential to return land and the things that we’ve discussed with the NFU and the CLA about temporary occupation, if it’s feasible.

367. CHAIR: If there’s a small loss of land but there’s a disproportionate impact on a relatively small farm, which has quite marginal costs, is that also a factor that will come in effect?

368. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is. Effectively. Subject to the normal principles of causation, but, absolutely. If the farm is running at the margins, but, it’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so, be it, in terms of the compensation, the consequential compensation of putting a farm out of business. We do seek to try and avoid that, of course. And that’s why when we’ve looked at the impacts, we’ve sought to assess the overall impact on the farm, which is what I was pointing to. We very much hope that isn’t the case for Mr Mogford and his farm because of the various parcels of land that there are and the ability to take back the use of some of this land once the two to three year construction has occurred. And of course, in the interim, compensation for the loss of the land in the interim. So, the Compensation Code’s there to deal with fair compensation, but, I just wanted to give you a flavour of the overall effects. Could I just touch on?

369. MR BELLINGHAM: Could I clarify one point before that?

370. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

371. MR BELLINGHAM: I absolutely understand what you were saying about compensation. Mr Mogford, did you say you were a tenant on most of the land but the bit that’s been actually taken by the line you own outright?

372. MR TONY MOGFORD: I own the big land, but I have a tenancy where they’re going to put the cricket field.

373. MR BELLINGHAM: Right. And that’s from the Wendover Estate you have the tenancy, is it?

374. MR TONY MOGFORD: No, it doesn’t happen to be Wendover Estate, but, it’s a landlord either way.

375. MR BELLINGHAM: Indeed. Yes.

376. CHAIR: Okay. Alright. Got it?

377. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Mogford mentioned just the line at the Abel- Smith Cottages, Trust Cottages. We don’t anticipate any effect on those. And it’s not a construction traffic route, as you’ve heard. And if I just take you back, 1026(1).

378. CHAIR: Are we going to hear from them tomorrow?

379. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think we might. Yes.

380. CHAIR: Okay. Then in that case, we don’t really need to discuss it further now.

381. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The access. You’ll see that we’ve got a haul route running along here. We access the work sites from there.

382. CHAIR: Okay. So, essentially, where the project impacts on a business, on a farm, there is compensation arrangements, and where it has an impact on the overall operation there are compensation arrangements.

383. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely.

384. CHAIR: And it is a matter of, to a certain extent, negotiation with the farmer,

business and the project. What about money? Clearly, cash flow is quite important to businesses.

385. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Certainly, what we’ve done is we’ve prepared to enter into discussions with businesses we’re potentially taking property from, as in this case, to work out in advance, draft heads of potential claim, so that businesses , and in this case, farms, understand what may or may not be claimable. The only thing that prevents full compensation being calculated is of course the detailed design is not yet done and the nature of the crops on the land for the duration, of course, will need to be calculated. But, in principle, we’ve had some, I think, helpful discussions with businesses in advance, to make clear what the Compensation Code provides for. And if Mr Mogford wants to have any discussions with us now or as proceedings proceed about that, of course, we will be very happy to do that.

386. CHAIR: Okay. Brief final comments from you. Your final pitch.

387. MR TONY MOGFORD: Yes. In response, they have talked about the possibility of selling the land or handing the land back, but, of course, my great concern is obviously whether I can grow crops on it or not, that will be reasonably profitable. The other thing that I’ve been asking HS2 for a number of times is that they propose to leave in that very big field three hectares of land which they haven’t actually shown me yet where it is or how I’m going to get to it.

388. CHAIR: Okay. Well, let’s hope HS2 can provide you with that information, a bit more information. And, certainly, the idea is – is it a farm pack?

389. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, there is a farm pack. I’ll find out how things are going on that. But, certainly, that’s the idea, to have a farm pack, to answer a number of common questions about the effects, accommodation works and compensation, so that people understand the general approach that could be taken. And, of course, the specific approach in relation to particular farm holdings.

390. CHAIR: And on the question of land, we’re doing what we can to ensure that where land owners want land back that they should retain the ownership but then there is the issue of soil testing and maintaining the agricultural classification. So, all those issues are considered. And it’s not a question necessarily of you losing land and it

becoming a building site and having lots of chemicals dropped on it or whatever. It would have to be a process in which you had productive land back.

391. MR TONY MOGFORD: Thank you.

Wycombe District Council, Bradenham Parish Council and others

392. CHAIR: Thank you for your contribution. Very spirited. And I’m sure you’ve got many years to go farming on that piece of land. Right. We now move on to petitioners 423, 178, 177, 824. Wycombe District Council, Bradenham Parish Council, West Wycombe Parish Council, Princes Risborough Town Council, with James Stevens. You’ve got quite a lot of slides. I know you have four witnesses and you’re going to be interrupted by a Division in the House at some point, which will allow you to have a breather. So, I’d be grateful if we could move in a business like way through it, as fast as possible, Mr Stevens. You’re an experienced local government officer, as I understand.

393. MR STEVENS: Yes. I will do my best to make this as efficient as possible for you.

394. CHAIR: Okay. Good.

395. MR STEVENS: Could we go to slide 2 first, please? Okay. You probably remember me. I was here about a month ago as the highway witness for the Buckinghamshire County Council. So, it’s good to be back here today. I’m a Chartered Engineer. I’ve got a lot of experience in highways. I was the head of transport for Buckinghamshire County Council. I’ve been working with the petitioners who are here this afternoon for about 18 months. What we decided to do was to group together our evidence to you today to make things efficient and focussed. I would say also that we’ve been working very closely with the Highway Authority, Buckinghamshire County Council. And Buckinghamshire’s petition includes concerns raised which are identical to the ones we’re raising today. So, there’s consistency. And the ‘asks’ that we have are identical to those which the County Council has. In fact, we’re representing the Highway Authority here this afternoon, as well.

396. CHAIR: A15792.

397. MR STEVENS: Thank you. So, this slide does show our logos. And that’s a bridge which is a real problem on one of the routes. You can see the lorry in the middle of the road creating a real road safety risk. But we’ll be coming back to that in a moment. We have a specific assurance to discuss with you, or to present to you, and we’ve been attempting to convince HS2 Ltd that that’s the right approach to mitigation. And we get so near, but so far, with that discussion. We were actually hoping we wouldn’t need to come along today. But, regrettably, we have to, to explain our concerns to you.

398. Could we go to the next slide, please? The witnesses today will come in one by one throughout the presentation, not all at the end in one go. But, they will help present the evidence to you. Next slide please. This is what we’re concerned about. This particular picture is West Wycombe High Street. It shows a very large vehicle trundling through, close to the listed buildings. Quite intimidating. Quite a worry. But, that’s a good example of the sort of thing we’re worried about. If we could go to the next slide please? Now, this is where we are. The red routes here are the construction traffic routes which run through Wycombe District. And we’ve got High Wycombe at the bottom, West Wycombe here, Bradenham there. Princes Risborough at the top. And then the site compounds in HS2. There are eight site compounds here that will potentially use these construction traffic routes. They’ll be operating for seven years. The peak period is up to three and a half years. And we’re very concerned about that. We get no other benefit from HS2 in Wycombe District. We get all of the construction traffic, really, that’s what our concern is. If we could go to next slide please?

399. We’re going to present our evidence in this way. We’re going to describe the issues briefly and the witnesses will do that. We’re going to start in High Wycombe, move north to Bradenham, then to Princes Risborough and then come back down to West Wycombe. We’re going to highlight some issues that we don’t think HS2 were aware of when they planned these construction routes and we’ll be explaining to you our mitigation ‘asks’ as well. Next slide please.

400. Okay. We’re going to describe to you immediately what are mitigation ‘asks’ are. We’ll be coming back to these throughout the presentation. We are seeking a standalone assurance. And we would like alternative routes used to those in Wycombe District, other than in exceptional circumstances. But, we are realistic. And we do

acknowledge that if the traffic doesn’t use the routes in our area, it will affect another area and other communities. So, we want those alternative routes technically assessed first. Buckinghamshire is negotiating that at the moment, but, the progress has been slow and no technical assessment has been undertaken. But, that’s crucial. Now, if that technical assessment shows that with capacity and safety improvements on the alternative routes are feasible and create space, we then would request that traffic in Wycombe District is routed on those alternative routes. Next slide, please. If the assessment shows that that’s not possible, then we have alternative ‘ask’ and that is to limit the number of heavy goods vehicles on the routes in Wycombe District during peak hours, fund and install permanent traffic road safety measures on the A40, 10 and 4129. We’ve tried to help by identifying the sorts of measures that we would see as appropriate, low cost measures. And we’ve given quite a lengthy list to High Speed 2, setting that out.

401. Either way, we believe that there are such problems in Wycombe High Street that are immitigable, that there shouldn’t be any lorries using that route at all.

402. We received a letter last night from High Speed 2, about 6.05 p.m., with comments on our standalone assurance and their views on how this traffic in the Wycombe District can be mitigated. The implication of that was that everything’s okay, don’t worry. Well, everything isn’t okay. And we are very worried. It’s not a solution. We maintain our position on the need for a standalone assurance, as I’ve described.

403. The A40, in particular, the most recent plan from HS2 shows the A40 deleted as a construction traffic route and yet five weeks ago it was clearly on the plan as a construction traffic route. So, there’s a lack of clarity, lack of certainty, over one of these roads, is or isn’t a construction traffic route. If we could go to the next slide, please?

404. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If it assists, it may speed things, we have written to Wycombe District Council. I think Mr Stevens has seen this. In which we have confirmed that it’s not a construction traffic route proposed in our scheme. Those are the green dotted lines where we’re proposing to put construction traffic routing down. And we’ve written to the Council to confirm that is not the proposal. So, I hope that

deals with a third of the issues.

405. MR STEVENS: Thank you for explaining that. That’s the letter that I was referring to a moment, where I did say that everything isn’t okay as a result of that letter. I acknowledge that HS2 have now confirmed that the A40 is not to be used as a designated construction traffic route. But, what it does mean is that there will still be lorries potentially using that route, up to 23 a day. If we could now refer to slide 9? These are our support letters. There’s two missing here, which we’ve had very recently. We’ve got a third MP’s letter from David Livingston. The two other MPs, John Bercow and Steve Baker, all three MPs support our case. And we’ve got a letter from Buckinghamshire County Council, likewise. South Central Ambulance Services, Sands Residents Association. A local school in Princes Risborough, who are very, very concerned, who live right on one of the junctions. And we’ve got a support letter from the National Trust, as well. We’ve got full copies of these letters in a pack for you, with a short summary of our case, which I’d like to give a copy to High Speed 2 Limited, and yourselves, if that’s okay, at the end of the presentation.

406. CHAIR: Yes. That’s fine. Please, carry on.

407. MR STEVENS: If we could go to the next slide please? This is what we’re concerned about. HS2 have confirmed that it’s 146 lorries a day, 220 light goods vehicles and cars, that’s a 45% increase in lorries. We are really, really worried about that. That will be so worrying to local communities. It’s a huge worry for us. There’s a couple of statistics at the bottom of the slide, for your information. Lorries are more damaging than cars, potentially up to 150 times more damaging to road surfaces. That’s come out of a lot of research and the Campaign for Better Transport does use that figure. Lorries are longer, they take up more road space, as well. If you could go to the next slide, please?

408. MR BELLINGHAM: It might be helpful just to put that last slide in context. I’m after the map. I was wanting to get a picture of where these lorries are going to be. So, we’re talking about, the key road that’s going to be affected is the 410. Is that right? To a lesser extent, the 4129.

409. MR STEVENS: Yes. This is slide 11 that we’re looking at.

410. MR BELLINGHAM: Those photographs have been on the 4010, have they? The 4010. Sorry. Most of those pictures of those heavy lorries have been on the 4010?

411. MR STEVENS: Yes, the last picture we saw was not on that route, but, the vast majority of these pictures, if not all of the rest of them, are taken from the roads, both A40, the 4010 and the 412. They’re real pictures that I’ve taken personally. Okay?

412. CHAIR: Okay. Yes.

413. MR STEVENS: Carry on to slide 11. So, slide 11 shows the construction traffic route. This is the A4010, starting at the M40 in High Wycombe up to the site compounds. And we believe that an alternative route that is better is this one from Beaconsfield through to the compounds. The other construction traffic routes, the 4129 through to Princes Risborough and then up to the compounds and then the A40 route to West Wycombe and then back up to the compounds, we believe that a better alternative to that, subject to assessment, of course, as I said earlier, would be the A418 route, either down the trace or through here down to the compounds. If we could go to the next slide please?

414. Okay. So, we’re now going to look at some of the issues in High Wycombe. And this map shows High Wycombe town in relation to the construction traffic routes. I’m going to ask Katrina Wood, who’s the leader of Wycombe District Council to explain to you some of those issues.

