Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday, 3 November 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham Mr David Crausby ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Tim Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Mr Richard Williams Mr Richard Birch Mr Ian C hisholm Mrs Rosemary Chisholm Mrs Susan Hetherington Mr Andrew Hetherington Ms Caro l Perkins Mr Conor Gallagher Mr Michael Barden Ms Susan Barden Mr Derek Pitts and Ms Jane Pitts Mr Alexander Jones and Mr Jonathan Jones Mr Wayne Griffiths ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Richard Birch, Dr Carol Anne Blyth, Christopher Brownhill and others Submissions by Mr Williams 3 Response from Mr Mould 11 Closing submissions by Mr Williams 13

Ian and Rosemary C hisholm Submissions by Mr and Mrs C hisholm 14 Response from Mr Mould 17

Susan Hetherington and Andrew Hetherington Submissions by Mrs Hetherington 20 Response from Mr Mould 25 Closing submissions by Mrs Hetherington 26

Carol Perkins Submissions by Ms Perkins 27 Response from Mr Mould 30

Conor Gallagher Submissions by Mr Gallagher 33 Response from Mr Mould 38 Closing submissions by Mr Gallagher 41

Michael Barden Submissions by Mr Barden 41 Response from Mr Mould 43

Susan Barden Submissions by Ms Barden 45

Derek and Jane Pitts Submissions by M r P itts 46 Response from Mr Mould 54

Jonathan, Jacob, Alexander and Fiona Jones Submissions by Mr Alexander Jones 54 Submissions by Mr Jonathan Jones 55

Sarah and Anthony O’Connor Submissions by Mr Griffiths 59 Response from Mr Mould 63 Closing Submissions from Mr Griffiths 64

Stuart Smith and Robert Moreton Submissions by Mr Morris 66 Response from Mr Mould 68

(At 9.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. Welcome to the petitioners this morning. We’ll start off with 1582, 76 and 1693, Richard Birch, Dr Carol Anne Blyth, Christopher Brownhill and others, in person.

Richard Birch, D r Carol Anne Blyth, Christopher B rownhill and others

2. CHAIR: Mr Mould, are you going to do a brief introduction?

3. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes thank you. P10121. These petitioners are from Perry Street and Chiltern Road in Wendover. Perry Street here, this is Mr Brownhill. Mr Birch is just here, if we can bring the cursor down just to this point here, and then Ms Blyth is on Chiltern Road at this property just in here, I think. As you can see, the railway as it passes to the west of these roads is in green tunnel. As I mentioned yesterday, as part of the additional provision it’s proposed to provide a six metre noise barrier for some 300 metres on the eastern side of the railway as it emerges from green tunnel to the north of Wendover, and our predictions are that there will be no significant no ise e ffe cts from the operation of the railway on this part of the town of Wendover. Just to remind you that we have the existing railway line and the A413 passing to the west of the town, and then the construction of the green tunnel beyond that, and then the operation of the railway within green tunnel following completion of the construction of the scheme. And no construction traffic through Wendover. I perhaps ought just to remind you of that as well.

4. CHAIR: Are you going to kick off?

5. MR WILLIAMS: Yes.

6. CHAIR: Thank you gentlemen.

7. MR WILLIAMS: Morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Richard Williams and I am the representative speaker in relation to these three petitions for Messrs Blyth, Birch and Brownhill. I’m also one of the group of petitioners in the

Bir c h petition, and I’ve lived in Wendover for some 17 years, since long before HS2 was a twinkle in the eye of the authorities that have put this together. With me today are Richard Birch, who is one of the petitioners. I also have Chris Mathew, who is one of the petitioners on the Brownhill petition, and John Mapleston-Stroud, who is one of the petitioners on the Birch petition. Unfortunately Dr Blyth has been taken sick and was unable to come today, and she has sent her apologies. And as you’ll be hearing a little later on, that has created one issue for me in relation to what I wanted to say, so I hope you will bear with me in relation to that.

