Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Wednesday, 28 January (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Ian Mearns Mr Michael Thornton

______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Ms Joanna Wilson, Aston-le-Walls Parish Council Mr Maurice Cole, Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council Mr Ken Christy Ms Beryl Christy ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Aston-le-Walls Parish Council Submissions from Ms Wilson 3 Submissions from Mr Mould 11

Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council Submissions from Mr Cole 18 Submissions from Mr Mould 26 Closing submissions from Mr Cole 29

Ken Christy and Beryl Christy Submissions from Mr Christy 31 Submission by Mr Mould 34 Closing submissions from Mr Christy 37

(at 14.00) 1. CHAIR: Welcome back this afternoon to the HS2 Select Committee. We hear this afternoon from Aston-le-Walls Parish Council and Joanna Wilson. Are you going to do an introduction, Mr Mould?

2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m not going to introduce Ms Wilson’s petition. She’s going to deal with that. But can I just announce one thing, which I think will be of interest to the Committee and also to petitioners generally? It’s just to say that we have published a slightly revised version of information paper (E1), which is the information paper that explains the approach of the project to the control of environmental impacts, and it deals amongst other things with the environmental minimal requirements, which as you know have been a source of particular interest to petitioners. And the change in a nutshell is to make clear that the environmental minimal requirements will remain in draft and subject to improvement whilst the bill process is going on, and the final version will be published at the same time as royal assent, in the event that the bill receives royal assent.

3. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Could we have a map of the parish up, please?

4. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Do you want it?

Alton-le-Walls Parish Council

5. MS WILSON: That’s the one I wanted. That’s perfect. Thank you. Right. Good afternoon.

6. CHAIR: Good afternoon.

7. MS WILSON: My name is Jo Wilson. I’m a parish councillor and I represent the residents in the parish of Aston-le-Walls. We’re connected with Appletree, so we’re all one parish. We’re a small parish with 127 homes, 249 residents on the electoral roll, and a population of approximately 300, including all the children too young to vote. Our precept is £7,000, so we don’t have a lot of money to spend on specific surveys, professional representation when we’re dealing with all the business of HS2. So I’m

going to give you a brief overview of where the proposed line goes through the parish, tell you what we would like to be left with at the end of the construction phase and into the future, and explain why these issues are important to us, and how these outcomes might be achieved. Okay.

8. So you’ve got the map in front of you there. This is the parish boundary. The very, very squiggly line is Highfield-on-Brook, which is – as you can see that is one side of our boundary. In comparison with some communities we are very fortunate, the line enters from the north and there’s only a small section. We’re fortunate to have this green tunnel, which is the extension. Originally, it was a cutting but then the Chipping Warden green tunnel was extended across almost past Aston-le-Walls, but not quite. And then it comes out of the tunnel and it goes across on an embankment, which is across Washbrook Farm, the cross-country course. I think some of you will have come out at that point and stood on the mound on the cross-country course and seen where the line goes. I’m not going to talk about Washbrook Farm because that is a separate petition. We’ll leave that to Anne and Nigel Taylor.

9. As I say, at an open meeting we asked our residents what was important to them and how they felt they were being affected by HS2, and we come up with five points. Now, these are what we would like to see facilitated by the Committee. One is relocation of the construction compound. If we just look at a map, is this 3722? No. But relocation of the construction compound, the north portal maintenance building, autotransformer station and the access road. This will show you. Thank you. If you look, you can see where there is a construction compound then just below that there is the portal maintenance building and the autotransformer station. We would like those moved to the other side of the line.

10. We’d like a ban on any construction and maintenance traffic coming into the village, a paved footpath along the Welsh Road to the junction with the A361, a roundabout at the junction with the A361, and, just as a small thing, to keep Appletree Lane open to walkers – there’s a concrete path, which I’ll point out later – to keep that open to walkers as it would form a circular walk. I’ll give you a brief background. I’ll just mention – Last night at 6.30, we had a letter from HS2 offering assurance on a point. Point number 2.

11. MR BELLINGHAM: Sorry, what happened at 6.30?

12. MS WILSON: We had a letter through email from HS2. And they were giving an assurance on point 2, which was about the construction traffic in the village. I haven’t had a chance to look at it thoroughly and I can’t really comment too much on it without talking to the rest of the parish council, which puts me in a tricky situation. So I’m carry on and go through this just to make sure that I’m covered.

13. So we’ll go to point number 1. Could I map A764? Okay. So that shows clearly – You’ll see the orange construction compound, then going to the left there is the portal maintenance building and the autotransformer station. Now, those we would like moved to the other side of the line, to the west. This is being dealt with by the land owner, which is David and Julie Thrusher, who are petitioning next week. So I’m not going to talk about that now. I’ll leave it to them. But it is directly linked to point number two.

14. If we look at map P – it’s an HS2 map. I hope they don’t mind me using these resources. It’s P3725. Now, we highlighted the fact that the roads in our village are not suitable for construction traffic. This was years ago. So here we are with this problem. 3725 shows construction routes. As you can see the main compound is on the A361 Byfield Welsh Road, which – cursor to the right. No. Way over here. That’s it. Where all the brown stuff is. That’s it. That’s the main construction compound. So traffic is coming up the Byfield Road and turning left and going all the way along there. Okay. Stop there. That’s it. So Blacksmiths’ Lane and Main Street are the only access roads which are possible, according to the Environmental Statement, which gives the access to that satellite compound is Byfield Road (A361) and then Welsh Road. So the only way to get from Welsh Road to the compound is either using Blacksmith’s Lane or Main Street.

15. So let’s have a quick look. It looks fine on paper, but if we go to A751. That’s Main Street. There’s a village hall on the left where the BMW is, and that’s the school bus, and just up behind there on the right hand side there is a village school. If we go to – actually, that bus looks as if it’s moving in to get through. So if you go to A752, this

was a letter from the school supporting out desire to keep construction traffic out of the village.

16. So, let’s look at Blacksmith’s Lane. If you go to 756, this is Blacksmiths’ Lane. We’ll just run through these quickly. These are various shots. There’s a bend there. It actually looks wider than it is there. 757, that’s more like it. That’s down the bottom. Another bend. 758. Actually, the Committee probably – You came up this road on the bus. I don’t know if you remember. There’s another bend there. And 759, just another bend. It’s just all bends. It’s a narrow road full of bends. The school operate an unofficial one-way system down Main Street and down Blacksmith’s Lane. Anything going in the opposite direction at drop off and pick up times gets stuck. It’s frustrating that we’ve pointed this out so many times and yet 6.30 last night was the only time we’ve heard any positive feedback from HS2.

17. The other thing is we don’t want any traffic at all. Not just HGVs. When I glanced through the letter last night it was saying no heavy construction traffic. We don’t want any traffic in the village. We have to be a bit careful with the school, because we’re a small village we recognise strange cars coming in and if you see cars you don’t recognise they stand out like a sore thumb, and we’re very wary of this. One of our South Northamptonshire Action members was taking photographs last week and the school were onto us like a ton of bricks because – And, in fact, HS2 were with me at the time when we had the school coming over to us saying, ‘Who is taking photographs?’ We have to be very careful with strange vehicles, anything coming in. So if we can keep them out brilliant.