415. MS WOOD: Good afternoon everyone. I was appointed leader of Wycombe District Council in May this year. And I’m very proud to represent the local people in the District and to have responsibility for Council services in what is a very beautiful part of the country. The District runs from the Chilterns Hill in the north to the River Thames in the south. And we have many small, unspoilt villages and towns across the area connected by a network of country lanes, which all add to the character of the District. The 410 runs north/south through the District, between Central North Bucks and High Wycombe and the Thames Valley. It’s a very congested route and it’s quite unsuitable for the traffic it now carries. The 410 goes through the middle of villages and towns. It’s quite bendy. It’s very twisty. And it’s not a dual carriageway. It joins the M40 at Handy Cross Junction 4 in High Wycombe, which is right on top of a hill. And there’s a very steep gradient to get there. Wycombe District has a population of 175,000

and as a Council we’re working hard to protect the unique quality of the area for our residents and our visitors. We’re also promoting regeneration and development and we’re creating more homes and jobs. We’ve just released five major housing development sites, which have been reserved for some time. And this will create a lot of construction activity in High Wycombe town now and over the next six years. We’re right now working on our new local plan which will potentially see a further 15,000 new homes across the District over the next 20 years. That means more vehicles on High Wycombe’s roads, roadworks and diversions. This will be creating more jobs and homes and doing our bit to contribute to the national economy and our own housing needs. But, now we have the HS2 construction traffic as well. And the extra demand on the A410, I’m very worried it won’t be able to cope. HS2 traffic affects residents who live along the routes, especially in West Wycombe. There’ll be disruption to the ambulances between Stoke Mandeville and Wycombe General Hospital and delays to the bus services. Next slide please.

416. CHAIR: I think we can take that as read. We know what a District Council leader looks like.

417. MS WOODS: Can you go to the next one, please?

418. MR BELLINGHAM: Are they your Council offices in the background? Which are your Council offices?

419. MS WOODS: It’s right in the middle.

420. CHAIR: Look expensive to me.

421. MS WOOD: They’re old.

422. CHAIR: Carry on.

423. MS WOOD: There’s a lot to maintain. Right. If we can go back to the next one, please? As I mentioned, we have significant new development taking place in the town and during the next six years. There will be at least 2,300 new homes built and recent studies show it could be double that. 100,000 square metres of commercial floor space and some big public rail improvements in the town. We’ve been advised by the County Council consultants that town traffic will increase about 23% as a result. And this is just

the beginning of major house building in our District. We will require a further 15,000 houses to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. And the issue here is that all this development is going to be happening during the HS2 construction phase. We already have first-hand experience of disruption created by major development and how it causes traffic to divert to other routes. One of the routes that traffic will try and divert onto is the A4010, which is already congested. It passes through a densely populated part of the town and two big industrial estates. The estates generate a lot of traffic and lorries already. Putting HS2 construction traffic on the A4210 will cause even greater problems. And the HS2 lorries, vans and the workers’ cars will get stuck in the traffic jams as well and make things worse. And that’s going to add to everyone’s costs, including HS2’s costs.

424. MR STEVENS: Do you think HS2 are aware of this, Katrina?

425. MS WOOD: No. I’m very concerned that they haven’t taken that into account when deciding these routes. Because I feel if they had looked at how their traffic will be delayed in the queues, I think they might have decided not to come through High Wycombe at all. Next slide, please.

426. You can see from these graphs that 1,725 houses are fronting the proposed routes that run through Wycombe District. These have been counted on the map so we do know they are accurate. The figure of 1,725 compares with the much lower number of properties on the alternative routes, which is 742, 60% less. The red shading shows the number of listed buildings, 101 fronting the routes in our District, and again a much lower number of 30 on the alternative routes, at 70% less. The situation will be particularly acute for the people who live in West Wycombe High Street. All of properties there are extremely close to the road and most of those are listed buildings. I know that lorries cause problems to listed buildings and some of those properties have already had major repairs and strengthening as a result of the traffic that already goes through the village. Next slide, please. The residents will suffer more road noise, exhaust fumes and general disturbances. The lorries pass within inches of their living rooms. And they have no sound insulation. And I really want to try and find a way to avoid this for them. I really do want to see alternative routes used. I do appreciate though that wherever construction traffic is routed, it will impact on the residents who live next to the road. And I am aware that other petitioners have raised concerns

regarding, for example, with the A413. And I do understand that. But, just looking at the numbers on the graph, 60% less people will be affected and far fewer listed buildings on the alternative routes. Therefore, we’d like HS2 to carry out an assessment to see if these routes can take more traffic. And I am aware that this is what the County Council has asked HS2 Ltd to do. If the assessment demonstrates re-routing construction traffic isn’t possible, then I would understand that. But, in this situation I’d like to see mitigation measures in our area, such as controls on the time of day when the lorries can use the roads; physical works to reduce safety risks such as crossing points for pedestrians; but either way consider that using the A40 through West Wycombe is not sensible at all and should be deleted for using any construction traffic all together. Thank you for listening.

427. CHAIR: Thank you.

428. MR STEVENS: Okay, thank you, Katrina.

429. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just? You’ve seen Martin Tett’s letter of 13 November to the Committee? Because what he’s basically saying is that a number of the agreements that were reached outside the Committee regarding the draft assurances offered by HS2 simply haven’t been finalised. And until we get agreement on those assurances that were agreed in principle that it’s going to be very difficult to see any major progress across your patch as well. So, I think it would be quite useful if HS2 in their response do cover that point. Because agreement on those assurances will unlock a solution to a lot of these concerns that you’ve explained.

430. MR STEVENS: If I could add within that, we are, again, just to remind you, we are seeking a standalone, separate assurance for these issues, in addition to those assurances, or to sit alongside those assurances that are being discussed between HS2 and Buckinghamshire County Council, albeit very slowly.

431. CHAIR: Is 17 Katrina’s last slide?

432. MR STEVENS: Yes. If we could go to 17, please. We’re now going to ask our next witness, Clive Jones, who is the Chairman of Bradenham Parish Council, to talk us through two route wide issues on the 4010 and that’s congestion and blue light traffic. So, if we could go to the next slide?

433. CHAIR: You’re going to be interrupted, by the way, by a division at 4.00 p.m. You’re going to be interrupted at 4.00 p.m. by a division in the House, so, if there’s one division, I’ll say: ‘Order, order,’ and we’ll adjourn for 15 minutes. If it’s more than that, it will be a further 15 minutes. And we’ll get back as soon as we can.

434. MR JONES: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. My name is Clive Jones. I’ve lived in Bradenham for 34 years. I’ve been a councillor for four years. I’ve been Chairman of the Council for two years. About 3000 residents live in the area, those in Bradenham Parish and in the surrounding parishes. We also have the RAF UK headquarters in the parish, which is a large local employer and does generate traffic on the A4010. The main issues you’ve heard already about the large volume of traffic using the A4010, which is already congested. We’ve concerns about safety, of dangerous skewed bridge in West Wycombe, and the road itself is narrow and causes delays to ambulances.

435. MR STEVENS: If we could go to the next slide, please? Just before Clive carries on, this particular slide shows the proximity of Bradenham in relation to the 4010 and the site compounds and I think we can now move on to the next slide as well.

436. MR JONES: The map also shows the two hospitals that serve the area. And a blue light route which runs between them, shown by white circles and red crosses. We’re going to come back to this issue in a moment. Next slide. This picture shows where the road gets narrower in Bradenham Parish. The road is also narrower elsewhere along the A4010. In places, it’s only 6.1 metres wide, that’s 1.2 metres less than the national standard for A-class roads. What this means is that lorries have difficulty because there are only inches between them if they meet going the opposite directions. That’s in addition to a single file at the bridge. Next slide please.

437. The A4010 is bendy and twisty with very limited opportunities to overtake. It passes through towns and urban areas, in High Wycombe, it goes through a residential area, including residential homes for the elderly, it’s a steep hill and no escape lane for lorries if breaks fail. There are no bypasses.

438. The alternative route we propose is not as twisty and bendy, it’s quicker at off peak and is shorter. There are more opportunities to overtake, as it had been improved over the past years, there’s been bypasses for Wendover, Great Missenden, Little

Missenden and Amersham. Fifty per cent of it is dual carriageway or three lanes wide and it has an escape lane on the hill at Amersham. Next slide please.

439. Come to the ambulances. A number of people have mentioned concerns about delay to ambulances, especially on blue light emergencies. The A4010 is a major route between the two regional hospitals, one at Stoke Mandeville has the A&E speciality for the area, the other at High Wycombe, has cardiac and stroke specialities. The maternity services are also split between the hospitals, there being midwifery at High Wycombe and specialists at Stoke Mandeville, meaning that if someone has difficulty, has a complication and is at High Wycombe for midwifery, they may have to be rushed to Stoke Mandeville.

440. CHAIR: Order, order, division in the house, we adjourn for at least 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended

On resuming –

441. CHAIR: Order, order. I think we’re only one division, so there will be other divisions this afternoon, so we really need to crack on. Sorry to interrupt you.

442. MR STEVENS: Okay, thank you chairman. If we could just pop back to slide 19, very briefly please. I just want to highlight the congestion hotspots.

443. MR JONES: In our haste to press forward, we omitted to mention congestion hotspots. The circles show bottlenecks as Princes Risborough, West Wycombe, junction of the A40 on the A4010, the steep hill at High Wycombe and junction four of the M40 at Handy Cross. Congestion at these points happens daily, at the A40/A4010 junction, the queue starts at about 8.15 and lasts for about an hour. It takes about half an hour to get through, before joining the queue into High Wycombe itself. There’s similar length of queues in Princes Risborough in the afternoon.

444. Can we go onto –

445. MR STEVENS: Slide 22 please.

446. MR JONES: This is where we broke off. Just to recap, ambulances, two hospitals, one each end of the A4010, but these hospitals are paired, one having an A&E

unit, the other having the cardiac and stroke specialities, and the maternity services being split between them. The problems for ambulances on the A4010 are that it is difficult to overtake, there are double white lines for 50% of the route, ambulances will get stuck, this will result in slow response times and put lives at risk.

447. South Central Ambulance services has provided ambulance traffic information, traffic numbers, for the six month period of November 2014 to May 2015. During that period, 4,786 ambulances traversed this route, an average of 23 per day. Seventy five percent of those ambulances are operating under blue light. Thirty one percent do not achieve target response times. SCAS are aware and have written a letter which is appended to the notes that we had provided. Next slide.

448. MR STEVENS: Okay, thank you. So, inevitably, more traffic and more slow moving lorries on the 4010 potentially will create tailbacks and hold up ambulances, so that’s something we are concerned with. Slide 23 now shows some work that I did to quantify the length of the 4010, and the journey time and the comparative length and journey time on the 355, A413. Now, these are off peak journey times. I used a number of things to arrive at this data; sat nav, AA route planner, Google, I actually drove the routes as well a number of times.

449. It will be off peak quicker to use the alternative routes, and they are shorter, and both of that means that, in using the alternative A355, 413, route, it will be cheaper to use, so there’s a cost saving here to be had by HS2 and its contractors. If we could move to the next slide please.

450. Okay, we are now going to ask our next witness to come and sit with us, and that’s Alan Turner, who’s the chairman and mayor of Princes Risborough Town Council.

451. CHAIR: Does that mean you pay twice?

452. MR STEVENS: Slide 24 shows Princes Risborough, clearly, in the middle and the thing I would highlight is that Princes Risborough is at the intersection of two construction traffic routes and High Speed 2 have said in their AP4 documentation that congestion and delays at that junction are significant, there’s a significant adverse effect for delays and congestion, and yet no mitigation proposed.

453. Next slide please and I’m going to hand over to Alan Turner.

454. MR TURNER: Well, good afternoon. As Jim said, my name is Alan Turner, I am Councillor for Wycombe district councillor, and also I’ve been a town councillor for Princes Risborough for the last 13 year, seven of those as chairman and mayor. I have lived in Risborough for 27 years, in the district as a whole for 43 years. Just as a slight bit of background, Princes Risborough is a compilation of two ancient parishes, that of Monks Risborough, which is the oldest recorded parish in England, 903AD, and Princes Risborough, and is now known collectively as Princes Risborough, a mediaeval market town, it’s weekly royal charter market, the newest one, most recent, was granted by Henry VIII in 1523, and it’s earlier royal charter was 1376.

455. It has a population of just over 8,000, and we are, as a community, as a whole, extremely worried about a number of factors that we face with the HS2 construction traffic passing through the town on our roads. These include congestion, projected housing growth, severance and safety issues. And I’d like to go through four main issues now. If we could go to slide number two, please. Or the next slide, I should say.

456. Congestion, and I think this particular photo illustrates that very, very clearly. As you can see, a long queue of cars, and that is a daily occurrence. Peak times now, the town grinds to a halt in the centre. The A4010 passes directly through the centre of the town, it causes a severance issue, there are housing – there’s housing, schools, shops on both sides of the road, it’s inevitable that pedestrians have to cross the road to get to whatever their destination is, they have to cross traffic like that, very often during the course of the day.

457. It’s a real problem, we have an ageing demographic, we have a large number of elderly people, a lot of mobility scooters, and they find it very difficult to get across such a busy road. We also have two schools which actually border right on the road. One of them in particular is – they have no playing fields of their own, so they have an agreement with the town council to use the King George V park on the other side of the main road for their sports activities. So several times a day, you’ll see teachers trying to get up to 30 or 40 young pupils, it’s a primary school, across the road, into the park, and back again. In actual fact, one of those children, about a year ago, suffered a rather terrible accident on the crossing, I hasten to add, on a crossing, where a seven year old

boy was struck and very badly injured by a van.

458. MR STEVENS: And if I could add, Alan, that that is exactly the road, the location that HS2 have said, in AP4 will see a significant adverse effect in terms of severance. And they’ve also said, in AP4, the same applies to the A4129. This is right where this particular school is. If we could go to the next slide, please.