8. We decided some months ago to club together as we have a common interest, and in doing this we wanted to assist the Committee by obviously cutting down the amount of time that we spent in front of you today, so I hope that you will appreciate that. All of us have lived in Wendover for over a decade, and in some cases considerably longer than that, and considerably longer than I myself have done. If we could have the next s lide p lea se. We’re all active and enthusiastic participators in our community and our way of life, and we think that that local community is a very vibrant one and is worth protecting. Wendover is an attractive, historic and outstanding village and situated between the two highest points in the Chilterns and is obviously, as you know, a key staging post on the Ridgeway long distance footpath, with all that has to offer to visitors to our village. We enjoy the tranquillity of our gardens – we all have them and we spend a lot of time in them – and all the considerable local amenities that we have in Wendover.

9. It is a very active community and we all participate in it to a greater or lesser degree. In our group we’ve got persons who’ve served as chair of the local Wildlife Trust, school governors, I’m still a school governor at the moment, chairs of local nurseries, chairs of toddler groups, people who’ve worked in our local schools, people who’ve worked in our local medical centre, so these are very active members of the community. We all feel that much of our quality of life is being threatened by HS2 and the way that it is currently being proposed to run past our vicinity. We can already see the effect of this is starting to happen. We all have friends who have moved away in anticipation of this, and we can see long established shops in our High Street are starting to close because no one has any confidence in the business going forward, particularly during the construction phase.

10. I represent a group of petitioners who range in age from 16 to over 70. Many of us also have families that live with us, or locally in the local area in other houses, and we’re seeking your help to achieve the best mitigation we possibly can in relation to HS2. Wendover didn’t ask for HS2 and we appreciate we are making a big ask of you in relation to what we are seeking, but we think that is appropriate in the circumstances. What will be next if we don’t get a long tunnel? Is it going to be more urban housing development round Wendover? We know the pressure that the Aylesbury Vale is under in that respect. Are we going to get a motorway? It’s not difficult to suppose that in another 10 years or so planners will have forgotten what our landscape looks like pre-HS2. They’ll simply say that the best place to locate more infrastructure, more housing is along the course of the line as the path of least resistance. That sort of insidious creep has already happened in relation to Wendover. Some years ago we had our bypass built and were all very grateful for that, but what do we now find? We find the bypass being described as a transport corridor along which HS2 has chosen to put the path of HS2. I can see that happening again. I am very concerned about it, as are all my fellow petitioners.

11. We do recognise we’re not the worst affected members of our community. In some ways we’re lucky that we don’t live closer to the prospective line. As you can see from the map that has been shown, we all live between 400 and 550 metres from the line. We still believe, however, that it’s likely that our properties are going to suffer blight from this line, certainly during the construction phase. However, what none o f us have any doubt about is we are going to suffer blight in relation to our own lives going forward, compared to what life is like now. It seems incredible to us some five and a half years after HS2 was first announced that we still have the current proposals. If we could move onto the next slide please.

12. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I f yo u’re going on about the line being built, please don’t, because we don’t have the power to do anything about that.

13. MR WILLIAMS: No, I’m not asking you to. I was just about to talk about what’s happening past us during the construction and the operational phase.

14. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay. Carry on.

15. MR WILLIAMS: Part of my ask is not –

16. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Carry on.

17. MR WILLIAMS: We’re faced with the prospect through our AONB of an open line across viaducts and via a green tunnel, which will require the digging of an enormous cutting through the chalk of the Chiltern Hills. It’s obviously going to have a huge impact on all of us during the construction phase if it is done this way, and a more everlasting effect once the line is operational. Surely we can do better than this to protect our heritage and for those coming after us. The south east is short and becoming ever shorter or areas like ours, and on my view we need to do the maximum possible to protect our vicinity.