18. There is a solution. If we go to map P3727 – okay, this is quite useful because this is showing temporary closures. If you look at where the construction site is and the buildings, if those are moved to the other side of the line – Sorry. That’s it. Move them to the other side of the line, traffic can access those sites from Chipping Warden. If you come up from the south Appletree Road comes off the A361. It’s a wider road, there’s an industrial estate up there. The road then goes past the industrial estate and then just comes onto Appletree Lane from the west. There’s no houses at the top along Appletree Lane there. There’s no farms. It doesn’t pass anything along Appletree Lane and then it can just drop down into wherever it wants to go on the west side of the trace. So that’s

our solution to that one. As I say, they have offered us an assurance on heavy construction vehicles, but we want that to go further and so no construction vehicles at all.

19. So moving on from that one to – that was number 2. Number 3: the paved footpath. Okay. Let’s look at P3725, please. Okay. So this is showing the construction routes again. Welsh Road going from Banbury Road to Welsh Road to join the A361. That road is the only access we have to a bus stop. The bus stop is where the cursor is now. Anyone from the village wanting to catch a bus to Banbury or Daventry has to use that road. They have to walk along that. And, also, there is a bus stop in the village on that road that is the school bus from the Chenderit School, which is where all the secondary school children go. If we look at A766, that’s the school bus stop. That’s the one the secondary school children use. The turning you can just see on the left that turns into Main Street, just so you can get some geography there. 765, okay, that’s Welsh Road. That’s taken coming up from the crossroads from the A361. It’s a fast road. It’s just been resurfaced and it’s lovely to have a new surface but it has made it much quicker.

20. Okay. So we’ve got a vehicle activated sign in the village and it’s showing over 1000 vehicles a day. HS2 are planning to add another 160 to this plus 30 HGVs. It is so dangerous. At the top of that picture where the trees are there is a slight bend in the road, which is a blind corner. Any walkers along there you just can’t see them. I was driving back at dusk the other day and I so nearly hit some pedestrians. There were a couple walking in the dusk in dark clothing. I actually swerved to avoid them. One of our other members of the parish council clipped a child’s schoolbag a while ago driving up there because it was just – she didn’t see them.

21. When the construction starts – Actually, if we go back to map 3725 again. Once construction starts it is all on one side of our village, it’s all to the west of the village. So we’ve got over 40 dogs in our village. We’re a rural area, a lot of retired people, a lot of people with dogs, a lot of walking goes on. Most people walk over on the west die now. Well, south-west. So a lot more people are going to be walking to the north. There is a lot of lovely walks up above Aston-le-Walls going up towards Byfield and Upper Boddington but you have to deal with that Welsh Road to get there. Just to the

right of Main Street going north there is a footpath that goes up there. There is another one to the left that goes up towards the reservoir. There’s loads of walks up there. So that’s where everybody is going to go. They’re all going to have to deal with the Welsh Road.

22. What else can I say about that? So, what we want and what we would very much like is a paved footpath from the village to the main A361 just so that we can walk safely along there. I think all the points I’m bringing up today are all to do with safety. When HS2 sent me that letter yesterday I though, you know, should we leave this. They say they’re in talks with various people about this. But I have to bring all these things up. If I don’t and something happens – We need to be sure we’ve done our absolute best to be able to get the best for this.

23. Point number 4. So that’s the footpath. Point number 4 is the roundabout. I think if you talk to anybody in South Northamptonshire who’s presenting at this committee, if you asked them about that junction on the A361 where it crosses the Welsh Road they’ll all say, ‘Gosh. It’s dangerous.’ If we go to map – We’re on there. Yes, that crossing there. So as I say, there’s a lot of support from outside the village. It’ll come up on other petitions. I think Chipping Warden you’re hearing next week and I think Nigel Galletly will mention it then.

24. The A361, the Byfield Road, has been designated a red route, higher than average number of accidents on here. It’s got a 50 mph speed limit on it but not many people stick to it. It’s a long straight road. It’s one of the only sections between the M40 and pretty much Daventry – not quite Daventry but almost Daventry – where you can overtake anything. If we go to map – We’ll have a look at the photos. A749, this is just a few photographs. I had the Banbury Guardian ringing up the other day because they’d heard we were talking about this. This one teenage driver, top right hand corner, was killed on that section of road. If we go to A750 – there’s a man with a chainsaw on here – this one, motorcyclist hospitalised. That was actually on the crossroads.

25. If we could go to 761, I’ll just show you what the road looks like. I don’t know if you remember the bus went down the crossroads and it stopped. That’s where I got off there. That’s where you stopped. If we go to A761, this is the pictures of the A361 at

the crossroads and this one is looking south towards Chipping Warden. Aston-le-Walls is up turning right and Culworth is turning left. There’s a corner down at the bottom, so everything comes hurtling down that road and hits the corner. There’s some fencing that’s been put up around there and within two weeks it’s had at least three or four holes in it. It’s now got a lot more than that. But the bus stop for Banbury and Daventry is just on the left hand side of the crossroads if you’re going south. Yes, there. And if you’re getting off and coming back from Banbury it’s on the right hand side where that bend sign is.

26. So if we go to A762, this is looking north so this is going up the hill. So you can see what a long, straight bit of road it is. There’s some red markings in the road but nobody seems to take any notice of those. And if we go back to 761 for a second, the construction compound, the main construction compound that is going to have 150 people living in it, the entrance to it is just around that bend at the bottom. So on the right hand side. So lorries will be coming out of that compound, turning left and coming round that corner. So anything that’s come out of Chipping Warden at the bottom comes up that road, finds themselves behind the construction lorry. The minute that lorry goes round that bend they’ll be overtaking like a shot and they’ll be overtaking as they come past this crossroads. Whenever we leave the village to come to Banbury we come to that crossroads. If there’s anything coming up that road, even if it’s right down by the corner, you never pull out because if there’s one person coming round there the chances are there’s another monster behind them who’s going to overtake and if you pull out they’ll be straight into you. So that’s our crossroads.

27. CHAIR: And we stopped in the coach just before there?

28. MS WILSON: You stopped on the coach on the road as it approached from Aston-le-Walls. You then turned right and went down the road towards Chipping Warden.

29. CHAIR: Did you leave us with cake or biscuits?

30. MS WILSON: Biscuits.

31. CHAIR: Got to get out priorities right.

32. MS WILSON: I got my tin back as well. I was really impressed.

33. CHAIR: Shows how honest politicians are.

34. MS WILSON: Okay. So statistics. I’ve looked at HS2’s statistics. I’m not great with figures, but they say the junction can cope with all this. Well, the statistics are one thing but when you’ve lived there – We’ve lived there for over 19 years. I’ve had three sons who have learnt to drive around here. Even now, whenever they leave home I always say to them, ‘Be careful on the junction.’ Everybody does that: ‘Be careful on the junction.’ It’s dangerous. So if this railway is built on statistics alone then we’re going to have a problem. If you use local knowledge and take into account the resident’s opinions then we’ll be all right. Something has got to happen about it to enable traffic to go safely across. The lorries will cause a problem. Anyway, so that’s number 4.