459. MR TURNER: And this slide is to illustrate within the emerging local plan for the district, Princes Risborough is looking at the prospect of somewhere in the region of 2,500 new housing units in the area that Jim is now indicating, the brown area there. That’s where the housing is intended to go. And you can see that that almost doubles size of town, it will almost double the size of the population. And the start of those buildings works will coincide with HS2 traffic. At the moment, we actually have some premature applications coming on housing for somewhere in the region of just over 1,000 units already and one or two of those are going to appeal at present. So, we are anticipating that construction traffic for the developments will begin as early as late 2017, most definitely by 2018, very early on. So we have a real nightmare scenario of both HS2 construction traffic and the development traffic, all happening at the same time, on what are already very, very congested roads. It really is such a concern for the people of the town.

460. Just to touch a little bit further on what I was saying a moment ago about the safety issue of getting across the road for pedestrians.

461. MR STEVENS: If we could go to the next slide, because I think this will help explain this particular point.

462. MR TURNER: Yes, yes indeed. You’ll see there on the right hand side of the picture, this is one of a number of signs that have been drawn up by school children. The schools are just horrified at the increase in traffic levels and the thought of adding HS2 construction traffic to it as well, is just a real nightmare, as I say. We did actually have a fatality where a school child was trying to catch one of the school busses, ran across the road, on a crossing, because they were frightened of missing it, and struck by a truck and killed. It’s an extremely dangerous road. What we don’t want to do is make it even more dangerous.

463. We do also have some areas where there are very narrow footpaths, particularly as you are leaving Princes Risborough on the outskirts heading towards High Wycombe, and the Ridgeway trail, which is very popular with walkers, visitors to the town, which is another area of concern for us.

464. MR STEVENS: And this particular slide, Alan, shows the playing field where the school children cross the road to play PE and games, so they have to cross this road.

465. MR TURNER: It is a very dangerous road and it’s also a slight brow of a hill, where you see the white tanker coming, that’s on a downwards slope, so cars approaching from behind that, suddenly find themselves facing, as I say, up to 30 or 40 school children being herded across the road. Right at the front of this picture, you’ll – right there in front of the car at the front there, recently a pedestrian crossing was put in. That was the crossing where the seven year old boy was knocked down. It’s immediately on a roundabout, it’s extremely dangerous and it’s a regular incident spot for vehicles having a shunt.

466. MR STEVENS: So the sorts of measures that we’ve put to HS2 would be focusing road safety measures around this particular area, as one example, signs, red surfacing, vehicle activated signs, improving the visibility at the roundabout by reducing the green landscaping, just opening it all up, making it safer and encourage drivers, especially, those in large vehicles that are difficult, in some situations, to slow down quickly, to adjust their driving behaviour. And they would be permanent measures, as well.

467. I think we can go to the next slide now, apart from just highlighting the two quotes in the grey box, which I mentioned earlier. Severance to non-motorised users on the 4010, between the A4129 and the site compounds, and the 4129 itself, between the 4010 and Thame. Significant increase in severance. That’s right here, right where this school is.

468. MR TURNER: And again, just following on from the previous comments about blue light journeys; as a resident, I’m only too aware of number of times I hear the sirens going through the course of the day and through the evening, and that’s purely and simply because they have to have the sirens on to get through the traffic, and some of the pinch points within the town, it’s very, very difficult for them to do.

469. MR STEVENS: Okay, next slide, please.

470. MR TURNER: And as Jim mentioned a moment ago, the A4129, which leads out from Risborough, out through the outskirts of Risborough, out into Longwick, again, this is another road with severance issues, it runs right through the centre of Longwick village, and again there are great difficulties in getting across both for school children and the elderly. It’s a very narrow road, low bridges, and in actual fact, there’s a railway bridge which leads out towards Chinnor on the Lower Icknield Way, which is struck regularly by trucks, and one recently hit it a few months back and the whole bridge, the road, was shut. It took them a day to clear it. It’s very, very difficult, huge severance issues for both roads.

471. MR STEVENS: And I think it’s worth pointing out that traffic sign; that’s a sign on the A4129 as you approach Princes Risborough, and that’s the last roundabout before you enter the town, and at that point, there are low bridges on all three arms. So, if a lorry, by way of its sat nav, is sent along this route, and if it’s over a certain height, it has quite a significant problem here. And it was one of those lorries that continued on and hit the bridge in Longwick Road that closed the road for the day.

472. So, Alan, what sort of mitigation measures are you suggesting?

473. MR TURNER: The same as Councillor Katrina Wood. I would urge the Committee to place a condition on HS2 that they reroute the construction traffic away from the A4010, the A4129 and the A40. I do appreciate, like it’s been said, that, you know, further study work needs to be done on that and if can be achieved, then that’s clearly the answer. We’ve already seen that the alternative routes are quicker, will cost HS2 less, it makes sense. If, for any reason, they can’t be used, for the extra traffic, then we would really like some quite strong physical mitigation measures on the roads, as has been highlighted.

474. MR STEVENS: Okay, thank you.

475. MR TURNER: And thank you very much for listening.

476. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

477. MR STEVENS: Thank you, Alan. So, if we move to the next slide please. I’ve

done a little bit of work looking at the comparative safety between the Wycombe District area routes and the alternative routes, and I’ve used crash data from a national database called CrashMap; that enables the user to count up the number of accidents and look at the severity of those. And this is what I’ve established over this period of time. For killed and seriously injured accidents, the routes through the Wycombe district have a higher crash rate than the alternative routes. That’s not to say that accidents aren’t happening on all the routes, because they are, but this is a comparative assessment between the alternatives. If we could move onto the next slide please.

478. And my own research has been corroborated by this data from EUROMAP. EUROMAP are a European, or an international organisation, that focuses its efforts on looking at risks on roads, risks with vehicle design etc. This particular piece of work that they’ve carried out shows that the routes that we’re concerned with, which is the 4010, the 4129 and the A40 have a higher risk rating than the alternative routes, the 418 and the 413, 355. In particular, the A40 through West Wycombe village has a high risk rating, which is shown at the bottom of the table there. High risk rating, in black, shown there, the A40.

479. So, national data corroborates the quick assessment that I undertook, that demonstrates that the alternative routes are comparatively safer. If we could go to next slide please. We’re now moving back southwards, along the A4010 to West Wycombe and this map shows West Wycombe village itself, in the red area, in the red circle. If we could go to the next slide please. We’ve been working for a number of months with the National Trust to share information, discuss mutual concerns about the impact of construction traffic in West Wycombe village. This plan shows the number of listed buildings which are owned by the National Trusts in this village. They are shown in brown and there’s about 40 in total that front onto the A40 and they’re all very, very close to the edge of the road and in some cases they’re just a few inches.

480. If we could go to the next slide, please. Information that we’ve shared with the National Trust has been enlightening in the sense that there is a concern over the effect of ground vibration on listed buildings. This particular photograph shows one of those buildings that had to be shut up because the wall was in an imminent state of collapse and the wall had to be taken down and rebuilt. The contributing factor was long term ground vibration from traffic. That particular plot there – the blue plot here on the slide

– shows sound recordings that were undertaken by a specialist consultant and that shows the effect of a passing lorry on the ground vibration. There are also issues with noise through traffic. These are all listed buildings and there’s quite a high degree of sound transmission coming through the walls, doors and windows. Due to blistered building constraints it’s not possible to adequately sound proof the properties so we have residents living in these very, very nice cottages that are seriously affected by a number of things, including noise from traffic.

481. If we could go to the next slide please, and I’m now going to handover to Sharon Henson, who is the clerk to the West Wycombe Council who is going to tell us a little bit more about the impact on residents in the village and also the skew bridge that you saw a photograph of on the opening slide.

482. MS HENSON: Good afternoon everybody, I’ve lived in West Wycombe for 38 years and I’ve been clerk to the council for 20 of those years and we have approximately 2000 residents in the parish of West Wycombe. However, we do have between 15,000 – 21,000 visiting tourists to the village each year to visit West Wycombe Park, the Hellfire Caves, St Lawrence’s Church with the golden ball, which is also the dining club for the Hellfire Club and the Dashwood Mausoleum. As has been explained, West Wycombe is approximately a 17th century National Trust village. The A40 and 4010 both run through our parish, both roads are on the blue light route and in actual fact we have an ambulance station based in West Wycombe village so we have a constant siren blue light issue because they can’t get through the traffic otherwise. The village high street is divided by the A40 and completely stops us at times.

483. For the past 15 years the parish council has been trying to improve traffic conditions in the parish to help residents and our tourists. We have great concerns about HGV going through the skew railway bridge which has a height restriction and is in actual fact the main Marylebone-to-Birmingham Chiltern Line over the A4010. They have to go over the centre of the bridge and we often end up with one way traffic and the potential for front and rear shunts. Next slide please; I think the picture highlights the issues of HGVs coming through West Wycombe High Street. As I said, the village is physically cut in half by the A40. It cannot be widened or improved. The village retains its character because of the high street and we’re constantly blighted by the volume of traffic.

484. The M40 was built approximately 47 years ago to relieve traffic in our area, however traffic volumes continue to increase and that’s never going to improve. Any restrictions on the M40, either accidents or road works – and you’ve only got to listen to Radio 2’s traffic report to know it’s happening on a very regular basis. Everything comes through the village as it’s the official diversion route and we don’t get any police assistance. Pavements are extremely narrow and lorries regularly mount them. I took that photograph and if I hadn’t been there it would’ve been on the pavement or I’d have been knocked down.

485. The majority of the houses are owned by the National Trust as have been previously explained and the majority are listed. Houses are very close to the road and mostly the front doors open straight into the living rooms from the pavement. There is a constant noise and vibration issue and the National Trust has recently spent a large amount of money trying to improve noise conditions with secondary glazing but no more can be done because they are listed buildings. Residents park on the road outside their houses as the houses are a terrace style and they were built long before cars existed. There is nowhere else they can park but it slows the traffic down which makes it slightly easier for our residents to cross the road but more often than not we end up in a one-way flow system. You’ve only got to have the local bus or the brewery come for deliveries and we actually come to a full stop.

486. 210 children attend the local primary school and that inset picture is of a primary school pupil and mother trying to walk along the pavement. We have a good walk to school policy and the children have to walk along these narrow pavements and not far from where that photograph was taken a child was pulled off the pavement by lorry turbulence. Again, as I’ve said before, we have tried for 15 years to improve traffic conditions and road safety for both our residents and the tourists. We have pedestrian crossing, school crossing patrols, pelican crossing, flashing warning signs, and we’ve even had to undertake air pollution monitoring. Any increase in traffic, particularly HGV’s, even if it goes down to this possible number of 23 is totally unacceptable. It will also increase the congestion at the roundabout at the junction of the A40 and the A4010 or increase air pollution and danger to residents and visitors alike.

487. Next slide, please; this is a skew railway bridge. It’s a Victorian railway bridge and it has height restriction on it. It’s on an S-bend as can be seen. Lorries are getting

even bigger and double-deckers and lorries have to use the middle of the road to get through it and you often have front and rear end shunts because of that, because traffic in the opposite direction has to physically stop to let the lorries and the buses through. Again, we’ve been trying for 15 years to do something about the volume of the traffic on the 4010 but in actual fact it’s a situation that’s going to get far worse. There have been frequent accidents over the years, often with cars going over the buttresses of that bridge. You can see in the inset one set of damage that occurred relatively recently by a lorry.

488. Many walkers come into our parish. Just in front of that lorry on the left-hand side you’ll see a public footpath sign and in the distance you can see a green field. Walkers come down that footpath and have to cross the road over to the footpath which continues through that field. We persuaded Chiltern Rail to install to flashing signs on either side of that road to make it easier for people to cross the road and to highlight the fact that there are walkers and pedestrians to everyone driving along that road. You can’t see it from there but from that we’ve got development housing so our residents have to walk their children along that pavement and under the bridge so we have this issue of lorry turbulence again as well as cars suddenly having to move away for a lorry to get through. They walk under the bridge and then cross up through the field but also we have children going to their senior schools and have to cross that road. You’ll see some evidence of that later and in actual fact we had one child actually knocked over when crossing over after getting off the school bus.

489. MR STEVENS: So the sorts of things that we would be looking at at this location would be some crossing facilities in the road?

490. MS HENSON: Yes, either side of the bridge, which would act as a slight slowdown for traffic and make people more aware that there are people trying to cross the road. So, we’re worried about pedestrian accidents but we’re also worried about HGV physically going through that bridge on a skew with its height restriction. Next slide please; it’s hard to imagine that that first photograph that you saw with the high street, that those pavements are exactly the same that they were when that photograph was taken around 1900. The layout of the village has not changed in that time. It was originally on the Oxford to London coaching route and we had hoteliers and farriers which gave the village a very prosperous way of life but in modern day times it’s now

part of the destruction of the village if we’re not careful.

491. MR BELLINGHAM: Is traffic as bad as it was just before the M40 opened?

492. MS HENSON: Oh, yes, we have about 10,500 cars come through –

493. MR BELLINGHAM: And how many did you have before the M40?

494. MS HENSON: I’m afraid I don’t have that statistic. I lived in the area but –

495. MR BELLINGHAM: Presumably it was only when the M40 was opened. It led to a very big redaction but slowly and surely it has built up again.

496. MS HENSON: Yes, with the advent of GPS the lorry drivers don’t always conform to requirements.

497. CHAIR: Let’s crack on.

498. MS HENSON: As you can see from that slide there’s a quote from the Wycombe District Council’s conservation area character study which says, ‘One of the most important conservation areas and historic landscapes in the county and indeed in England. A perfectly preserved microcosm of a traditional rural idyll’.