18. We believe during the construction phase we’re going to suffer considerable chalk pollution and dust pollution from the chalk. We’re all upwind of the line, as you can see from the way it’s situated. That’s probably going to happen, and we believe we’re going to suffer from significant traffic disruption along the A413. I’m interested by the comments that construction traffic is not going to go through Wendover, but obviously all of us use the A413 on a very regular basis. It is the only form of transport we have in and out of Wendover effectively that is a major route, and I suspect that is going to be used. We’re also obviously going to be faced with a significant labour camp on the outside of Wendover. We don’t, as far as I’m aware, have any proposed infrastructure to deal with matters such as the increased pressure on our doctors’ surgery.

19. Last but not least, there’s obviously the noise. Wendover is a quiet and tranquil place and the route is upwind of us. We’re rightfully fearful that the building of the green tunnel is going to be shattering for much of our community. Obviously once the line is operational we all know what we’re going to be faced in relation to the volume of trains and the speed at which they’re going. As you’ll have seen from the map, the north portal of the green tunnel is not that far from our houses and is upwind of us. I’m afraid that none of us seriously believe that we will not hear the impact of trains going in and out of the portal. There’ll also of course be considerable visual pollution inflicted on our community from the current proposal, and in our view no amount of window dressing in relation to the green tunnel can really alter that fact. It’s going to be a massive intrusion on our picturesque setting. Can I have the next slide please?

20. So why are we petitioning? We believe that the Hybrid Bill in its present form,

indeed much of the way that HS2 has been forced on us, is unjust. It also does unnecessary damage to our historic community. As residents of that community we feel bound to fight it. As tax payers, members of the electorate of the UK and successors to our most famous elected representative, John Hampden, whose statue you see in the photograph, we think we should fight it. We somehow think our cause would have resonated with him, just as we think it should resonate with you. We don’t think it’s acceptable, for example, that the line curves into Wendover as it does at the moment, or that it is reasonable for us to have to accept the other problems I’ve already mentioned. It remains our view that a long tunnel through the Chilterns is the only reasonable solution, and that’s notwithstanding the views, I appreciate, that the Committee’s already expressed on that subject previously. Could I have the next slide please?

21. Why does it matter to us? Well, the next slide, as you can see, shows the locations of our properties in the Chiltern Road and Perry Street. And I do appreciate that there are many in our community that are more badly affected than we are, and I have watched with some sympathy their pleas in front of you on previous occasions. We’re apparently not entitled to – and in fact none of us are after compensation. That’s not what we’re a fte r. What we’re after is trying to protect, so far as we possibly can, our quality of life if this goes ahead. Can I have the next slide please?

22. The current proposals are, in our view, an unacceptable attempt to put sticking plaster on what for us is going to be a wound which cannot be healed under the current proposals. What did we have? A green tunnel that is going to create a lot of disruption during the construction phase and still leave us with a massive concrete viaduct over the A413, an open line to the south and north of the village, and two portals which are unacceptably close to our community. What are HS2’s solutions to the concerns raised by our community and which I think you’ve already recognised when you’ve been hearing previous petitions? We have a six metre high 300 metre long wall at the north portal, a two metre high mile long wall next to the A413 bypass, and a two metre high and 500 metre long wall next to the church and school on the south side. Gentleman, Wendover is not Berlin. In our view, concrete walls of this nature are not appropriate. This is our picturesque community and we deserve better than crude visual intrusions of this nature. Can I have the next slide please?

23. If there is to be construction work in our vicinity during the construction phase we

have a number of asks. First of all, we are looking for strict controls as to the manner and method of working that are enshrined in a legally enforceable code of construction practice that is properly policed. The second element of that is obviously extremely important. It’s not just a question of having the code. It’s a question of making sure that it is enforced. Secondly, there should be a full time road traffic manager for the key construction years. Thirdly, there should be additional financial support for Wendover Health Centre. That’s going to be essential if it’s going to deal, first of all, with anybody coming in from the camp, and secondly to deal with our own health needs, which I want to talk more about in a minute. And lastly there should be business rates relief for all businesses in Wendover during the construction phase. Wendover shops rely on people coming in from outside to enjoy the Chilterns, and they’re not going to be doing that while our village looks such an eyesore and is subject to the filth of the construction works. It’s no wonder that long established businesses in our community do not feel they have the confidence to carry on. Can I have the next slide please? Thank you.