35. We’re onto five. This is a very simple request. If we could look at 3722, I was talking about the walkers. Appletree Lane out of the village is going to be closed for construction, which is fine. But what we would like is – It’s closed way back there at the moment, which, you know, common sense says you’re going to have to let the people who farm up the road you’re going to have to give them access. And it says that access will be done, that’s why. But there’s just on the boundary of the ground bit, as you come right up Appletree Lane to the sort of right angle in the grey markings, that’s a little concrete path that goes down there to re-join a footpath that then goes back towards the village. It would be really nice if we could keep that bit open, keep it open to walkers to come up to that corner and then go down the concrete path, pick up the footpath and walk back to the village because that gives a little sort of circle walk that people can still – whether they will want to do it because of the construction site – but if it’s tolerable then at least it gives us the option of having a little circular walk then it would be a road as well. And also it’s quite firm. The concrete path that goes down is, literally, a concrete path and the footpath – The landowner has done a great job firming up the footpath. So if you’ve got a pushchair then you could actually manage that. So that’s that.

36. Conclusion: I’ve been involved in this process from March 2010 when we found out about this online and have our lives turned upside down. We’ve worked very, very hard to maintain and promote a constructive dialogue with HS2. You know, not only with us as a parish council but with individual landowners, encouraging them to engage with HS2. We feel we want to get the best out of this process for our community. We’ve already started that. HS2 have used our village hall for their community forum meetings and we’ve channelled the proceeds into setting up a film club in the village. We are doing our best to co-operate and to encourage landowners to do the same. Now, we’re pretty much a class half full community. We really want to make the best of a bad situation and hope that we can be left with something at the end of that we feel that it’s worthwhile. The project itself is of no use to us whatsoever. So that’s pretty much all I want to say. Thank you.

37. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould?

38. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we for our part appreciate the approach of making constructive suggestions as to how things might be changed or improved. Can I just deal with each of the five points, I hope very quickly? Can we put up 3735, please? The question of the tunnel portal buildings, there you see the buildings shown on the plan on the eastern side of the trace just beyond the northern portal of the green tunnel. As Ms Wilson has said, the project is presently considering a proposal to move those buildings to the west side of the track, and I am aiming to be able to give you our conclusion on that in time for the appearance of the landowner next week. And we obviously make sure that we keep the parish council informed on that as well.

39. On the question of construction traffic and the keeping traffic out of the village if we can just go back to 3727, I think it is. No, it’s not. So sorry. It’s 3725. Yes. There we are. We are not proposing to route construction traffic along either Main Street or Blacksmith’s Lane, traffic that has to access the main compound for the cut and cover tunnel construction. Site traffic will be accessing that from the A361 directly onto the works area from that road and any traffic that is transporting spoil from along the route that traffic will pass along a haul road along the actual main trace itself. So we don’t need to take construction traffic along those roads, Blacksmith’s Road and Main Street through the village, and that is the – It’s on that basis that the assurance that is set out at

P30391 in the letter that Ms Wilson referred to – it’s in the middle of the page – to restrict large good vehicle construction traffic from entering the village.

40. Now, she mentioned that they would like a ban on all HS2 traffic through the village. As you know, part of the code of construction practice is that the nominated undertaker and the subcontractors will be required to operate on the basis of a travel plan. And here one can anticipate that that plan will be relatively straightforward, that private vehicles and light goods vehicles, which are working on that cut and cover tunnel site, that they access the site from the A361. So I think the position in practice will be that – I can’t say that there will be never a case when a vehicle associated with HS2 will pass, for example, along Welsh Road to get to the construction site and then down into the village. But that is the position.

41. CHAIR: And this will be agreed with Northamptonshire County Council?

42. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Need to be agreed, yes.

43. CHAIR: And they would no doubt consult the parish as well?

44. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I mean clearly the focus of the statutory regime under schedule 16 is on the heavy traffic.

45. CHAIR: Can I ask, if vehicles do go through the village and the parish council complain, presumably Northampton County Council go back to you as the Promoter and tell you off or do something?

46. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, but it doesn’t have to be – That would be a route. But also as you know the construction contractual arrangements will require there to be help lines available so that people within the village can pick up the phone, get in touch with the nominated undertaker directly through the nominated helpline and say, ‘Do something about this.’ Experience with other projects suggests that worked well.

47. CHAIR: So in practice the Parish Council would have a phone number of the principal contractor on the site and if there were a problem, say on a Wednesday

afternoon, they’d phone up and say, ‘What’s going on?’ and get an explanation and get it sorted immediately? And if it were a persistent problem they could escalate the complaint somewhere else, either the County Council or the Complaints Commissioner?

48. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I just want to be quite clear, the assurance we’ve given, as you’ve seen, relates to heavy goods vehicle traffic. I am not offering a commitment that there will be no HS2 vehicle will pass through those roads in the village throughout the construction process. I suggest that that isn’t necessary because, as I say, the travel plan arrangements will almost certainly in this case be based on operatives accessing the main compound directly from the A361. So if that still leaves a concern for the petitioners then that’s something which the Committee –

49. MR MEARNS: What would be the problem with giving that sort of undertaking? There is a designated route that contractors would be expected to use, so what would be the problem with getting the HS2’s vehicles so there wouldn’t be any traffic going through the village?

50. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The problem with it is a purely practical one. You say a blanket ban. I can almost guarantee that throughout a period of construction there will be one employee or one van that will take a wrong turn and go through there. And then you find yourself in a situation where you’re in breach of what is, frankly, an impossible commitment to make. But what I can say is that it would be made clear that HS2 traffic is not expected to go through the village. The routing arrangement, as the Chair says, in relation to the HGVs those will be subject to statutory controls. The lighter vehicles will be subject to transport planning under the code.

51. CHAIR: Presumably, HS2 aren’t going to have people stationed on the roads, but the Parish Council for the reasons that Ms Wilson states are aware when a stranger appears in the village or when something is going on. Presumably, the jungle drums would beat. That would get either to the contractor or, indeed, it would go all the way. So what’s important isn’t an absolute ban, it’s a means of putting something right when something goes wrong, quickly.

52. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I agree entirely with that. I accept that. If you go back

to the plan, P3725, another important factor, which actually in practice tends to have a strong element of self regulation here is when you look at those routes and the disposition of the work sites, as I’ve said, the main work sites are going to be accessed directly from the A361 or along the trace, and the work sites to the northern end of the green tunnel will be access via Welsh Road and Banbury Road, along the routes that you see there. With that being so there isn’t any reason why HS2 vehicles would wish to go down Blacksmith Lane.

53. MS WILSON: To get to the satellite compound.

54. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No. These compounds here will be accessed directly from the A361. So there isn’t a reason for people, employees driving their cars. The only thing that might happen is that someone might just lose their way.

55. CHAIR: Is there a pub in the village?

56. MS WILSON: No.

57. CHAIR: Okay. Well, there you are.

58. MS WILSON: Two churches.

59. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You never know.

60. MR MEARNS: You wouldn’t want to discourage construction workers from going to church, would you?

61. MS WILSON: Absolutely not.

62. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We understand the concern that the village shouldn’t have – that these narrow roads shouldn’t have these vehicles going down them. Point very clearly taken. Can I turn onto the question of introducing a path footpath onto the stretch of road between the centre of the village, Main St and the A361 – that stretch of Welsh Road? We put a slide in which just explains our position on that, and it may be

helpful if we just put that up so the Committee can –

63. CHAIR: That’s where the school bus goes and we saw places where kids waited for the school bus.

64. MS WILSON: Yes.

65. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think you were given a figure of about 1000 vehicles on a weekday at the moment.