499. To sum up, as Katrina Wood and previous witnesses said, we’d like HS2 to carry out an assessment to see whether the other routes could be used. If they can’t then we would like some controls over past peak travel times for lorries and also some physical measures, as I’ve mentioned. However, whatever happens and whatever’s been said in the letter which I haven’t seen, we do not want any HGV lorries coming through the A40 at West Wycombe. There is no mitigation. Thank you.

500. MR STEVENS: Thank you, Sharon. If we could drop back quickly to slide 5 because we’ve got about a minute worth of video to show to you. Before we play the video I think I’ll just explain what we’re going to be looking at. This is a very short video, there’s three, and they’re very short. We’re firstly going to be looking at a drive along West Wycombe Road up the 4010 to Brighton itself and what we’re going to be seeing is the queue beginning to form in the morning peak hour. It’s not the queue itself but it’s the development of that queue and we can imagine the extent of that queue when it actually becomes gridlock.

501. CHAIR: Are we going to look at three short videos together?

502. MR STEVENS: Sorry?

503. CHAIR: Are we going to be looking at the three of those short videos together?

504. MR STEVENS: If that helps you we can do.

505. CHAIR: And what’s the second one show?

506. MR STEVENS: The second one shows a drive southwards on the 4010 to be skew bridge and the traffic stopping to allow a lorry to drive underneath the skew bridge. The third one shows a drive in a similar direction south and it shows school children and the vulnerability of those schoolchildren getting off the bus and then the bus squeezing beneath the bridge, so that’s the third one and then the last one is through West Wycombe High Street showing the difficulties that a lorry experiences to drive through the high street itself and the blockages. So if we could show all four at one go please and as I say they are all very short.

507. Now, as I say, this first one is on the approach to the intersection between 4010 and the A40 and the vehicle will be turning right here and driving along the 4010 towards the skew bridge. You can see the queue starting to develop in West Wycombe High Street and you can see the start of the queue developing on 4010. Now we’ve speeded this up; huge volume of cars – the volume of cars is going to stop at the bridge here and that’s what the bridge looks like and we’re going to continue on from here and this is at the point where the traffic does start to –

508. MR BELLINGHAM: When was this again, just remind me?

509. MR STEVENS: This was in the morning. Now this is where the queue extends back to, it extends right the way back to Brighton and it’s effectively gridlock so that’s the end of this video and now we’ll move onto the next one. Okay, this is the high street in West Wycombe and it shows the difficulty this taller lorry is experiencing. Look at the tilt on the lorry next to the listed building. The taller lorry – huge risk there and that’s quite a small lorry that particular one, so if we go to the next one please.

510. MR STEVENS: The one we just saw was the last of the four so there’s two in the

middle. Okay, this is the lorry stopping to get through the bridge and coming in the opposite direction is a car that’s had to stop to allow that to happen, so there’s a car coming through now and that car had to stop. So if we look at the last one now please, and this one shows the schoolchildren getting off the school bus in a very vulnerable location. They’re going to cross the road here. Now the bus drives along and you’ll see its stoplights come on. It’s slowing down because of the traffic coming in the opposite direction because it has to move out to get through.

511. Okay, thank you for showing those videos. I just hope that put a bit of reality in. Okay, if we could move back to slide 39 please, and this is a summary slide and we’re almost there with the evidence. Okay, so we believe the routes through Wycombe district are unsuitable because they will be affected by major development and traffic disruption and in Wycombe and in Princes Risborough but that will happen during the construction phrase of HS2. It’s the perfect storm in the making. The routes are congested. More residents front the routes through Wycombe district that the alternatives and there are more listed buildings. The routes are narrow, twisting, difficult to cross, and we’ve shown that they are less safe than the alternatives. They’re used by a lot of blue light traffic between two large hospitals and the problems in West Wycombe High Street are immitigable – that’s the ground vibrations and sound problems.

512. We believe our asks are pragmatic. We’ve took a long time to develop these asks understanding that if the traffic isn’t in our area it’ll be somewhere else so we believe they’re pragmatic, realistic and reasonable. And just to remind you of those asks, the last two slides if we can move to the next one please, just as a reminder that’s our primary ask: re-route but first assess those alternative routes, see what the capacity and safety improvements will do, what space it will create for the traffic in Wycombe. If that’s not possible if we can go to the next slide then we are seeking restrictions on peak hour movements and permanent road safety measures. We’ve identified a number of those measures, we’ve mentioned a couple this afternoon, but either way we don’t think it’s sensible to use A40 West Wycombe at all and the reason we’re asking for permanent measures here is as a legacy for the local communities here.

513. The local communities here don’t benefit in any other way from HS2. There’s not even an economic benefit because they are just routes to the construction site

compounds so we believe that your quote, your statement made in interim report in March 15 this year could demonstrate living and breathing – that quote in our area. That quote being, ‘the project should endeavour to leave a legacy of reduced risks and improve road safety in areas that receive no other benefit from HS2’. So we are seeking your support this afternoon and if we could go to the next slide please, which is the next slide; thank you very much for listening.

514. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

515. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): As the Committee knows, the routing or the construction traffic route for HS2 traffic of the type that’s been suggested would be subject to approval under paragraph 6 of schedule 16 by the local highway authority on any route where there’s more than 24 vehicles predicted to use these roads. So, in a sense much of what is being asked is going to be covered under the approval process by the highway authority with full knowledge of the relevant roads and the routes are then submitted for approval by HS2 for the detailed design and for those purposes as you know there have been ongoing discussions with Buckinghamshire County Council about that process and some assurances being developed.

516. They are quite detailed and I don’t really want to get into them now, but can I just show you P8511 which gives you a flavour of the state of play of those assurances that we were offering to Buckinghamshire County Council previously and which are now the subject of those detailed discussions and the reason just shown you is you will see when they come up on screen that the two things I was going to focus upon were dealing with both capacity and safety concerns on number of specified roads and junctions and identification as part of that process where safety measures might be required in conjunction with HS2 traffic and there’s a whole list of junctions and roads. It’s doesn’t look like we’re going to get it up on the screen but if we do I’ll go back to it – P8511 is the letter.

517. This is the assurance we’ve offered Buckinghamshire County Council on which further discussions are now taking place but you’ll see sensitive junctions’ capacity concerns: we will carry out detailed assessments of the capacity of various junctions and roads. If you’ll turn over to slide 2 you’ll see quite a long list of junctions that was set out there and if I can then take you to page 3 of that you’ll see there’s a similar process

for those sensitive junctions with safety concerns and they’re listed at paragraph 2 and if you go to the next page the list carries on.

518. And then there were a number of assurances offered, for example at paragraph 3, ‘Any potential highway safety measures identified pursuant to paragraph 1 will be subject to HS2 construction traffic introducing a 5% rate of daily increase in vehicular traffic or should the total flow of vehicular traffic at the vulnerable junction be less than 2000 vehicles a day an increase of 100 vehicles, HS2 construction traffic causing a material worsening of the safety of the relevant junction and the council signalling any necessary requisite consents for the proposed works’ and then you’ll see there was a mechanism for the potential safety measures to be carried out. These assurances are subject to ongoing discussion. They’re not resolved as yet with Buckinghamshire County Council but you do get an idea of the detail of the process that’s going on. Mr Tett, I know, wrote to the Committee.

519. We’ve responded to that and, in answer to Mr Bellingham’s question, the response that was sent to the clerk I think very recently on 16 November just put forward our understanding of events, the negotiations were continuing, we had a meeting with Buckinghamshire, as we said it was last Thursday and we set out in that email the number of meetings that we’ve had and as a result of last Thursday we were taking away comments they had made on the draft assurances and we’re going to go back to them with comments on some of the changes they sought to introduce to the assurances and other points they wanted to include in the assurances. So that is an ongoing process and it concludes the message we took from the meeting which is described as constructive by both sides and that we were making progress and we would continue with these negotiations on a weekly basis to reach an agreed position.

520. Where does that leave us in relation to the particular ask now made by Wycombe District Council, can I answer that briefly in two ways, can I just show you what traffic we’re talking about in terms of volumes because whilst I understand that Wycombe District Council and the others are concerned about traffic, it’s important to understand what it is that’s at issue and I can just do that by showing you there are traffic lights that are strategic. Proposals at P10355, it comes up on screen, under our current proposals construction traffic routes that we have been talking about are the A4010 on Wycombe Road going up through towards Princes Risborough and one from the A1429

which joins the A4010, and those are to serve on construction sites and effectively most of the predominant ones are at the south of the 413 but the construction sites are in and around Ellesborough and Wendover. You can see that on A10356 where those two routes join the M40 and you can see clearly from this that on the A4010 and I’ll show you in a moment, we’re not proposing a traffic construction route along the A40 Stokenchurch through West Wycombe. So, although you’ve been shown videos of HGVs passing through West Wycombe close to the listed buildings that is not a proposed construction traffic route that we are advancing and that’s something that I indicated at the very outset of this petition and I’ll leave that to Mr Stevens to explain to you.

521. The actual levels of traffic left on the A410 I can show you at P10538. These sorts of maps will be familiar to the Committee when it comes on screen; they are called the alphabet maps. L and K are the levels of traffic proposed on the A4010 Risborough Road as it goes south and you won’t be able to see L and K unless it’s zoomed in but I can tell you that the levels of HGVs in that section was 74 each way in terms of construction traffic on an A road and the levels of car increase for example on LGVs: 1 – 2% on that A road. If one then goes to P10359, because the traffic splits along the A4010 as it actually gets down to Bradenham which is what you heard about and the A4010 as it joins M40, it’s gone down even further. It’s 37 HGVs each way and A and B –

522. CHAIR: For how long is this for?

523. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think that’s for – I’ll find out the duration but this way that we’ve done things is seeking to show the worst case but 37 which is about four an hour each way on the road down, HGV that is. I’ll get the duration – wait, I’ve got 10360; you can see it from 10360 which is a typical histogram proposal. It’s in the order of two years. It’s effectively the red portion, the civil HGVs and it’s over effectively a two year period where you’d get that sort of level of activity here in this section in red. Now, just to give you a perspective of what we’re talking about, of course Wycombe are saying that’s too much and they’re suggesting putting it onto the A413 subject to the assessment of the A418.

524. The Committee has heard from the other side of the coin, the petitioners saying

not only does the traffic we’re proposing on the A413 too much but the idea of putting more, they would resist and Buckinghamshire County Council have their own concerns about the A413, so all of that strongly indicates in my submission that this is a process that has to be looked at in the round by the local highway authority with the full information about the levels of traffic in the respective roads coupled with the assessments we’re doing of the detailed process if there is a need for example, safety enhancements for roads, that will be laid out in the process assurances that we’ve given. So, I come to what I tried to start with at the outset, which is our letter to Wycombe District Council on the 15 November 2015, P10786.

525. Now, in that letter and it comes up that we confirmed we weren’t proposing to use the A40 through West Wycombe as a specified construction traffic route. We sought to summarise what they were seeking at 10786, brackets at the bottom, if you go over the page I hope is a pragmatic response and one I hope will give the petitioners comfort. If you look halfway down the page, ‘As regards to the A410 and the routes near Princes Risborough identified by Buckinghamshire Council, these can be added to the list in paragraph 2 of the junction safety assurance in our letter of 9 October and will be the subject of any necessary mitigation measures or works that are agreed by the county council and are nominated safe to be carried out either of a temporary or permanent nature’ and we specified the three roads, so we’ve agreed to take them on board as a part of that process. It’s not a fixed process because we haven’t applied for the consent and it’s not appropriate I would suggest for the Committee to try and fix it in the way that the petitioners and I are suggesting. It needs to be done through the highway authority processes as outlined.

526. Clearly, the assurances we’re seeking to negotiate are ones where HS2 deals with its traffic responsibly and proportionately. I’ve read a lot about Princes Risborough development proposals in the future. I imagine and I would expect that if those levels of housing are being proposed the relevant authorities will be seeking their own contributions to ensure there are safety improvements to the junctions past the schools and things of that kind and that process is therefore right that HS2 takes responsibility for its traffic but it’s not responsible for all the other development and traffic but to be subject to their own improvements if they’re necessary through the local road network and that’s really where we’re trying to get to with the assurances that are being

developed with Buckinghamshire County Council. What we have done is write to the district council in the way that I’ve suggested to cover these particular roads of concern so that really is where we’re at in terms of the three roads.

527. CHAIR: Any final comments, Mr Stevens?

528. MR STEVENS: Yes, okay thank you, I will make it brief. The communities here are absolutely worried sick with the prospect of this traffic. We’re here to represent local communities and thousands of people are very, very concerned. The assurances that Mr Strachan has just described don’t address the issue. There are thresholds within those assurances that would eliminate these roads from even being assessed. The thresholds we have leave Buckingham County Council with significant concerns with those thresholds.

529. Also, the assurances as drawn state that these road safety measures will be temporary and if they are to become permanent then the local highway authority will have to contribute towards that. That’s not what we’re saying here, we’re looking at legacy for the communities and permanent measures, so the discussion is ongoing with Buckinghamshire County Council but I do request that the Select Committee supports our view there should be a discussion and an ongoing discussion about a separate assurance because the current assurances do not deal with the issue. Thank you for listening.

Wolf-Rudiger Feiler, Linda Ward et al.

530. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed. We now go to petition 375, 1819, 394, 1820 represented by Mr Wolf-Rudiger Feiler.

531. MR STEVENS: Chairman, I’ve got the –

532. CHAIR: Yes, if you give them to the clerk he will do them, thank you Mr Stevens. Who’s going to start?

533. MR FEILER: Good afternoon Mr Chairman, good afternoon Committee, I’d like to introduce my wife Linda Aspey. My name is Wolf-Rudiger Feiler and we take heed of your recommendation earlier to be as crisp and precise and to the point as possible and in return we’d love to be heard with open ears, minds and hearts as to what we have

to say. If I could have slide number 1 please, lovely, Lower Hartwell as you may have heard and recalled from the meeting on 27 October is the smallest parish within the parish of Lower Hartwell, Stone and Bishopstone and it happens to also be the one that is closest to the line.

534. Just to put things into context, Linda and I are here to represent not only our own petitions but we’re also here to represent petitions for a number of residents in Lower Hartwell today as we’ll be agents. Linda will go through those in a little more detail once I’ve closed off my part. If I could have slide number 2 please with the map, this over here shows you the line as it crosses southwest of Aylesbury from southeast to northwest. Lower Hartwell, if I could just point that out, is this tiny little hamlet over here. This over here is Hartwell House, the arrow doesn’t go over here but that’s Hartwell House. We are approximately 300 metres away from the line, lower Hartwell is around 350 metres away from the line.

535. What we would like to get from this session today in anticipation of Sir Peter’s first question is to convey upon you what we want to get out of this session and there are really four or five things. One, we believe that we are being treated unfairly relative to how Hartwell House is being treated, we believe that the noise assessments – and I’ll explain why – and the visual assessments are questionable and we believe because Hartwell House and Lower Hartwell are within the same historic setting in the same grounds and are often referred to under the same subtitles in the AP4 and in the environmental statement under the same headlines that we are one setting and should be treated equally or at least similarly.

536. In total, Lower Hartwell consists of nine properties, two of which are farmhouses and these two are going to be petitioning separately in their own right, not because there’s any disagreement between ourselves but because of the nature of farms they are having different interests and different priorities than we do. One property has been sold about 18 months ago or purchased by HSE under the Need to Sell scheme and the remaining properties are represented by Linda and myself here today. That makes a total from eight eligible properties that seven are being represented by ourselves and that’s quite a high percentage of participation ratio of petitions which you won’t find very often along the line. You may also recall that you visited on 6 June the wider area including Hartwell House Hotel but for time reasons obviously and we understand why,

a visit to Lower Hartwell was not possible which is why we briefly introduced to you as I have just done now, the location and Linda will focus on the residents.

537. May I have slide 3, please? This is our agenda, I’ve touched on the first two points, after Linda I’ll touch on our concerns regarding mitigation and compensation proposals then followed by our requests for the Committee and combine that with our suggestions and solutions because we do feel there are ways around what’s currently being discussed. If I could now hand over to you Linda.

538. MS ASPEY: May I have slide 4, please? Thank you. Here are three of our neighbours; they are between their mid-70s and mid-90s. Two of them are widows and one is on their own. One of them suffers from cancer and has been having quite extensive treatment and all live alone and all had intended to either pass away here or their next resting place would be a nursing home or into some kind of care. They all petitioned apart from one, the eldest lady, who felt quite overwhelmed by the whole process even though we were all supporting each other. She just doesn’t know where to start. She doesn’t use the internet and felt very overwhelmed actually and they have naturally massive concerns about their future. We’re not there yet in that age range but we will be facing some of their similar concerns.

539. There appears to be no real support for people like this who live on their own with families that are away who may not really have a great deal of understanding about some of the intricacies. Five years of our life now we’ve been spending reading huge amounts of documentation that these ladies couldn’t even begin to start on, nor could their daughters and families, and we both work full time. However, if any of these ladies were wishing to apply for compensation they would need some help, they would need our help probably, and yet we both work full time.

540. Could we skip slide 5 for now please and go onto 6, thank you. This is our home. We looked for this for two years. We moved to the area and rented for two years and we’ve invested, as you’ll see shortly, a great deal of time and money in this. It’s a grade II listed building and everything that we do in the building has to comply with various regulations. It’s a conservation zone, it’s also a part of the Trust estate so we have to ask for permission to the change the colour of our front door and we have to ask for certain permissions to do anything as well as natural or ordinary grade II listed. The

same of course applies to other petitioners in the area with similarly old houses.

541. We’re about 300 metres from the line and we don’t want to spend the next 15 years living with blight and unsatisfactory mitigation. We too are of the age where we’re starting to think about downsizing and this property does represent most of our investment in our lifetime. We sold our houses in London to be here. We sold a holiday home to be here and neither of us came from lofty beginnings. I started life in a council flat on the 10th floor with no lift so we’ve both worked our way and this represents our taxed income of our lives. So, none of the property compensation schemes actually cover our situation, not even latest Need to Sell schemes.

542. I just want to go to slide 6 before I go on, which is – I’m sorry, slide 7 if I may, it’s bought in 2007, it’s our dream home and it’s a big step up. I’ll leave it there. Can I go to the next slide please, and I don’t want to labour the point but I just want to say how much time and effort and work we’ve put into this property in the last seven years. We’ve probably spent about £150,000 of taxed income on this, many years of loving care, and we’ve been blighted for a long time. We’ve fully engaged at every stage along the way with the Trust and the owner of the other cottage has also spent significant sums of money which has been taxed income in her case too so it’s not come from some lonely legacy as much as we wish it had.

543. Thank you, I’ll leave that there for now if I may, so our current situation is that we aren’t currently eligible and neither are our neighbours unless the lady who’s got cancer deteriorates, to apply for the Need to Sell scheme and I think it was very well illustrated this morning by the gentleman from South Heath about the difference between Need to Sell and want to sell. We did not buy this haven and invest this much time and money in living in what is going to be an HS2 horror zone, you’ll see shortly how close we are. We are in somewhat of a triangle because we’ve got the HS2 line coming 300 metres from our home and it’s in what my husband will show you later, in an unprotected area with very little mitigation.

544. We’ve also got the A418, the main road at the top, where we’ve had so many different interpretations of what the traffic will be. We have no idea. It’s gone from 720 a day down to 20 a day, up to 250 a day; we’ve just heard more arguments today for moving more traffic onto that road so we’re still left in very uncertain situation. We

have not applied to the Need to Sell scheme for two reasons really. One, we cannot meet the criteria in an effort to sell. We’ve been trying to put it on the market because we’re aware that only around 74% of properties who have applied on that scheme have been successful. We’ve been advised by Estate Agents that houses like ours are quite unusual. They stay on the market a long time in these kind of situations and they internet have a very long memory and if our house is on the market now and doesn’t sell next year and it doesn’t sell next year and we’re still not eligible for compensation then we’re stuck with a blighted period house for a lot longer.

545. So, we haven’t tried to sell and currently we don’t meet criterion for having a compelling reasons to sell unless we die, divorce or get really ill and we think that’s grossly unfair. We did not buy this wonderful haven in order for this to happen. Now in saying this I’m acutely aware that there are an awful lot of very worthwhile cases being brought this afternoon. We’ve heard about places where housebuilding needs to happen, we’ve heard about other peoples’ homes and incomes being blighted and we are not in any way saying that we are greater than any other case but we are just saying this feels patently unfair that we are the nation’s hardworking people who are currently actually being penalised by having our choices taken away. So, we would want to be able to put our home on the market with more assurance about mitigation and we believe that it is actually like many cases, it’s the construction phase that most worries people. We will be dead or deaf by the time the line comes and it will make very little difference to us personally but we are in this triangle and we believe that the nearer we are to the scheme starting we are the less likelihood of selling, which is just the time that we would want to be retiring.

546. Our neighbours who left earlier had to apply under the exceptional hardship scheme because of ill health. We’ve lost really good neighbours. They were very good friends and we’re still in touch and I think they were quite foresighted because they sold early and I think we lived in a little bit of denial for a long time that it was actually going to happen to what was our haven. Sadly, it’s now become somewhat of a prison.

547. If I just finally say that, whilst we’re not legally part of the National Trust estate, Lower Hartwell still does contribute to the historic setting of Hartwell House and it’s a designated conservation area. Could we go back to slide 5, please? You will see here that the environmental statement clearly states that the line has a high impact and major

adverse significant effects on Hartwell House and Lower Hartwell, and yet, HS2 have concluded, and repeatedly concluded, that no additional mitigation measures for Lower Hartwell are required. We disagree fundamentally.

548. As a result of these changes, the residents of Lower Hartwell have seen their life savings impacted in a way that we never thought would happen. It’s reduced, if not removed, some of our options, not only for the ladies who have to prepare for their old age in care but how they choose to live their lives. So given the confirmed adverse impact on Lower Hartwell and the resulting multiyear year blight on house prices, we want HS2 to voluntarily purchase our unique properties from those who wish to sell at their full and unblighted pre-announcement values. We may not want to sell right now, not everyone may want to leave, but everyone should be given the option to do so at a time that suits their life circumstances.

549. The elderly residents should be given really practical assistance. These are single ladies living on their own. They don’t know where to start, and some of you may have an 80-year-old auntie or mother that knows how to, but these certainly do not. So the conclusion, the logic for our request, is that for those who wish to sell, it is quite simple; if it is so unblighted as HS2 say, then what is stopping them from buying it from us and selling them on quickly, or housing HS2 staff in there? That should pose no problem at all. I should also note that many people like ourselves pay quite a high premium in terms of living here. We’ve paid a premium.

550. My husband is going to talk more about that, but we paid a lot of money in stamp duty; we didn’t think we’d have to pay that kind of amount again. So when we move, we’re going to have to find another chunk of money that is just lost. HS2 would have saved itself and the Select Committee a lot of time and effort for work that we’re not qualified to do, if they had only, when the line was first announced, and it was known that our area was affected, offered to buy us out then. Moving over to you.

551. MR FEILER: After the shortcomings of the compensation scheme have been outlined to some extent to you, I’d like to focus on what we feel are the shortcomings of the mitigation scheme. If I could have slide number 9, please. Thank you. On slide 9, you can see a summary of what our concerns are, which I’d like to address, and I will combine the first four of those in one point, because they really form the focus of our

concerns and our consequent requests or asks that we have to the Committee. Exhibit number P9719, please. Exhibit P9719.

552. MS ASPEY: P9715, is that the one you mean?

553. MR FEILER: Sorry, everybody. P9719, it’s in your documents.

554. MS ASPEY: Ah, thank you.

555. MR FEILER: That document shows you the outline of our property and it shows you also what is represented by our main concern. If I can just point to over here, this is the so called Lower Hartwell gap from the property, which is – all the other properties are just located immediately around it all the way to the line. That is the so called Lower Hartwell gap, which you’ve been made aware in a previous petition on 27 October. What we have requested is that the Lower Hartwell gap is closed by both an embankment as well as sound barriers. You can see that there are sound barriers there at the moment. They are three meters high. Because we don’t believe in the noise assessment, we ask that these are raised to five metres and we also ask for an embankment.

556. We worked very closely with the National Trust and its representatives on a working level around Hartwell House, because we are on the same environmental setting and on the same historical setting, and we understand that last week, if you want to call it that way, a backroom deal was agreed between Hartwell House Hotel and the National Trust and HS2. We don’t accuse Hartwell House or the National Trust of any wrongdoing, but we feel it is inappropriate that we are being treated differently than Hartwell House, considering that we are closer to the line, number one, and number two, that the residents there are permanent residents.

557. Also, I think it’s worth putting word in to provide context around Hartwell House and the National Trust property. This is not your typical National Trust property such as Waterstones for instance, which isn’t far away and also along the line, which is visited by thousands of visitors over the weekends and during the week and has regular coming and going by the public. Hartwell House Hotel is in essence a private, very secluded, very expensive hotel and restaurant. Not that we have a problem with that, not at all, but we feel, given that we are on the same grounds, we share the same environmental

and historical setting, we deserve the same mitigation.

558. As we understand it, last week the proposal that has been made by Hartwell House Hotel over the past months has been accepted by HS2, and that acceptance is around a green bank solution. That is our request. We request that this green bank solution which we have made the HS2 aware of over the last six, seven months is something we would like to see extended to close completely the Lower Hartwell gap. That would provide the sort of mitigation that one could then reasonably say to potential buyers of the property, there is adequate mitigation in place. As it stands, it isn’t.

559. The green embankment would only require an extension between 200 and 300 metres and where we already have today five metre high sound barriers, just to the north of the line over here, that’s an area where sound barriers, according to the documentation, is five metres high. We want that five metre high barrier extended to our location, in order to completely shield us or better shield us, from both noise and – I’ll just come to the visual implications in a second. Now HS2 has refused that suggestion which we have made to them some time ago on the grounds that there is a balancing point, which you can see over here. Right over there is a balancing point which is required and I understand why a balancing point is required.

560. What we do not understand is why this balancing point cannot be relocated to the north of that line, precisely to the north, or if that for whatever technical reasons or hydrological reasons isn’t possible, the embankment which we seek cannot be constructed, just to go around that balancing point. We think, now that HS2 has agreed to the green bank solution covering Hartwell House from over to over here, it would not be an unreasonable effort to request, given what I’ve said before, that that is extended up to over here, where there is already green embankment earthworks planned, according to HS2’s own plans. So why not merge those two embankments to form a visual and audio shield for the residents of Lower Hartwell?