24. Let me turn your attention now to the issue of noise. We understand that you’ve heard plenty on this subject. None of us claim to be technical experts on this subject, but we believe we are right to be sceptical about some of the figures that HS2 have put forward. We chose many years ago to live in a quiet country town surrounded by an area of outstanding natural beauty, and it seems that that choice is now being taken away from us by compulsion. We also claim a fundamental right to sleep at night. It would seem that once the train is operational we are going to be subjected to trains running for 19 hours, from five o’clock in the morning until midnight. On any basis we think this is going to mean that we’re going to suffer from disturbed sleep and an insufficient amount of it.

25. This was the point at which I was hoping to call Dr Blyth to give some evidence on the research she’s carried out. I’m not intending to spend a lot of time on this. There are a whole lot of papers referred to on the last slides which talk about the research she’s done. Dr Blyth is a doctor in –

26. MR BIRCH: Medical chemistry.

27. MR WILLIAMS: In medical chemistry, so she does know something about this

area. And from the research she’s done, which is listed in there, she thinks that –

28. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, I’m sure she knows a lot about medical chemistry, but does that link directly to aural expertise?

29. MR BIRCH: No, it is n’t, but she’s well used to handling matters of medical research into what to most of us are rather obscure subjects.

30. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That we understand. Thank you.

31. MR WILLIAMS: Three of the things she’s picked out is that it’s likely to accelerate Alzheimer’s in the elderly, it will probably increase the incidence of cardiovascular events and it will inhibit the development of children’s intelligence. Those three things are all set out, as I say, in some of the papers she’s listed at the back of our presentation. So there is a social cost. It’s hard to evaluate, but it can’t be zero as has been assumed. Clearly there is going to be some impact on all of us. So what she and we are asking for is to provide sound insulation for special cases such as the chronically sick, children who are subject to conditions such as autism and also for carers, people who look after people of that nature. All of those things are things that we think that HS2 should be asked to guarantee and provide. Thank you. Next slide.

32. We enjoy our peace and quiet. We have some concerns about the noise levels which HS2 has put forward as part of its readings. We appreciate that none of us are experts in the area, and certainly it’s not my intention to challenge that today. Just two things I wanted to pick out. First of all, Dr Blyth has taken some readings in her garden and these indicate two things. First of all, a working day mean of 35 decibels, which is significantly less than that that was claimed by HS2, and secondly night time readings which are mostly below 20 decibels, which obviously again is appreciably under what HS2 is presenting. Thank you.

33. Just one other illustration I wanted to draw from the noise issues. There are two photographs in the picture you can see there. The first is of the High Street in Wendover, and as you would expect that’s got one of the highest readings in Wendover. The second picture on the right is of the Heron Path, and that is an old historic path that runs down to St Mary’s Church, which is down at the bottom, just outside the photograph you can see. O n the right hand side you can see there’s a large field, and on

the left hand side there is a tranquil stream, and behind that there are gardens, yet apparently the profiles, as you can see from the slide, are exactly the same for those two locations. We simply can’t understand how that can be, and it therefore starts to put a lot of doubt in our minds about the other readings. Next slide please.

34. So what are we looking for? Well, in our view the community deserves the best possible protection from the effects of HS2. First, we look for a proper solution and not just a wall to protect our 14th century church and churchyard. A significant number of us attend this church. My youngest son was actually confirmed on S unday and welcomed into the church congregation within this, so it is an important matter for us. We think our village deserves better than the attempts that HS2 has made so far.