66. MS WILSON: Yes.

67. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That gives you a sense of the HS2 traffic that we expect to be passing along Welsh Road. It’ll clearly increase the flow but it’s still relatively low. We think that the flow of pedestrians along that route is pretty low, and then in order to put in a footway along that stretch would present those issues that I’ve set out on the slide, maybe a need to take more land. It’s very likely to require disturbance of hedgerows, drainage ditches and so forth. And we estimate the cost will be to the order of £250,000.

68. If you look at a photograph of the road of which there is an example coming up, I think, you get a get sense – I think you may have seen this already when you were on your visit – but you can get a sense here that it’s very much a country road and it has quite wide grass verges there. And, frankly, we are a bit concerned about introducing a paved footpath along there and the degree to which that would affect the character of the local environment here. It would certainly introduce an urbanising feature. So for those reasons the projects position has between hitherto that it didn’t think that there was a justification for that. It is the sort of thing that would, I think, come under the aegis of the community fund, so it would be open to the Parish Council to make an application under that fund, which we’ve described to you before. So that’s the position on that.

69. CHAIR: If you come out of the village and we turn right, I mean even if there weren’t an argument for a path all the way along the route because, actually, walking along the road unless they’re farm kids from one or two of the farms, most of the

children are going to be standing on Main Road when they come from the village waiting for a bus where there’s a bus stop. Presumably, one could have a look at that to see whether or not that were properly protected if any construction traffic came along.

70. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and there may be other ways. I think one got a sense from the presentation you had that this is already a source of some concern within the village and no doubt they’ve been in liaison with the County Council, the Highway Authority and if one was to contemplate the need for some measures to improve safety for pedestrians that would be a discussion that should take place with the Country Council as well. So for the reasons I’ve given and shown you on the slide our position is that we don’t believe that is something that should be introduced. That’s a matter which, obviously, the Committee has before it.

71. The next issue is to do with the roundabout at the junction of Welsh Road and the A361, and we have a slide which just sets out the position in relation to that, that’s P3732. On that slide we’ve given you the traffic that we’re predicting passing through that junction on all arms with the scheme in operation and I won’t read all those figures out, but our prediction is that the junction will operate at only 17% of its theoretical capacity. I heard what was said about the safety record of that road but the accident data shows that it has a lower than typical accident rate for this type of junction, and our judgement is that construction traffic is unlikely to increase that risk significantly. And so on that basis our position is that we don’t consider that there is, again, a case for any works to that junction. If, again, that’s a matter that would be very much within the purview of the County Council’s Highway Authority it would form part of their role under the bill to – the reasons that I’ve explained on a number of occasions. If it were through that process felt necessary to make improvements to that junction we’ve shown on P3734 an example of what could be done within the highway boundary through realigned curb lines and improving the road markings at that priority junction so as to – if that were felt to be necessary. And that can be done without the need for any additional land take other than in highway land. So that’s our response on that.

72. And with regard to the final point in relation to Appletree Lane and P3727 I think is the relevant slide. I hope I’m right in this, I think what was being suggested was that there was a circular route which would take one from just at the point where the bill

limits being along a concrete track, which is broadly in this area here. Is that correct?

73. MS WILSON: That’s right.

74. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think that’s outside the limits of the bill so –

75. MS WILSON: It states Appletree Lane is going to be closed, so from further up nearer the village where it says ‘Appletree Lane closed’ there, from there that is going to be closed. So whether it’s open for walkers or –

76. CHAIR: Is it?

77. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m told it is open to walkers, so I think we can accommodate that. I’ll get confirmation of that and if there is any difficulty with it I will make sure that we share that with the petitioners and with the Committee. I should say that the safety issue in relation to the A361 and Welsh Road the letter we sent yesterday indicated that we had been engaging with the County Council’s Highway Authority and we would continue to do so as arrangements for construction are further developed.

78. MS WILSON: We would actually like to be seen as part of the proposed – I’m not covering it – Chipping Warden bypass. The junction should be included in part of that thinking because it’s going to have a knock on effect. You will hear from Chipping Warden next week.

79. CHAIR: Is there a proposal for a bypass then?

80. MS WILSON: The proposed relief road, which HS2 are in negotiation, I believe, with Northamptonshire County Council on this.

81. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

82. MS WILSON: It’s an expensive project and what we’re afraid of is that that will go ahead at the expense of a lot of other parishes’ requests.

83. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s certainly not seen in that light. It’s not seen as an either/or as it were. We look at each of these cases on their merits. There is a proposal to provide a bypass at Chipping Warden. The concern about whether that will have knock on affects on the operation of the junction that you’ve been shown today that point has been heard and we will have a look at that.

84. CHAIR: Whatever the accident figures say locals are usually pretty well aware of what’s a hairy junction and clearly a long straight road does bring out the worst in all of us sometimes when we want to overtake or try to get somewhere. So I think there’s an issue there. Any final points? You’ve covered all your asks?

85. MS WILSON: I’ve covered everything I wanted to say. I’m not happy with what I’ve heard, but I don’t know what the procedure would be to carry it forward.

86. CHAIR: Well, clearly, how you manage traffic in the village is going to a matter which the County Council themselves, who at some point will be involved in, and as a parish you would have input through that. But some of the other matters we’re going to have to think about, and after we’ve gone through this area maybe come back with recommendations or nudge HS2 in a particular area, but it’s been very useful and quite nice to go to Northamptonshire. Thank you for the biscuits as well. Right. Next, we’re onto Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council. Are we able to see the fly-through as well so we get the – Is that possible?

Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council

87. MR COLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good afternoon. And to the Committee members. I’m Maurice Cole. I’m Parish Clerk for Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council. I’ve lived in the village for 30 years, and I’d like to briefly set the scene.

88. CHAIR: Okay. We’re just going to show the fly-through as we go.

89. MR COLE: Thank you.

90. CHAIR: Splendid. That sets the scene from a bird’s eye. What’s your parish

precept?

91. MR COLE: Sorry?

92. CHAIR: I said what’s your parish precept?

93. MR COLE: The precept is £2,000. We’re going to spend it wisely.

94. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just coming up – Stop there. Right in the foreground is the viaduct and you can see that Lower Thorpe is just being pointed out now, and then Thorpe Mandeville is to west there.

95. MR BELLINGHAM: Did we stop in the bus just by those trees, did we not?

96. MR COLE: That’s Lower Thorpe.

97. MR BELLINGHAM: Or did we stop the other side? I can’t remember. But we came along that road, I think?

98. CHAIR: Yes. We stopped and talked to some of the people from the houses.

99. MR COLE: My presentation is from the other angle, so it’s throwing me looking at it this way.

100. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry. I think we’re now moving away from out of the parish and into the neighbouring parish. There’s the Chipping Warden tunnel.

101. MR COLE: Thank you. If I may proceed, Mr Chairman? In front of you you will see the red line of Thorpe Mandeville Parish. We’re a very small parish, about 75 dwellings. The focus is very much in the centre of that map that we can see and I’d like to show, if I may, my own slides now, which build onto them. My slide 2, if I may, please? A very simplistic map, I do apologise for that but my technology is not very great. There we go.

102. So what we’re looking at here is – Well, we’re looking at a Y-shaped road route with a horizontal position with the left-leg leading to Banbury. We’re about six miles northeast of Banbury and as you can see there are two shaded areas. The shaded area of Thorpe Mandeville village and then leading onto the right on that top leg of the Y you can see the Lower Thorpe hamlet, and that is where HS2 drives through our parish, hitting Lower Thorpe directly, unfortunately. It goes through Lower Thorpe on a 200 metre viaduct with embankments at both ends.