561. The next point, in conjunction with this aspect, is the newly relocated footpath overbridge which on the map is described as SBH/32. If I could very briefly have slides 10 and 11 from the presentation.

562. CHAIR: 159610.

563. MR FEILER: This slide over here shows you the view from the proposed line to the hamlet, and as you can see, it is the clear view to the hamlet. The trees that are outlined over there are 20 to 30 metres apart. Now, HS2 thinks that provides some screening, however ‘some’ is defined. We defined in any case – however it is defined – it is inadequate screening. Next slide, please. That shows the reverse view from the hamlet to the golf course which we’re currently looking on, and in the background, the colourful dots over there are golfers with their caddies on the golf course.

564. Again, you can see that the trees are 20 to 30 metres apart and they are, at the moment, at the time of the pictures, they were in full leaf. They are not anymore. So the view, from a visual impact point of view, for at least half of the year, is completely open and there is not visual screening as described. I’d now like to move again back to the footbridge, the previous two slides which we’ve had. P9719. Now, as part of the AP4 documentation, additional provisions number 4, a current very, very small footpath has been replaced by a monstrosity called over here ‘footbridge overbridge’.

565. According to HS2’s documentation, that monstrosity is going to be 12 metres high and, as a result of the negotiations between HS2 and National Trust, it has been conveniently moved to the northwest out of sight from Hartwell House, which we don’t criticise – I wouldn’t want it there either if I were Hartwell House – but plain view of where we, from Lower Hartwell House, our view focuses on. So what we’re suggesting, with regards to the foot bridge, we think it’s a waste of money as it is and that could be easily saved, and there are two alternatives for the footbridge.

566. One alternative is 700 metres to the northwest where you can see there is a bridleway overbridge, which needs to be established, and the footbridge could therefore easily be integrated with that bridleway, which is necessary for faming purposes. Alternative number two for that footpath overbridge is the freed up space for the realigned 418. That line was usually a straight line, parallel to Hartwell House premises, and the footbridge could be located in that freed up space which is free to use for other purposes. The convenience of that would be that the footpath would then be aligned with existing other footpaths in the area and could be joined up there.

567. There is no need, from a frequency point of view, to retain it at the location where it currently is and there are alternatives in place, and this footbridge as it is now planned

in AP4 would it make it impossible for the suggested integration of the green bank solution from the Nation Trust towards the green banks, which have already been planned over here by HS2. So that’s our proposal in essence, in terms of mitigation. Just a very brief word on why we feel that the noise mitigation and the noise assessment is inappropriate and would lead to wrong conclusions.

568. Without necessarily wanting to repeat what you’ve heard on 12 October from Mr Doug Sharps, and I have gone through that three hour session on TV myself, and you may rest assured I’m not going to repeat it at length here, but what it did do is, it made me very curious and also worried, because I have heard nothing in the response to that that is meaningful or which would have alleviated any of our concerns. That made me question, if, on a macro level, the noise assessment is questionable, what does it look like on a micro level? And I’ve assessed our own documentation in this regard.

569. What I found is, if we could go to P9720, what you’ll see over here, there is a sort of noise assessment device over here with the idea of 305767. Now there are oddities regarding that device. Number one is it just happens to be – probably a coincidence – opposite a farm entrance, with farm traffic going in and out all day, and with ongoing noise arising from the operation of the farm. Secondly, we had a device in our own garden, so the question: why go through the expense – we received a cash amount – why go through the expense of paying cash, of implementing that device, of monitoring that device and then not reflecting any of the data in that device in the noise assessment?

570. It’s just these kinds of inconsistencies around noise measurement, how it was done, and the major macro approach that was questioned by using averages instead of the more incidental noise arising from the operation of HS2, that made us question the validity of the conclusions. If the approach in general is questionable, how can one possibly expect that the conclusions from those noise assessments are rational, valid and appropriate to mitigate accordingly? If I could very briefly go back to slide 9. I’ve covered points, I believe, number one, two, three, four and five, and would now just very briefly like to go on item number six and number seven. No, we can leave out number seven. I’ve touched on that as well.

571. Let’s take number six and number nine. At present, as we know from the environmental statement and from the environmental agency, we live in an area of high

water table. All of our properties are built largely of wychert, which is highly sensitive towards water. We are concerned that, by the described waterway relocation works that are going to be carried out, that that may negatively impact on the very sensitive and fine balance of water levels as they are today, and we would like to receive some sort of reassurance, because our properties have not been flooded for 100 years, we also know that from the environmental agency. We’d like to keep it that way.

572. So we’d like to have some form of assurances if, as a result of the works being carried out, there is consequential flooding, there would be help to ensure properties available, if not guarantees, that compensation would be made available if, as a result of HS2 works, flooding occurs. Secondly, a lot has been mentioned today about construction traffic impacting on access to the A418. We would just like to again reiterate that at the moment at peak times it is sometimes very, very difficult to leave our property and access the A418 and we feel that if another 215 lorries, I believe both ways, which has been reduced from 750, which we appreciate, but if that additional traffic hits our A418, it will be next to impossible during rush hour times to access safely. Therefore, we feel that it should be at least considered, some form of traffic management system which could be a roundabout or could be smart traffic light regulation.

573. CHAIR: We’re under a slight time constraint because I’m not sure when we’re going to have votes between now and seven, so it’s going to disrupt things. So is it possible if you get to the conclusions and then we can start getting HS2 to answer?

574. MR FEILER: Yes. I think it’s raised now, our concerns, and I’ve also outlined already while doing so some of the proposed solutions for what it is that we want, and how we think it can be achieved. Just to summarise, slide 13, please. As mentioned, we would like the existing sound barriers to be extended both in height up to five metres and in length covering all of the Hartwell setting, bridging the gap from where protection for Hartwell House Hotel ends, according the new agreement that has been achieved, and extending to the current proposed embankment towards the River Thame.

575. Secondly, we would like to see a green embankment, including additional supporting plantings to be extended in such a way to completely close the Hartwell gap and to provide adequate shielding of sound and view from the line. In this context, we’d

like to see the proposed footbridge be moved either 700 metres further to the northwest or, alternatively, 500 metres to the southeast, where free space has been created as a result of the A418 realignment. Finally, to achieve the green bank solution which we are asking for, we would like the proposed balancing pond to be relocated either to the east of the line or further west to create space for the green embankment, as per above, or to construct a green embankment around the balancing pond in a way to achieve the same outcome for us, which is shielding from visual and audio impact. Thank you very much for listening to us.

576. CHAIR: Thank you very much, indeed. If you’ve missed anything you can do it when you come back tomorrow.

577. MS FEILER: Did I miss anything?

578. MS ASPEY: Well, I just wanted to sort of, finally, our suggested solutions – I was really heartened this morning to hear from Southeast Heath, the gentleman’s proposal and request that property bond be reconsidered, because I think that was very early eliminated from discussions, and that would have been a very useful thing to know about and how, so I would just urge the Committee, if that could be relooked at, we would be very grateful.

579. CHAIR: Mr Strachan, can we just go down the list?

580. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. I’ll take them in the order that the petitioners put them. The first thing they raised was about the need to sell scheme, and I’ll just reiterate what the Committee knows very well, but the petitioners may not know as well. It’s not geographically limited and the criteria that are set out are not exhausted criteria, and of course, in addition, the question of evidence is something the Committee has looked on in terms of what evidence needs to be submitted, and if there’s other evidence beyond marketing, that’s something that the Panel will consider for particular areas which were affected.

581. I’ve looked at it slightly in reverse, because I want to then look at actually the effects on the properties themselves before one gets to the question of the need to sell scheme. Can I come back therefore to what’s going in this area, can I just bring back screen P9719? Just to refresh your memory, Mr Miller dealt with this particular location

in evidence to you when, I think, dealing with the Bishopstone Parish Council, so he has explained this. He’s here if you want to, but I’ll just try and recap what he said. If there are any more difficult questions, I’m sure he can answer them.

582. The area of Lower Hartwell, the houses are approximately 300 to 400 metres, depending on where you are, from the line. The Hartwell House is a grade 1 listed building and it’s a Registered Park and Garden. Lower Hartwell, is in a conservation area; it’s not a Registered Park and a Garden. All of the mitigation that’s been designed has been designed to mitigate the railway for the relevant receptors and taking into account their location. I think the concern is that Hartwell House is being treated differently to Lower Hartwell. It’s only being treated differently in as much as we’re mitigating different effects and different landscapes.

583. For example, the Hartwell House is looking down this avenue of trees that reference has been made to. The petitioners are concerned about the views across that Registered Park and Garden towards the railway. In this location, what mitigation is proposed here had to take account of a number of things. First of all, there is a watercourse in this area, you can see, and that means there’s a land drainage area immediately to the west of the line, and the mitigation here doesn’t permit of an embankment without affecting the watercourses.

584. So I know one of the concerns was not affecting flooding of the properties, but of course, one of the things the railway does is seek to ensure it doesn’t have a consequential effect of worsening the flooding situation in the area, and here you see an example of it. However, what we have put in place here is a three metre noise barrier running along this section, and if one zooms in you can see that there is also provision – Mr Miller talked about this – there’s landscaping alongside in front of the land drainage area, alongside the noise barrier, and the detail of that planting is clearly something that can be looked at from the detailed design, but it’s intended to assist in the visual screening, both of the noise barrier and of course in the railway from the properties in Lower Hartwell. I can show you that in a cross section, P9725 and P9726. Well, I think I can show you that. Right, well, I can’t show you that at the moment. There is a cross section which does exist.

585. CHAIR: I think we’ve seen it before.

586. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): You may well have seen it when Mr Miller gave the last presentation. We’re not relying simply on the avenue of trees. This avenue of trees continues in front, and as it has been pointed out by the petitioner, there are currently gaps in the trees. I think in fact the National Trust has put in some planting. They are seeking to restore that avenue, but we’re not relying solely on that, although we hope that planting will come into fruition, but there is the provision for the further planting closer to the railway which I’ve just talked about, which can be looked at in the detailed design.

587. On the height of the noise barrier, this three metre noise barrier, I appreciate that the petitioners don’t believe our noise assessments will result in the noise levels that we’ve indicated, but we believe in them and the three metre noise barrier does mean that the properties at Lower Hartwell do not fall within the relevant noise contour concern. That’s P9722, you can see that shown, if I get that slide up, P9722. These contours will be, again, for members of the Committee, the petitioners’ properties here, then the yellow contour, which is the 40 to 45, will be at the night and the 50 to 55 will be during the day, occurs further into the Registered Park and Garden.

588. That’s achieved with the three metre noise barrier, so that’s why we’re not proposing a higher noise barrier. A higher noise barrier in this location also has further visual impacts that you have to bear in mind when dealing with the Registered Park and Gardens. So that’s why we’re not proposing higher, but why we consider what we are proposing will provide appropriate mitigation. Can I just then deal with traffic? Can we get P10404?

589. CHAIR: I think we’ve covered quite a lot of traffic now. This gentleman is not the only one to say they have been sitting on junctions of the A418. So we’re aware there is a real problem trying to access and get out to the shops and doing things like that.

590. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. I appreciate there are junctions of that kind. I don’t think it applies here to the A418, which is the road of concern, and certainly as a result of HS2 construction traffic, because the A and B is effectively close to where they join the A418, and the levels of traffic we’re proposing for the construction in this location, just top right, are very low indeed. I think at the maximum, it’s 14 HGVs each

way during the days, and 56 cars and LGVs which represent a one per cent and three per cent increase.

591. I accept other petitioners have put forward cases, but that’s the reason we don’t see the need for any traffic junction improvement in that location for the limited effects we’re going to have whilst we’re constructing the railway in that particular location.

592. CHAIR: Okay. Right, thank you. Final comments?

593. MR FEILER: Yes, if I could go back to P9719. Firstly, Mr Strachan, you haven’t commented over here on the footbridge, which I have asked you build around the balancing pond, which I understand is required somewhere. Why it needs to be there, I still am not convinced, but why it cannot receive an embankment to be drawn around it to unite it with the green embankment solution of the National Trust, I fail to see. Finally, you explained that this only deserves three metres over here. Why, the National Trust, I fail to see. Finally, you explained that this only deserves three metres over here. Why is it five metres over here, where the distance to the next location isn’t different to where we are exposed?

594. CHAIR: Do you want to take up the point about the footbridge?

595. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. The footbridge has been in this location designed, amongst other things, obviously to continue the footpath network to the quite dense areas of Aylesbury in this location, which is why we consider it important to put a footbridge in, linking this particular locality. You’ll also recall the footbridge is part of the ecological measures that were discussed providing with some greenery along the footbridge and linkage between the two areas. So it’s never quite as easy as moving something of this kind further south or north.

596. Also, just picking up on the last point before, this is a Registered Park and Garden, and so the land forms that we’ve been able to achieve in other parts are taking account of minimal or not interfering with the Registered Park and Garden, particularly as it comes close to Hartwell House. It is quite a sensitive location. What we tried to achieve is a proper balance will all of those factors; ecological, landscape and of course noise, in the way I’ve described. I do hasten to add that the landscaping alongside – Mr Miller described the landscaping alongside the noise barriers, clearly something he

looked at, from the detailed design, to ensure that the best outcome is achieved for the properties looking towards the railway.

597. CHAIR: And to have an embankment around the balancing pond would stop people, presumably, being able to access the balancing pond with vehicles, or...?

598. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Miller will correct me, but one of the principle problems with that is it then cuts into the Registered Park and Garden, that location, and the floodplain stretches down from that area.

599. MR FEILER: But then why not extend the green bank solution from the National Trust, which goes from over here, all the way to over there?

600. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Because the flooding, as I understood it – the watercourse issue doesn’t extend to that area the green banks are in place. It’s a specific stream which is in that particular location.

601. CHAIR: But presumably...

602. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Because it carries across, I think, to...

603. CHAIR: We’re going to hear other petitioners from your village as well – hamlet – they’re going to make similar points, so we will consider them. Thank you very much.

604. MS ASPEY: Can I make one final comment? May I do that?

605. CHAIR: Yes.

606. MS ASPEY: I just want to say, it would be hard to be more disappointed today. We’ve been preparing for this for a long time and have been here for a long time. We’ve now got to go back to our residents, our neighbours, and say that nothing we asked for was actually heard, that everything we said was dismissed, that we had been reassured that the parklands, the registered parklands is still more important than our residents and that mitigation that now seems to be available is still the same mitigation, which is some more trees, and as I said, by the time those grow, we will be dead, deaf or blind or gone. So this is of no reassurance to us or to them whatsoever, I’m afraid. I’m very disappointed.

607. CHAIR: The point is, you’ve put your case, HS2 have put their case. We then reflect on it. We’ll be hearing other petitioners from your area and whether or not the Committee takes a different view remains to be seen, but we haven’t talked about it yet. Anyway, thank you very much to both of you. Thank you.

608. MS ASPEY: Thank you.

609. MR FEILER: Thank you for your time.

Aylesbury Town Council, Coldharbour Parish Council and others

610. CHAIR: Okay. We now move on to Aylesbury and Coldharbour, 1442, 8123, 82134, 1484 and 106 – no, not 106. You’re going to be interrupted I’m afraid, I think, possibly. Okay.

611. MR ROGERS: I was going to say good afternoon. I’m tempted to say good evening, Chairman and members of the Select Committee. I appreciate it’s been a long day. We could try and do this a capella if you wanted us to, to try and lighten it, but perhaps we will just get straight on with it and get through this as quickly as we are able to.

612. CHAIR: Okay.

613. MR ROGERS: Good evening. If I could have slide A159A(3), please.

614. CHAIR: We’ve renamed, by the way.

615. MR ROGERS: Yes, I’ve seen. Thank you. Good evening. I’m Marcus Rogers, roll B agent for Aylesbury Town Council, Coldharbour Parish Council and Councillor Stephen Lambert, who sits alongside me this evening, who is a county district and parish councillor.

616. MR LAMBERT: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it’s been a really long day. As Marcus said, I am a parish councillor for Coldharbour. I’m a district councillor for the same area. My county division just overstretches that by a couple of hundred residences. I’ve been a councillor for that area for 10 years, and I am an active campaigner on local issues and I have constantly been knocking with doors with colleagues, talking to residents about what we have in front of us today.

617. MR ROGERS: Thank you, Stephen. I’m just going to start by considering how HS2 affects the area.

618. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just before you do that, can we just look very briefly at 10417 and – well, 10417 will do it. Aylesbury is inside the red and Coldharbour is the bit on the left-hand side that is outside it, correct?

619. MR LAMBERT: It is, yes.

620. MR ROGERS: That is correct, sir.

621. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Fine. Just so we’ve got things in mind.

622. MR ROGERS: Next slide please, then.

623. CHAIR: Number 4, is it?

624. MR ROGERS: Number 4, yes please. So here is the view south from HS2 as it approaches and passes Aylesbury. Immediately to the east of the railway and at north of the Oxford Road that’s been talked about on a number of occasions, is Coldharbour Parish Council, also known as Fairford Leys Village. It’s a recent urban extension of Aylesbury. More than 5000 people live there, and it’s a thriving and close-knit community. Councillor Lambert is in fact a local resident there himself and lives on the edge of Fairford Leys overlooking HS2. About here, I believe.

625. MR LAMBERT: Yeah.

626. MR ROGERS: Aylesbury Town Council’s area lies east of Coldharbour, as Sir Peter pointed out, and south of the Oxford Road beyond, in this area. As you know, Aylesbury is the largest town settlement that will be passed so closely and at full speed on phase 1 of HS2 between London and Birmingham. There are about 60,000 people living across Aylesbury, of which some 20,000 live in wards directly impacted by HS2; west of the town, Hawkslade, Walton Court, Southcourt and the Willows, as well as Coldharbour. Next slide, please. I won’t dwell on this too long, because this really does what we just saw with the exhibit from HS2.

627. The yellow shaded area is an approximation of Coldharbour’s boundary, whilst the pale orange area illustrates the area covered by Aylesbury Town Council. Stephen,

did you want to just give a couple of extra details?

628. MR LAMBERT: Just a couple of extra details. Just the previous petitioners, the land was owned by the Ernest Cook Trust and was developed as such, and we can’t change the colour of our front doors either, in planning. Where the green bar is, looking at Coldharbour there, is an urban extension to Aylesbury. It is built in the same style and design as Poundbury, and has won design awards right the way through it. It really is a community. It really isn’t just a housing estate and it has integrated very well into the Aylesbury wider community.

629. MR ROGERS: Okay. Next slide, please. Number six. To the key request then of Aylesbury of Town Council. The first ask focuses on the major construction, operation effects of HS2 on the town. The road network in Aylesbury already manages hundreds of thousands of vehicle movements every day. Irrespective of the roads used, construction vehicles will add to the traffic burden across the town. Congestion will grow and gridlock will become a more frequent occurrence during the seven year build period. Homes and communities facing the line will suffer inconvenience and disturbance during construction, and daily noise and visual blight once the trains are running.

630. No amount of mitigation can eliminate these ongoing effects completely. The Town Council is disappointed with the level of community engagement attempted by the Promoter. It does not believe that consultation was comprehensive enough to be meaningful. It has to be pointed that residents across Aylesbury are less likely to engage with many identified as hard to reach, but that definition should not be used by the Promoter as a reason or excuse for failing to reach out to effected individuals, families and groups. Next slide, please. Shown in orange on this slide are the key roads in and out of Aylesbury.

631. The strategic network comprises a number of radial routes that convert in the town centre, effectively, a number of spokes that centre on the hub that is the town. Invariably, that means, if you go anywhere in Aylesbury, you’re going to travel through or very close to the town centre. Red points are the indicative construction sites or road heads on the west of Aylesbury, and those are destinations for most of the proposed construction traffic. Earlier assessments suggested that these would largely use roads on

that side of the town, but we’ve heard different things today. Clearly, the latest plans show the burden is going to be spread, perhaps like jam, across the whole town.

632. So it will have impacts on Tring Road to the southeast, over on this side, and Bierton Road to the northeast, Buckingham Road to the north. They will all have increased, as traffic flows, using the A41, Bicester Road and A418 Oxford Road, reduced. The Town Council believes these changes have not been widely advertised and that our residents will be largely oblivious. Next slide, please. As the Committee will be aware, new housing development has brought more traffic to the town and big time congestion and journey delays are now common on pretty much every radial route to and from the town centre each day.

633. The morning and evening peak periods grow year on year. An incident on one route can effectively create gridlock across the town. Examples include flooding on Lower Road in December 2013 and recent construction on the eastern side of Aylesbury. Unsurprisingly, drivers try to avoid these routes at peak times using less appropriate routes though residential areas and near schools, and they are using them as rat runs. Some of these are highlighted for you in yellow. This shows the efforts drivers will make and, in some cases, the extra distance they will travel, to avoid traffic queues and keep moving. With continued housing growth and HS2 construction traffic, the use of rat runs is likely to grow beyond today and spread to other roads.

634. The Promoter’s assumption that drivers will choose to sit in the queue on a main road rather than choose an alternative is at odds what actually happens day to day in Aylesbury. Next slide, please. So the Town Council knows the Promoter will have powers under the Hybrid Bill to mitigate and manage the impacts of construction traffic and prevent rat running or restrict rat running. These powers must be used fully to protect the residential areas and schools and reduce safety concerns. The Town Council expects to work with the Promoter and the County Council to develop a comprehensive local environment management plan that meets the unique needs of Aylesbury.

635. It appreciates that may be at some point in the future, but nonetheless seeks an assurance today from the Promoter to that effect. Measures such as traffic management, traffic calming, new speed limits, weight restrictions, could act as a deterrent to reduce rat running. Next slide, please. Aylesbury Town Council also prides itself on being

close to the community, getting them involved and engaged. It organises and runs many free events during the year and these bring together residents from all parts of the town.

636. MR LAMBERT: One of the things that I’m going to come onto during my presentation, which is following this, we merged them together on purpose because we don’t need to look at Aylesbury and Coldharbour as two different communities. They really do work very well as a community, and having the way that we all come together for community event days is really one of those things that make us quite unique for a town in the middle of Buckinghamshire.

637. MR ROGERS: So the request is simple; that HS2 Ltd work with the councils, locals and other representative groups that are closest to individuals and communities to get them involved. Engagement by the Promoter to date has been perhaps at best poor, and the Town Council hopes that HS2 will give an assurance it will work with parish and town councils to improve that in the future and create effective local forums that address local concerns and minimise impacts. If we could now go to slide 13, please. We move to now to the asks of Coldharbour Parish Council. As we said, we split into three, but they are very much together.

638. In common with councils across Aylesbury, Coldharbour’s focus is getting the best protection for people and properties. The spine road through the village, Coldharbour Way, could easily become a rat run effecting both St Mary’s School and the village centre. The western side of Fairford Leys village is closest to HS2, and therefore most affected by the proposal. A landscaping providing when Coldharbour began building is now well established and contributing to local quality of life. The Parish Council believes to maintain that, its residents deserve similar or indeed better mitigation as that offered to the National Trust.

639. Next slide, please. So their priority is to protect people and properties from the effects of HS2. They are threatened if the Promoter fails to properly manage or mitigate the effects of construction traffic.

640. MR LAMBERT: Members, when you came on a visit to Aylesbury and to Fairford Leys, you did have a look at the area that we’re point out now. A couple of photographs on there, also the top right-hand side, shows a photograph of parents and myself outside our community school, which is on this main sine road. Now, that runs

from the A418 Oxford Road and it runs then to the A41 just at Hayden Hill, which is on the way to Waddesdon. It passes St Mary’s school at 40 miles an hour there as a road, and as Aylesbury grows, more and more traffic is likely to use that road. As people seek to move away from the construction traffic and construction sites at the A418, people will be driving along that road and through the village.

641. The Parish Council in particular are concerned that construction traffic will divert and will be using those roads and that people will choose to use the spine road to travel between the key roads of the A418 and the A41. To us at the Parish Council, this is unacceptable because it brings more traffic within metres of the village centre, the village school, the village pub and it will impact on the quality of residents’ lives. All the way though there are walkways that go underneath the roads and they are away from other main roads. The village is designed to walk through and walk around, and as you get closer to the spine roads, that will be more and more dangerous for people using that area.

642. MR ROGERS: Next slide, please. So the Parish Council, beyond that, is also concerned about the impacts HS2 will bring to homes and people on the northwest corner of the village. Chairman, Mr Bellingham and Sir Peter, you may remember visiting that part of the village we’ve highlighted in the red circle there on your site visit in June. You may recognise the view seen in the photograph on the right, although I don’t believe there were any cows on the field on that particular day.

643. MR LAMBERT: There are cows in the field today. That’s actually outside my house. So declaring my interest there, the view that you can see as you stood on my doorstep looking out across there, actually shows the way towards the Thame Valley, as shown on the right-hand side of the picture there. This photograph may give the impression that the area is rarely used by people, but I would draw your attention to this image. In the background you can see the homes and in the foreground walkers who are enjoying a brief break. Such leisure will be impossible once the Promoter starts building HS2. Additionally, the view from this area will be changed forever once building begins.

644. Now, I’m not afraid of the view changing, but actually, it could be mitigated so that the impacts are a lot less than are currently planned. It will be impossible for me

and my neighbours, unlike Hartwell House and large parts of the Parish, to use. So we want to work with HS2 Ltd to understand what mitigation is possible and feasible in this area.

645. MR ROGERS: Next slide, please. So in the years since Fairford Leys was built and completed, as we’ve highlighted, landscaping and mitigation has grown and matured to afford residents both sheltered and open views. The picture on the left shows the green avenue that is the footpath on the western flank of the village, used frequently by local residents. The photo on the right shows the view across open countryside, playing fields, and the golf course currently enjoyed by other residents. HS2 will cut across the view on the right, creating a scar on this and changing the local environment for a very long time.

646. MR LAMBERT: Now, we’ve saved a little bit of time for you this afternoon, because Mrs Glenny, the next petitioner, didn’t come along, thankfully, because the Promoter had written to her and gave assurances along that line. But we have extensive mature vegetation flanking this footpath. It is used by residents from Aylesbury all the way across and by Fairford Leys residents. The National Trust has secured visual screening and landscaping west of the line to protect Hartwell House and Gardens, but the Parish Council is asking and trusts that we’ll be able to secure similar mitigation on our side of the line, which is pretty scant at the moment.

647. MR ROGERS: Next slide, please. Actually, could we go to slide 18, sorry? So we now turn to Councillor Lambert’s requests, and at the moment I can rest my voice for a little while. Stephen.