35. Secondly, we’re aware that you were quite recently addressed on hydrology issues in the Wendover valley. We think it must be incumbent on HS2 to ensure that our streams, of which there are several in the village, our canal, which we all use as amenity by cycle and by foot and which is a significant wildlife habitat, and the reservoir on the outskirts of the village are not affected. It appears that HS2 either haven’t done anything about that or are choosing not to do anything about it now in terms of their studies. We don’t think that’s acceptable. We think that they should be carrying out research into the impact of the surface routes on the water supplies to these important features of our village.

36. Thirdly, and as already mentioned, we are very concerned at the impact on our business community. It can’t be right that this should be adversely affected, and granting business rate relief to all businesses that occupy premises in Wendover may help them.

37. So what do we seek? Next slide please. Just a summary of what we’ve asked for: an effective control of noise, dust, the workforce, times of operation and traffic during the construction; a legal restriction on hours of operation when built; compensation for sound insulation in special cases; the protection of the quantity and quality of Wendover’s white waters; and specific measures for the church and the local business for the long term protection of our community. But even with all of that we still don’t think there’s not going to be a negative impact. We think the only complete solution is a fully bored tunnel right through the AONB so as to avoid the impacts on Wendover.

38. So just to finish off, it is our heartfelt plea you, the Committee, fully scrutinise the effect of HS2 on our community. We are, and we think we are right to be, sceptical of the data that HS2 Ltd rely upon in assessing the impact and setting out their mitigation measures. The company’s objective seems to be to build HS2 and not to assess whether it should be built, and this, combined with the cost constraints under which they’re under, means that you can’t rely upon this. And therefore we ask that you take these comments into consideration in your recommendations to HS2 as to what should be dome to protect Wendover. Thank you.

39. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould?

40. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. So far as effective control of construction impacts are concerned, the Committee is well aware of the provisions of the code of construction practice, which will be a final document at the point of royal assent, and will be legally enforceable through the contractual arrangements between the nominated undertaker and the contractors, and will be – and the Secretary of S tate has given an undertaking that he will take such steps as he considers to be necessary in order to secure compliance with the environmental minimum requirements, an important component of which is compliance with the code of construction practice.

41. There is no justification for a legal restriction on hours of operation when built. The railway will operate within the terms of the planning permission granted by clause 19 of the Bill, which requires the railway to operate within the environmental constraints set by the assessed environmental impacts. And provided that the railway remains within those constraints then the railway will be able to operate without significant – without further significant environmental effect. And that is a sufficient control, which has been a successful means of operation in relation to, for example, HS1. It’s a similar sort of arrangement.

42. In terms of compensation for sound insulation in special cases, our policy has been to seek to limit the incidence of noise effects through stringent design and operational policies, of which we’ve told you in the E series of the information papers. You’re going to hear more about the control on operational noise when you hear from Chiltern District Council tomorrow.

43. In terms of the projection of the quantity and quality of Wendover’s white waters,

you heard from a hydrogeologist who was instructed on behalf of the Wendover Parish Council. And, as you will recall, set out in the documents which were submitted as part of the promoter’s exhibits for the Buckinghamshire County Council petition, both the project’s hydrogeologist and the hydrogeologist called on behalf of Wendover Parish Council agreed that the analysis of the environmental statement on the impact of groundwater levels on water quality is appropriate for this stage in the process of developing the project. There were further matters agreed and further points on which further work was required. Those are set out in exhibit P8437, for those who wish to see the terms in which the matter has been left.

44. In terms of specific measures for the church, I mentioned yesterday that one of the ongoing matters for investigation as part of preparing AP5 in order to take forward the further mitigation measures that the Committee asked us to look at for Wendover in addition to the green tunnel is further consideration of sound insulation measures that might be appropriate for the church, given its sensitivity as a listed building, but might also secure some further effective mitigation, in addition to those additional works in terms of extending the green tunnel southwards and providing a six metre noise barrier on the east side of the line to the south of the green tunnel, which, as I said yesterday, are being worked up as part of the AP5 provisions.