103. The land to the east of HS2 that we’re looking at there rises leading to Culworth village, which you can see on the far right hand side. The land east of that land soon becomes Culworth Parish. Culworth Parish Council has its own petition regarding its concerns and its residents, so my comments are therefore relevant to our parish, which are to the left and include the HS2 line.

104. Can we move, therefore, with a bit of closer focus to my slide 3, please? Does that come into better view? It’s a bit fuzzy, but hopefully that – That’s something lost. I don’t know what’s going on with the technology there.

105. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It generally works well, we’ll see what we can do.

106. MR COLE: Through the foggy haze we’re still looking at that Y formation that we looked at earlier but in a closer format. We’re looking at the construction route, which is to be taken by the traffic expressed by those red dots. The two big blogs are the work compounds: the Lower Thorpe one, which is being directed by the pointer there, right the heart of the Lower Thorpe hamlet; and in the bottom right hand corner on the other road we have the red blob expressing the Banbury Road cutting satellite compound.

107. This map leads into my two main concerns, the first of which is construction traffic. The main concern is the top leg of that Y there in that it goes through – The construction traffic is supposed to go backwards and forwards through Thorpe Mandeville village and down into and through Lower Thorpe into the satellite compound. The concern is perhaps partly justified by looking at the name of that lower road. It is Banbury Lane. Banbury Lane is a back route. It’s a historic drovers’ road. It

just connects two villages. In places two vehicles can’t pass. If an HGV is involved there at that point they will not pass. My map doesn’t do justice to the lane. The lane through the village is narrow and twisty. This is unlike the road at the bottom, Banbury Road as opposed to Banbury Lane. Banbury Road is a former classified B road. It is much wider and it’s an artery taking traffic backwards and forwards from the Banbury direction reaching out into the various villages.

108. The next slide of mine summarises the HS2 construction below compound, and for the record, Mr Chairman, perhaps I could read this out, it’s showing that compound there will be estimated construction period of about 2 years. It will involve about 110 to 190 workers during the period. During busy periods and within peak monthly activity, we’re looking at 170 to 250 vehicles on average daily combined two-way trips, including 20 to 30 HGVs. We do have a lovely village as well. Busy vehicle movements are estimated for 13 months.

109. Our concerns are primarily safety, noise and vibration issues for our residents. Northamptonshire County Council’s petition shares our concerns and our solution. However, their focus is on technical highway matters. What I would like to do is express what the proposal means to us, our people and the businesses that we have in the village and in the hamlet. Construction traffic issues for the residents of Lower Thorpe and construction itself will be horrendous. Some residents of the hamlet have a separate petition with construction traffic concerns combined with other issues, and therefore I don’t wish to duplicate what they’re going to say, and therefore I will concentrate on our village.

110. We may therefore go to slide 5, please. This is a Google view showing the linear development of the properties in our village. The distance along Banbury Lane, which I’m concerned about, the total length is about one kilometre, and yet 650 metres of that is within our village, within the 30mph designated area. So starting at the top of this slide you can see the blue dots, which represent 300 metres of the village without footpaths, and mostly they have flat verges. This section of the lane is used by school children. They walk to and from the school bus pick up point along that road with continual danger from traffic. To the right of the blue dots you can see stabling for a livery business. This is at the manor house in our village. Horses are led along the lane

from these stables to paddocks beside the church. Horse riders frequently use the lane. Moving south on that slide you can see the roadside location of the parish church followed by the village hall. Further south, through the village we pass just beyond the village hall where the dwellings are lined on both sides of Banbury Lane until we come to the Three Conies Inn. The Three Conies Inn does have a car park but it is popular and therefore there is parking on the lane as well.

111. I’d just like to quickly illustrate those aspects with a few slides. If you can go to slide 6, please? This is the centre of the village with properties on both side of the lane. As you can see, many vehicles are parked here and this is quite typical because a lot of these dwellings are without drives or garages and therefore residents necessarily park here. Two vehicles cannot pass at that pinch point we’re looking at here because of parked vehicles. You can just about see the village hall in the far distance where those far cars are. Here, again, it’s wayside parking.

112. The next slide, please? Okay, we’re approaching the church. This is part of that section where there is no footpath for school children to walk. You’ll note there’s a house immediately on the roadside on the right and this gives HS2 construction traffic noise and vibration concerns to the residents. In the distance, you can just see a blind bend outside the church. At this point the road is only five metres wide and all parking for the church is roadside. At the north end of the village, the lane pinches even further.

113. Its narrowest point is 4.2 metres, and I capture the followed three photographs. If you move to slide 8, please? Here we are just at the north end of the village. On the right we have some residences and the final house in the village. If we then move to the next slide, please? This is at the same point, and I captured this last December. When a road sweeper is hugging the roadside yet a car still couldn’t get by. So what did it do? Move to the next slide, please. Slide 10.

114. MR BELLINGHAM: Did we get out at that stage?

115. MR COLE: Indeed, yes. That’s the point you got out. I will refer back to that point a little later on. The road sweeper, in fact, was clearly mud in Banbury Lane for about three weeks during a relatively minor construction of a solar park in Culworth

Parish. At that point, HGVs and other vehicles left the road surface when passing through bringing mud onto the road. It wasn’t necessarily bringing mud off the side, it was when vehicles were going off the road and coming back on again and pulling mud from the road side. And the following photograph, slide 11, please, typifies the difficulties that we experienced in Banbury Lane at that time.

116. The Environmental Statement says that construction traffic will cause adverse noise effects for approximately 40 of our roadside dwellings. The adverse acoustic effects as stated within the Environmental Statement has, and I quote: ‘A perceived change in the quality of life and is significant when assessed on a community basis.’ So the solution being proposed is a cross-country haul route. We believe this is a practical solution. Slide 12, again, a bit fuzzy. I do apologise, but it’s the one we saw earlier. But here we’ve added the blue dots where we’ve suggest a haul route from the main Banbury Road taking traffic to the Lower Thorpe satellite compound to the north, therefore avoiding usage of Thorpe Mandeville village and our hamlet.

117. We believe HS2 saw justification in our concerns and merit in our solution. At a bilateral meeting last October, they advised us, and I quote: ‘That they are actively considering this option with the intention to offer the petitioners an assurance on this matter.’ This was last October. Last night, I think you know, probably, what I’m going to say – I’m pleased to be able to report that our Highway’s Authority, Northamptonshire County Council, received an assurance on this matter. It was rather late and we are as a Parish Council unable to make a complete conclusion on this because of the time pressures and the difficulty it faces with today’s presentation. But, nonetheless, at first sight it looks favourable, but it does concentrate on the HGVs aspect and we do have concerns about other traffic. But it also depends on the closure of Banbury Lane actually in Lower Thorpe, which would alleviate other traffic but perhaps make a counter balance against the LGVs and cars, which would otherwise be going through the village. So, that’s my point one.