648. MR LAMBERT: So thank you very much for being here. I’m not going to take up as much as time as you would think. I’m not adverse to railway projects. I grew up in the same distance from my house to Clapham Junction train station, the main line running in there. I know what a train line sounds like when it’s operating nearly 24 hours a day. I’m also a champion of East West Rail. I am pro-rail. It is a sensible transport option. For me, this is about mitigation for this whole area. In the five years I have been dealing with the HS2 project, I have become more and more frustrated, as has the community that I represent, with how the Promoter has failed to engage properly and in a language they understand with local people.

649. Ironically though, the existence of HS2 has in some cases brought the community together, in opposition against a common foe, as it were. Now, we’re not daft. I’m not daft. I understand that the railway is going to happen, but it’s a case of what mitigation can we have in place for one of the largest conurbations on the line. I believe there ways that Promoter and the project could help improve the mitigation that is front of us. Can I have the next slide, please?

650. MR ROGERS: Sorry, just to explain, the map in the background shows the area known as the Willows Estate, which is south of Oxford Road, with high power national grid pylons passing overhead indicated by the green line.

651. MR LAMBERT: You may recognise two of the people in that picture. I am on the right-hand side and the chap on the left is Martin Tett, who is the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, but in the middle is a chap called Lee Buckingham. Lee Buckingham lives on the Willows Estate, which you also visited on your tour of the site, and lives close the electricity pylons and not far east of the proposed railway line. Can I have the next slide, please? In late 2013, Lee and his neighbours on the Willows Estate received letters from High Speed 2 Limited that they’re homes to be compulsorily purchased to build the railway. Fair enough. That happens.

652. The headline from January 2014, from our local MP, which is David Lidington, in reaction to those letters, clearly shows that there is some concern about the communication. I was appalled, as was Lee, that they were treated so badly. There was no engagement up until that point. Next slide, please. Because less than three months later, in February 2014, I was got out of bed at 5.00 in the morning by those neighbours because their houses were flooding.

653. MR BELLINGHAM: It crossed over. That’s staggering isn’t it?

654. MR LAMBERT: So 80 homes were flooded there.

655. CHAIR: Order, order. Division in the House. Adjourn for 15 minutes. It might be more than 15 minutes if we have more Divisions.

Sitting suspended

On resuming –

656. CHAIR: Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee. We’re in the middle of a presentation. Would you like to continue, Councillor?

657. MR LAMBERT: Thank you. So, the chap that’s circled in red is Lee Buckingham, as I said. His house is actually just in front of that green bin that you can see just in the middle here. So, less than three months after he’d been told his house might be compulsorily purchased, Lee and his neighbours were flooded out. Now, I was got out of bed at five o’clock in the morning by those residents as their local councillor who’d knocked on their doors just a few weeks before saying, ‘Any questions, problems, issues, get in touch.’ I was a bit surprised at five o’clock when they said, ‘My house is flooding.’ You say, ‘Well, why are you ringing me? Why not a plumber?’ Then I realised that actually this was a bigger event than just a stream overflowing. 80 houses were flooded in the Willows Estate. When you visited it, you went to the top of the railhead and you could see where HS2 is going to cross at the bottom there. I can’t blame HS2 for the floods, but I can tell you that the Section 19 report that was completed by the county council was the first one completed just six weeks later. The community worked in a unique way with the repair and renew grant that was offered by the Government. They worked as a community to pool their £5,000 per household to get a community gain together for community flood defences. That is the first time that we know of where that sort of community working together happened. It was extraordinary.

658. So, there are two watercourses that attributed to this. One is the Stoke Brook and the other is the Sedrup Ditch. So, if we can go to the next slide, please, just a few weeks ago Lee contacted me, as did many more of the residents there, because they’d had this notice put outside their houses on lampposts – no community engagement, no door- knocking, no direct mail, no consideration for the residents there. Basically, those letters say, ‘Unknown owners, tenants and lessees of certain properties on the Willows, your homes, gardens and/or car-parking spaces may be required to enable the construction of HS2.’ So, a few hundred emails later to me, several phone calls to the county council and to HS2 Ltd ensued. You’ll appreciate, I hope, that Lee and his neighbours feel really victimised by this series of events and poor communication. One might be seen as an act of God, but the other two are clearly acts of the Promoter, and those could even be described as cock-ups. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect

HS2 to engage more effectively with local people and, if and when mistakes are made, we learn from them. Unfortunately, this has yet to happen. My experience of the community forums – this area was CFA11 – really didn’t go too well, and it was left to me as a community councillor and my colleagues to inform the community as to what was going on around them and hold community exhibition days to say, ‘This is what is happening. This is how it translates into everyday language, and this is what it means for us as a community.’ As we did that, we also got the National Trust involved, who helped us a massive amount through that.

659. If could move to the next slide, please, I want to move further up my county division and explain a bit more about it. The map on the right and the photos on the left show further up from my county division, which is south of the Willows Estate, which you just saw, which flooded. So, we have gone from the end of Fairford Leys, where you could see the cows, right the way up to Walton Court on the edge of Stoke Mandeville. The map shows the recent published indices of multiple deprivation and indicates that the area I represent and the area shaded here are within the 20% to 30% most deprived in the country. It’s not necessarily something that you would see in Buckinghamshire, but, as somebody who grew up in South London, in Battersea, when it wasn’t as trendy, I can tell you that most of those people may not have the wherewithal or the courage to read the documents that HS2 have put in front of them, to read what the Promoter’s responses are and to be able to fully engage and say, ‘My needs or asks are this.’ They may not be able to translate that. They are using us, as community councillors, to do that.

660. The reality here in Aylesbury, in my experience of what the Promoter’s been doing over the past five years in engaging properly with these communities, is that I don’t believe HS2 have properly understood what this community is like. People like Lee and the residents of Hawkslade, Walton Court, Southcourt and the Willows deserve much better engagement than anything they’ve experienced to date. If it wasn’t for Aylesbury Town Council and Coldharbour Parish Council continually, along with their councillors, going out to these communities, I’m sure most of them wouldn’t know it was going to happen until it actually happened, and then they’d be saying, ‘Well, who’s going to help with my mitigation? Who’s going to help with the traffic outside my house? Who’s going to help with the noise and dust and construction traffic?’ The

Promoter might want to consider working with us, as local councillors, and the local councils – I would really welcome that on a local level – to support better and more efficient engagement, so the residents understand what is being done to them. Work with them rather than to them. I believe this will be increasingly important as the project moves forward, as we move into detailed design and construction. Now, the Promoter has sent me my response document, so I’m aware of some of the stuff that they are engaging in in future. If we could go to the next slide, please.

661. This photomontage shows, on the bottom right-hand side, Lee, the chap I was talking about. On the left-hand side you can see the temporary defences that we bought with a section of his £5,000. When the community came together at the community event day, shown just above Lee’s picture there, we showed them what the pumps look like and how it will work in reality: ‘Should this flood again, this is what we can roll out within half an hour or so.’ The community engagement forum is shown in the middle picture. We had hundreds of people come to that. You didn’t see that at the CFAs at all. If you look at the bottom left-hand side, that is taken in Walton Court. That is a community project that has been running for 35 years in one of the highest deprivation areas, as I have said, where we engage with communities on a regular basis. The traffic models and requests that have been put forward, as we heard about earlier on from Wycombe, have surprised me about the A418. They have surprised about how the traffic will come up the A4010, but I don’t just want them or us to push the problem elsewhere. I understand or heard what the Promoter was saying, but proper traffic mitigation and management needs to be considered for Ellen Road – I will have to show you the map in a moment – and the Oxford Road, the A418, which leads to Hartwell House. At that point, when the floods happened in February 2014, I stood in the county offices with a remote CCTV system and we actively considered whether to close the A418 because of that flooding. That would have brought Aylesbury to an absolute standstill. When the G8 met at Hartwell House, the entire town ground to a halt.

662. CHAIR: You have made your point. Make progress as well, please.

663. MR ROGERS: Could we move to slide 26, please? Set out here, just to remind you, are the requests of Aylesbury Town Council, Coldharbour Parish Council and Councillor Lambert. On behalf of more than 60,000 people across Aylesbury, we look forward to hearing how the Promoter plans to respond positively to each and every one

of these points. The next slide, please.

664. MR LAMBERT: On behalf of Aylesbury Town Council and Coldharbour Parish Council and the residents I have spoken about, thank you very much for your time today. I know it’s been a really long day, and I really thank you for coming to actually stand on my doorstep to see what it looks like. Please, would you listen to our concerns about engagement and mitigation?

665. MR ROGERS: If any of you or the Promoter have any questions about our points or needs clarification, we’ll be happy to respond and offer other information if necessary. Thank you for your time.

666. CHAIR: Thank you, Marcus. Mr Strachan.

667. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): First of all, I understand the principal concern is about engagement. I know the Committee has heard a lot about engagement generally. There are a number of layers to the engagement that has both happened and will happen for the scheme. In terms of what has happened, of course the Promoter has sought to engage with communities up and down the line. I know not everyone has considered it sufficient, but there has been a process of, for example, holding meetings to talk through the proposals and explain what is going on, publicity and, of course, this process itself – of the Hybrid Bill plus the Environmental Statement that accompanies it – which enables people to make their representations, petition if they feel they wish to and bring their points before the Committee. Coupled with the engagement we’ve had, that is a fairly comprehensive process, and you’ve certainly heard from petitioners and, of course, parish councils and other councils that represent local interests as well as individuals.

668. As to the ongoing process, the Committee is also aware of what is contemplated. I am not going to go through it all, but can I give you some ideas of the sorts of further engagement that will necessarily happen in the detailed design of the project? For example, in relation to detailed design and particular elements in the proposal, there is the design policy, which involves local authority approvals and a process of engagement before that happens to try to ensure that the detailed design of the project is going to be one that is approved under the bill. In addition, under the Code of Construction Practice, which I suspect – but I’m not sure – may be one of the principal elements of

concern – there is the process for local environment management plans to be drawn up, and those LEMPs, as they’re known, are not fixed in stone as to their content, because they allow for a degree of flexibility for local concerns to be reflected in the content. An example is given in annex 3 to the draft Code of Construction Practice, and the obligation is for the nominated undertaker and/or its contractors to engage with local communities, local authorities and other stakeholders in order to develop those local environment management plans, which will be important for managing the process of construction and what it means for the local communities. I would anticipate that precisely the sort of engagement that the petitioners are concerned about should take place through that process, where the contractors, of course, can focus in on the specific concerns based on the specific construction impacts in the local communities. So, there are a number of layers to the ongoing process of engagement. I am not intending to provide an exhaustive list of it, but I hope that gives you some idea of what’s going to happen from the construction point of view.

669. CHAIR: For traffic in Aylesbury, presumably there will be modelling with the county council regarding what the impact is going to be. We’ve all been stuck in traffic in Aylesbury as well – it is obligatory.

670. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Largely what I said to Wycombe District Council applies. I showed you the slide. The roads through Aylesbury where construction traffic routing is proposed are very limited and the numbers are very small: 14 HGVs each in the peak I indicated on the A418 going up into Aylesbury and around on to the A41, Bicester Road, and then further up into the Elmhurst Road. In fact the construction traffic impacts that we are proposing – and they have to be approved by Buckinghamshire, of course, in due course – result in very limited traffic into and on the roads of Aylesbury. I understand, of course, Wycombe District Council would want to put more traffic onto the A418. You can see precisely why this is a process that needs to be looked at – where we put forward our proposals and, in due course, the local highway authority will approve the traffic routes that are proposed. You can see the tension there, I think, immediately between what Wycombe District Council are asking and what the residents of Aylesbury might want.

671. CHAIR: A brief final comment, gentlemen.

672. MR ROGERS: Yes – just a very quick one, if I may. In terms of the local environment management plan, I think the councils would welcome what has been said and almost request that it’s put on the record that we would seek very much local involvement in the development of those and also their monitoring.

673. One very quick reference that I would like to make sure is on the record is we would just seek some clarification in respect of the evidence provided at P10407 and P10408, which are the letters from the Environment Agency with regard to Sedrup Ditch and Stoke Brook. There’s this wording within those in the second-to-last paragraph: ‘We’ll continue to provide information and advice in relation to local flood risk issues to help HS2 as to whether works can be undertaken,’ etc. We would just welcome some clarification about what the Promoter understands that to mean, because our communities would welcome that understanding, bearing in mind the recent events across Aylesbury.

674. CHAIR: Sir Peter.

675. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You might have a corridor conversation on that, which might be useful. Can I say how much I enjoyed and we enjoyed the visit to your communities and congratulate you on your communities? In little brackets at the end, in my day Clapham Junction was not the same manor as Battersea.

676. MR LAMBERT: I agree with you. I agree. The bit I lived in was Battersea.

677. CHAIR: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Do you have a final comment?

678. MR LAMBERT: I did have a final question. It related to the £30 million community fund set up by HS2. That could be spent many times over. Hartwell House got its mitigation with its trees and plantings, but we want to ensure our side, where the residents all live, gets its slice of £30 million. It will be trees and it will be mitigation, for which there is a more detailed plan to come, I believe, but it’s making sure that’s safeguarded in some way so that it doesn’t get lost.

679. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The mitigation we’re proposing for the railway under the scheme is not part of the £30 million. That is a separate fund for those bodies or individuals who want to apply for their particular schemes.

680. MR LAMBERT: Thank you.

681. CHAIR: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Have a safe journey home.

100