45. In terms of protection for local businesses and the suggestion that there should be rates relief for business rates, the Committee’s heard a presentation on that from Warwickshire County Council, and further work has been undertaken in negotiation discussion between the parties on that. But the suggestion that that is a matter that should be resolved now by the provision of rates relief is, in the judgment of the Government, unnecessary, given the arrangement that already exists to provide a safety net for business rates, the movement in business rates, the business rates yield that is set out in the existing arrangements. But that is not something that is resolved, there is still work being done on that, and the Committee has asked for a further report back, I think, in relation to that issue before it completes its work, and we have that in mind.

46. CHAIR: Okay.

47. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the mystery of their page 10, of the High Street being the same noise level as Heron Path?

48. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It might appear a mystery at first but, as you know, the measurements that we have presented and the predictions that we have presented are based on a mixture of survey work and also modelling, which produces the results that are set out in the noise impact assessment. I don’t know the specifics of the Heron Path and what the noise – the baseline survey for that area, what noise was experienced, if you like, when the sound measurement machines were put up there, but, as you know, the measurements are of sound rather than noise. And sound can include things that whilst they might appear thoroughly benign, like bird song, like the general noise of the wind and so on and so forth, they produce relatively high sound readings. What they don’t produce is noise, because noise is something that is unwanted, whereas sound is something that simply exists. I’m reporting Mr Thornely-Taylor, who is an expert in these matters. What I am also told is that the Heron Path is near St Mary’s church and is likely to be affected by traffic from the A413.

49. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Existing?

50. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. The pure point, they’re based on measured surveys and what we measure is what exists.

51. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay.

52. CHAIR: Brief final comments?

53. MR WILLIAMS: I’m sorry?

54. CHAIR: Brief final comments?

55. MR WILLIAMS: Yes, brief final comments. I’d just like to take up that last comment. The pictures speak for themselves in my view in relation to that last issue. I’d also like just to say as a final comment, to pick up what John Bercow said to you last week, if HS2 can’t afford proper mitigation measures it shouldn’t be doing this line at all, and it’s incumbent upon you, in the view of these petitioners, to make sure that they make the proper choice in relation to mitigation measures. Thank you.

56. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Thank you to both. Right. We now move onto 48, Ian and Rosemary C hisholm.

Ian and Rosemary Chisholm

57. CHAIR: Right. Can you do a brief introduction, Mr Mould?

58. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Mr and Mrs Chisholm live on the London Road, and you’ll recall back in September hearing a presentation from Ms Dixon and others, who were also London Road residents. What I can tell you by way of introduction is that a meeting is being set up for the 11th of this month to be attended by residents of London Road, HS2 Ltd, Buckinghamshire County Council and also, if he is able to attend, I understand Mr Lidington as well or his researcher will be present in order to take forward the matters that were discussed at the last time you heard from representatives of this community.

59. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this where the coach pulled in?

60. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I think so.

61. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes.

62. CHAIR: Okay. Who’s going to start then?

63. MRS CHISHOLM: Good morning members of the Select Committee. We are Ian and Rose Chisholm, as already stated, and we are here to tell you our personal story relating to the HS2 scheme. Slide 2 please. As already stated, we live on a stretch of London Road, the A413, on the outskirts of Wendover. Ours is one of 23 properties. We face this busy road, separated from the carriageway by a grass verge and pavement. Directly beyond our rear boundary is the London to Aylesbury Chiltern line. Slide 3 please.

64. MR CHISHO LM: Good morning. Ian Chisholm. I’m actually going to talk about blighted properties in our area. Let’s start at February 2010. We had our property valued, the reason being – it would be retirement. Take you through to March 2010, the announcement of HS2 London to Midlands, a new rail link, which will pass very close to our property. Again, in March 2010 we decide to put our retirement plans on hold in

the hope that the campaign can achieve a fully bored tunnel through the Chilterns and AONB. Moving on now to 21 July 2015, the announcement that in the London Road we will not get any tunnel and the viaduct at 18 metres will still remain.