118. If I may, Mr Chairman, move to my second point? And this is, unfortunately, not subject to an assurance, so, I’m not going to spring that on you later. It is in respect of operational noise. So, if we can move to slide 13, please? We’re now looking at a Google map of Lower Thorpe Mandeville, and as you can see the red dotted lines,

without my needing to tell you, represent HS2 going through the hamlet. The community of Lower Thorpe consists of five dwellings, two of which will be demolished. That’s one and two indicated there. Unfortunately, both are substantial. But, unfortunately, property two is a grade 2 listed farmhouse, so, therefore, it’s quite sad. This leaves the three dwellings shown on the photograph. Three, four and five. All of these dwellings are within about 100 metres of the centre line of the proposal. And just to give you a picture of what this means. You may recall your visit to our parish, when you kindly came to us last October, when you look down onto Lower Thorpe valley, therefore, can we have a look, please, at slide 14? Just to remind you of that time, when, I believe you referred to it earlier, the bus stopped, and you looked down across the valley and there were balloons showing the proposed height of the rail track and gantry. Behind that gentleman’s head, to the left, you can just see the properties of Lower Thorpe appearing. And if we just go onto the next slide, it’s the same view, but, a bit clearer, showing that valley. And, that’s slide 15. That’s the same view, just to really give you a feel to what we’re talking about here.

119. The next slide again, please, is 16, this was provided by South Northampton Council for us, showing a photo montage of that same view again, but with HS2 going along it. As you can see, HS2 will sit high in the valley. It may not be a precise photo montage, but as you can see HS2 will sit high in the valley. It has to, to get into Greatworth Tunnel, which is just beyond. You can see there the viaduct. The viaduct is 200 metres long. And as I said earlier, there are embankments either side. So, therefore the track will loom high, alongside those Lower Thorpe dwellings. Now, our concern is the limited noise protection for those residents in Lower Thorpe. HS2 proposes to place a noise barrier of only 1.4 metres high on the west edge of that viaduct, leaving substantial exposure to the Lower Thorpe dwellings. Provided they give way to embankments and those embankments will have noise barriers of up to three metres high on the west edge.

120. If we move to slide 17, we can see those three dwellings in greater detail. Again I do apologise, but the technology’s gone a bit fuzzy. So, on the right hand side, we’ve got those three dwellings. Two-sided thatched houses and an individual detached house beyond. The property you can see on the far left, someone’s read my mind, thank you, is one of the two properties likely to be demolished to allow HS2 to come through. So,

therefore, you can see the proximity of the line and the vast noise exposure. But, can we move to the next slide, which also SMC provided? This indicates the HS2 going through the hamlet. And the way it does loom over those two buildings, I think, will be readily apparent to you. The position then, perhaps we can look at in noise terms, if we go to slide 19, which is a notated slide. Yes. Which comes through, one of the HS2 slides. So, here we can see that the hamlet and the three properties, I highlighted it in red asterisks, just help us focus on where we are. And down at the bottom, we have the village of Thorpe Mandeville and some houses shown in brown, which I’ll allude to later. The grey area, as you can see, with the 50 to 65dB average daytime noise, because of the barriers that HS2 provided, it just eludes Thorpe Mandeville village, thankfully.

121. But what it doesn’t do, of course, is to help to any material extent of the properties in the hamlet of Lower Thorpe. The dwelling nearest to the line will be in 60 to 65dB daytime band. And this property is substantial with stabling for horses. And the next two dwellings, the ones nearest to Thorpe Mandeville, are in the 55 to 65dB band. The environmental statement puts these dwellings in the major adverse affect category in respect of change in sound level. There will be a daytime sound level increase for these properties of 17dB and 12dB at night. So, in summary, whilst HS2 provided protection with moving the grey area for most of our village, we maintain that Lower Thorpe residents remain unreasonably blighted. Lower Thorpe has existed as a small, peaceful community for centuries. We believe it should be better protected. And if so, the secondary benefit would be to the village of Thorpe Mandeville, particularly the residents on the periphery, where moderate, adverse effect is shown on that slide.

122. We do have concern about small communities and HS2’s ability to mitigate against the noise and problems they face. And we believe that they should have some of the same rights as some of the larger communities. Our prime noise mitigation solution was originally a covered embankment and we did this jointly with Culworth Parish Council. But, after consultation with HS2 we’ve been convinced that this was unreasonable and therefore both Culworth and ourselves have withdrawn from that proposal. But, what we do believe to be reasonable is better protection for Lower Thorpe residents, being, firstly, an increase in that viaduct barrier from only 1.4 metres to a barrier of four metres. Now, elsewhere on the line, viaducts do have four meter

barriers. And we think it’s only fair that the Lower Thorpe residents also benefit from that kind of barrier. And our second request in respect of this aspect is a barrier height of at least four metres on the two embankments. If you remember, it was currently proposed to be loosely up to three metres high. But, here again, we think in fairness to Lower-Thorpe, there ought to be some improvement to benefit their rather horrendous position. So, that concludes our presentation. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Apart from summarising on the following slide our requested mitigation. Thank you.

123. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Cole. Very good points. Mr. Mould?

124. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I just deal firstly with the construction routing? If we can just put up the P3700? I hope I can deal with this quite swiftly. As Mr Cole has said, we’ve been looking at the routing arrangements as part of the discussions with Northampton County Council. And the upshot of that is that we have offered a commitment to the County Council, which was copied to Mr Cole yesterday. The effect of which is to, subject to a couple of exceptions that I’ll mention to you in a minute, is to route the HGV traffic only so far as this junction here of Banbury Lane and Banbury Road. At which point, the traffic would take the right hand fork down to the trace and would then be taken on to the works by a haul road. In order to complete that, we will need to two promote an additional provision so as to get the necessary powers to construct that haul road and we have indicated that we will produce an additional provision for that purpose and bring it before the House.

125. The exception, if I can go back to the junction, there will be some limited construction traffic that will need to use the Banbury Lane. For two specific purposes. Firstly, to set up the Lower Thorpe viaduct satellite compound, which is a job of work that is expected to take no more than a few weeks. And that will involve daily flows of the order of 32 construction vehicles. The other job that will need to be done is to construct a balancing pond, which is located just to the right, or the southeast, of Banbury Lane. And again that’s a job which will have relatively little traffic and will take a relatively short time to carry out. So, those two specific jobs do need to be done through that route. But, save for those, we’ve been able to offer the commitment to the County and obviously that will apply to the Parish Council as well. That’s the position

in relation to the traffic.

126. Now, turning then to the question of noise. If we can put up P3717? I put the plan up showing the assessment points there simply to show you that the measurement point and the assessment point for Lower Thorpe, which is just at this point, in the centre of the page, is CS1021. And the assessment point is 259796. If we turn on to P3720? We can see, it’s not very easy, I don’t know if we can blow up, if we can go down to the noise during operation? For that assessment point, it’s the third up from the bottom of the table, 259796, you can see that the predicted LOAEL, or lowest observed adverse affect level, comparison, the predicted levels here are: 62, daytime; 53, night time; 76 to 80, LA max. So, we’re towards the upper end of the LOAEL band here. So, we’re approaching SOAEL. But we haven’t got as far as SOAEL. So, not as far as significant observed adverse affect.

127. And then, if we turn to the degree of change, as the petitioner’s already pointed out, we are, because this is a relatively tranquil area at the moment, we are predicting quite a significant change in the noise environment with the operation of the railway. Now, that relates to the hamlet. What I’m told is that of the residential properties in that hamlet, we have blight notices served in relation to four of them. And those properties that don’t fall within safeguarding, they lie within the rural support zone. So, they would be able to, if they qualify under the ownership and occupation criteria, there’ll be able to take advantage of the voluntary purchase scheme. So, that is the position, that’s a remedy if you like, a proprietary conversation remedy that’s available to the current owner occupiers of those premises.

128. In terms of the mitigation that is being proposed to seek to assist the future living environment of the future occupiers of those premises, as you’ve been told, the current arrangements are a proposal for 1.4 metres barriers on the viaduct itself and then 3 metre barriers/embankments on the approaches to the viaduct. That shown on P3718. As I’ve explained to the committee before, where we have predicted impacts that lie above the LOAEL threshold, as we have here, then the design objective set out in information paper E20, requires that, as part of the detailed design process, further consideration is given to enhance noise mitigation, with a view to reducing or limiting the impacts, as far as reasonably practicable to LOAEL. So, this is a location where that design objective

will clearly apply and it will be necessary to review the performance of the railway through the detailed design process and, as part of that, to review the mitigation, the physical mitigation, that is proposed here, to see whether on reflection and with a view to achieving that design objective, changes should be made to that which is shown on the slide in front of you. That is how we would propose to address this. And, as you know, my submission to the Committee has been that it makes more sense to do it that way because that allows the overall environmental and economic cost benefit to be considered. Including, for example, the visual effects of a larger barrier, if that was proposed. The cost benefit and so forth. Taking account of acquisitions, as I’ve mentioned a minute ago. It’s more sensible to follow through that procedure rather than make ad hoc decisions now that they should be a particular height of barrier or a particular intervention. So, that’s how we propose to deal with that point here.

129. CHAIR: Right.

130. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask questions on that? Is it the intention, let’s suppose that the promoters buy house one and two because there needed to be cleared away, as were told, for the construction of the viaduct. And then there are properties which the owners might be calling three, four and five, we have heard that two have been served blight notices and one can, in effect, through the rural scheme. If they’re then sold or rented out, the noise to them is supposed to be acceptable?

131. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. The noise is below the level of significance and therefore it’s considered acceptable. And of course they’d becoming, well, depending on when they come in, they’d be coming to a noisy environment.

132. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They’d know what they’re were coming to.

133. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

134. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, if they couldn’t find any better choice, that’s what they’d come to. Do we have any indication of what the higher proposed barrier might, what impact that might have on the noise?

135. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t at the moment. That’s not work that we have done. We have done some work to consider an increased noise barrier on the eastern side. And that is producing some mitigation to, I think, one or two properties towards, is it Sulgrave? But, one factor that would need to be carefully considered is the topography. You’re moving up from quite a deep valley, as you know from your site visit. You’ve also got to consider the engineering challenge of making a much higher barrier work. It may lead to quite substantially increased costs through having to use special track to deal with things like radiation of noise and that sort of thing. I’m not ruling it out.

136. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No.

137. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But, I’m just suggesting it would be better addressed in that broader context that I’ve just outlined to you, which is something that will have to happen because it’s part of the environmental minimum requirements. There will have to by that process through the detailed design of the scheme.

138. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

139. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Cole?

140. MR COLE: I welcome some of the comments I’ve just heard. And the reference to the advantage of the current compensation scheme is obviously available to existing residents. But, our concern, as a Parish Council, is very much protecting our community. And taking it forward. And therefore we are very much focused on future inhabitants. And we want a community where people want to live and not come with some hardship of HS2 looming over them without any reasonable protection. We hear about some other form of mitigation. I sincerely hope that doesn’t mean insulation because I don’t think that’s the right answer for properties and people want to go into the gardens as well as in the houses. They want to open their windows. And I’m afraid insulation doesn’t impress me. I think the design should be right. But that’s all I had to say. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

141. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A number of parishes have raised with us the design of things like viaducts, which are going to be fairly important and clearly there is a point that if we do have a bigger barrier, it may make it look somewhat unsightly.

142. MR COLE: Sorry to interrupt. But, our prime concern, I think I speak for most, if not all, our residents, is noise. Visibility, blight, for us, it will not be great. Once you get close to it, yes, it won’t be pretty. But, to our community, noise is the prime concern.

143. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You might want to hear that what you heard asked for, and probably support, is that the local community will be involved, if it’s possible, in the design of the structures.

144. MR COLE: Yes. Yes.

145. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And they will be sympathetic to the local environment.

146. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Yes. Indeed, certainly, you’ve made that clear. Can I just say one other thing in relation to that, I hope, just a scintilla of further comfort to Mr. Cole. Mr. Miller just said, very helpful, just to emphasise, we obviously, in a situation like this, it’s in the project’s interest, if you like, to try to produce a living environment for people who do live very close to the railway, which is as attractive as it can be, because if we are buying properties, there’s an element of economic self interest here. And that’s also something which I think we would expect to receive helpful pointers from, from the local community as well.

147. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Cole. We did enjoy our visit. Right, we now have Ken Christy and Beryl Christy, who I presume are going to do their petitions together. And you’re doing both petitions?

148. MR CHRISTY: Yes, and my wife.

149. CHAIR: Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

Ken Christy and Beryl Christy

150. MR CHRISTY: Thank you, chair.

151. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you for waiting patiently at the back.

152. MR CHRISTY: If I may begin with a brief opening statement?

153. CHAIR: Yes. Absolutely.

154. MR CHRISTY: My name’s Ken Christy. I’m here today to represent my wife and myself at these proceedings. I’m here as an ordinary member of the public to represent our views on the proposals set up by HS2 Ltd. and the impact they’re likely to have on us. We’ve lived in the village of Sulgrave for the last 30 years. During that time I served as elected chair of the Parish Council for two terms. And my wife is the churchwarden. Has been for the last 18 years. We both continue to play an active part in the local community.

155. My interest in HS2 goes back to May 2011, when I organised a public meeting at Sulgrave Manor to provide information to the government’s high speed rail consultation document. As key information has become available, I’ve continued to draw the attention of the village to this via the monthly Parish Council meetings. As a villager, I would wish to point out that I have no legal training. I’m supporting myself here. My work centres on rural business consultancy, enterprise mentoring and acting as a director on the board of trustees for Northamptonshire ACRE. So, I hope that gives a sort of resume about me.

156. We have submitted some photographs just for context, which I understand I can refer to. The photographs are under 746A, 746? A series of photographs. And this is just, I’ve literally come out my front door, down to the bottom of the hill, about 2

minutes, crossed the style here, and across, if we can just run through 2, 3 and 4? Just cutting through the countryside, through to 4, 5 and 6. That’s part of footpath. 5 and 6, you can see part of the village of Sulgrave there. Six shows the church. And then carrying on my walk, 7 and 8, through to the footpath. I’m not contesting any footpath. I’m just giving a context to you of the area of which we live. Finishing up with slide number 9, where the railway in fact will pass through. It’s the northwest. So that’s the railway will pass through there.

157. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Where’s the house? Is that somewhere else?

158. MR CHRISTY: Yes, in fairness, if went back to, if I go to the map, 745? You’ll see. Perhaps that’s not. Hang on a sec. I think we can probably use, there’s another, one that shows the village a little larger.

159. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P3670. It’s an aerial photograph.

160. MR CHRISTY: Yes. Thank you very much. It’s then marked with a blue.

161. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Fine. That’s the George Washington ancestral?

162. MR CHRISTY: That’s the George Washington ancestral home.

163. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes.

164. MR CHRISTY: The whole village is a conservation area.

165. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

166. MR CHRISTY: Thank you. This map just shows the walk that I’ve done through to where the railway is. Here today, I’d like to cover three areas, if I may? Firstly, referring to the code of construction practice. We’ve submitted that the code of construction practice should be incorporated into the bill. The promoter’s response there was that any nominated undertaker will be contractually bound to comply. We’re

not content with this response and would urge County and District Councils should be provided with a formal role in this. Our concern for the community is maintaining access to both the towns of Banbury and Brackley. The road, Banbury Road, is more of a country lane than road. You’ll get the tractor and trailer and that will constitute a traffic jam. Let alone a heavy goods vehicles moving next to them. So, our concern there is the likely disruption to business, social and family activity as result of very heavy traffic. So, we would request that the Committee ensures that the County and District Councils are given the responsibility to exercise their statutory duties. Or, in addition, that the local authorities have the opportunity to monitor the construction sites. Because at the moment I can’t see that there is any mechanism for local communities to be consulted on items that impact them in terms of construction practice.

167. I’d now like to turn to waste. And our concern there is the impact on the amount of waste to be excavated and removed from the construction of the railway. We’ve been assured by the promoter, in terms of forecasting the quantities, that that’s all containable. We’re not content with this response as the large scale dumping is likely to lead to a loss of usable farmland. And its movement again will have an adverse effect on narrow roads. The two roads indicated on the map are both narrow country lanes and I’m concerned literally about the amount of excavated material to be moved. So, again, I would ask for the involvement of local authorities in the movement of traffic.

168. Now, turning to ecology. We made a point about a response there had been from the promoter about involving an independent body to monitor progress on the bio- diversity loss. And I’m happy to say that I raised that point and it seemed that they were saying that they would consider are the options later. Well, I’ve been given a piece of paper this afternoon which confirms in fact that Natural England will act as an independent arbitrator. Which is much, what we were looking for. So, that’s a good result. However, I would just raise, on ecology, that I believe more work needs to be done on animal crossings. That that’s researched more thoroughly. I believe there are suitable designs for us to look at, particularly the TGVA system in France, for animal crossings, because it’s clear that the railway will lead to losses of habitat and a significant disruption of habitat for a great many species. That’s our case. Thank you.

169. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Christy. Brief, to the point, punchy. What are you going to say to that Mr Mould?

170. MR MOULD QC (DfT): White flag. Very helpful observations. Clearly important that local authorities are closely involved in the development of construction arrangements and that they have a role in regulating construction activities, particularly those that have the propensity to give rise to impacts on local communities and that is indeed what the current procedure and the bill and it attendant policies provide for. So, local authorities have a range of powers under the bill, including under schedule 16, as you know, with lorry routing. They retain their powers under the Control of Pollution Act to regulate noise and other matters falling within the scope of 6-61. Local authorities and environmental health officers have been involved in the development of controls, environmental controls, under the code of construction practice, through the relevant fora, so the planning forum. Environmental health officers have been involved in developing the code of construction practice through engagement with them.

171. So, although the compliance role, in relation to the code forms, part of the environmental minimal requirements and therefore is a matter to be dealt with under the aegis of the Secretary of State, as we’ve explained, it will, as petitioners says, be contractually binding upon the nominated undertaker and he will be a responsible personally for not only his own main contract but also for the contracts of subcontractors. But, of course compliance under statutory regimes such as the Control of Pollution Act will remain with the responsible authorities as well. So, building on to that, forgive me, I’m going up a ground you know, building on to that, there is, as I’ve explained, a role for local communities themselves through the local environmental management plans where our proposal is that they should be produced in liaison with local communities through their local representatives, including Parish Councils, and that’s something we’ve explained to the committee in the past.

172. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I push a little on that?

173. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

174. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Let’s say you have a nominated undertaker who has to undertake the code of construction practice and there are breaches in that, which either the local authorities have brought to your attention, presumably, as in most British law, you get a warning, and then you get fines. Are there financial penalties if people breach?

175. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Financial penalties for breaching the code of construction practice? That, I don’t think that that is something that would follow as a matter of course. Clearly, there will be the construction contracts will include arrangements for securing compliance. But, the approach that I think has been taken in previous projects, and we’d expect to take here with compliance, is that if a problem arises, it should be put right as soon as possible, rather than a process of fines or a financial penalties. So, actually, I think we discussed earlier this afternoon in terms of another petitioner, in practice there would be –

176. CHAIR: But, the other legislation which you’ve mentioned, Control of Pollution Act, etc., there potentially are potential penalties?

177. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There are potential penalties because there are a range of offences that arise under that kind of legislation. I mean plainly the expectation is that the code is designed to impose pretty stringent and detailed controls on the way the works are done so as to minimise the need to resort to that level, that kind of compliance regime.

178. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Waste?

179. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think the focus there was on traffic. And there as you know, the construction traffic arrangements are subject to control by local authorities under the aegis of schedule 16 to the bill. They are responsible for regulating and approving proposed construction lorry routes. And they have a broader role through the environmental minimum requirements and construction regimes in a green traffic management plans for the project which don’t just deal with lorry routes, they deal with other salient aspects of construction traffic and movement. The movement of waste and

the management of waste, the project there is operating on the basis that it, as any other major development project has to do, is comply with the requirements of the waste hierarchy. And I think yesterday you touched on the deposit of spoil in areas alongside the railway line, which has a dual purpose. Firstly, it enables deposit of spoil to be undertaken as close to the point of origin as is reasonably possible, which saves on transport, emissions and costs. And also spoil can be used for a positive purpose. That is to say, as part of the earthworks and the overall construction of the project. And there is, as you know, an objective to get as far as possible to an excavation and materials use balance, which has been a feature of the project’s approach throughout its gestation. And then in relation to ecology, the Committee has heard quite a significant amount of evidence about the approach of the project to protecting nature conservation interests. There’s a range of measures to deal with the inevitable severance that will come from building a railway line. Green infrastructure, both in the form of over bridges and underpasses, and a range of measures to seek to accommodate impacts upon existing nature conservation interests through the provision of replacement habitat along the route. And we have already given commitments to work with, closely with, to continue, I should say, to work closely with both national bodies, English Nature, and also with local wildlife bodies such as county wildlife officers and the Trusts so that we continue to refine our proposals in a way that is based on local knowledge and responds to local knowhow, as it were.

180. CHAIR: Thank you. Lovely photographs, Mr. Christy. Very beautiful area.

181. MR CHRISTY: It was cold. It’s beautiful.

182. CHAIR: It looks like a picture postcard for the Christmas cards.

183. MR CHRISTY: It’s a good walk, Chair.

184. MR BELLINGHAM: When were the pictures taken?

185. MR CHRISTY: They were taken last Tuesday week.

186. CHAIR: Any final comments, Mr Christy?

187. MR CHRISTY: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. By now, you will have seen a common thread running through all that I’ve put before you. That’s the need for localism. Local people need to be involved, involved in monitoring the work and communicating clearly and frequently to the local community what’s going to happen. I can’t stress that enough. I think there is not, dare I say it, joined up thinking on that. And I’d remind the Committee that I appear here as a villager who cares passionately about the community in which I live, which we live, and I’d urge the community to take on board our requests.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you all. That’s the end of our session today. If people could withdraw from the room please, so we can just clear our thoughts before we vote at 4.00 p.m.? Order, order.