65. Now moving on to October 2015, asked the local estate agent, Christopher Pallet about marketing our property. He said although the market is very good that is not the case in the London Road because of the blight issues with HS2. He then went on to say that he knew of eight properties in our postcode for sale, of which four are on his books. Over a period of 12 weeks on these properties there had been no viewings and no offers. In contrast to this, in April 2015 I had to sell my mother’s property to pay for her nursing home fees. She lived just a mile and a half away from us in 2 Wharf C lo se, centre of Wendover. Sold in 14 days, with 16 viewings and four offers, well above the asking price. The solution to all this blight would be a fully bored tunnel through the Chilterns. Next slide please.

66. MRS CHISHOLM: As you know, Wendover is situated in the Chiltern Hills and the surface geology is a substantial layer of chalk. When dry chalk is disturbed it produces a thick white dust. When set it forms sticky clumps. We feel anxious at the prospect of being exposed to breathing a concentration of chalk dust particles. We think a fully bored tunnel, whilst not removing the risk, would considerably minimise it. Slide 5 please.

67. As already stated, our property is situated just within 300 metres of the centre of the line and viaduct. We’re concerned about both constructional and operational noise and repetitive vibration effects. At the outset, five and a half years ago, HS2 Ltd personnel at several of their roadshow events attempted to reassure us that our fears of noise nuisances were unfounded. They did this by inviting us into sound booths to listen to passing high speed trains, whose noise turned out to be no louder than a chaffinch, I kid you not. S ince then at further roadshow events they have continued to play down the noise nuisance level, and we remain deeply troubled by this threat. Some would say that the construction phase will be temporary. Even so we find this an unpalatable prospect. The operational phase will of course be permanent. The prospect therefore of enduring a very loud noise every one and a half minutes which could possibly be capable of causing hearing loss is absolutely unbearable and unacceptable, and the solution to this surely must be a fully bored tunnel. Slide 6 please.

68. Courtesy of Google Street View our bungalow is shown on the left side with the direction of travel towards Wendover itself. For the six miles between Little Missenden and Wendover the A413 is single carriageway. Depicted here is a service road on the left, London Road in the middle, of course the A413, and a bus stop on the right. Access and exit is a pre-exiting issue for us, particularly at peak traffic times. The next slide will demonstrate this. A fully bored tunnel would alleviate much of our concern.

69. Slide 7 please. We London Road residents conducted an hour by hour traffic census over a 12 hour period earlier this year on two separate days, 13 August, school holidays, and 8 September, term time. This was mentioned in some detail by Sara Dixon, representing herself and most other London Road residents during their presentation to yourselves on 17 September. I won’t therefore dwell on it except to point out the heavily congested periods from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., making access and exit from our property problematic. Also please note the average number of emerge ncy vehicles travelling in each direction. This amounts to one to two per hour. Slide 8 please.

70. MR CHISHO LM: As you can see the slide tells it all, except to say that Euston station is 37 miles away, Curzon Street 96 miles away, overall 133 miles with no stations at all that we could access. Slide 9 please.

71. MRS CHISHOLM: You will have seen the proximity of the electricity pylon in slide 6. It is one of several in a line parallel with the route HS2 is to take. We believe one or more pylons will need to be re-sited, and we anticipate disruptions to our power supply as a consequence. A fully bored tunnel would obviate the need to re-site any of these pylons. Slide 10 please.

72. MR CHISHOLM: Our section of the A413 is prone to flooding. Two large balancing ponds are due to be sited very close to the A413. Our concerns are 1) silting up of these ponds, 2) maintenance of these ponds and, 3) spillage of the ponds onto the 413, which, as we said, is already prone to flooding. Next slide please. Oh, sorry, when in the past we’ve asked some technical questions at HS2 roadshows, each time the answer from the PR team is, ‘Sorry but we have no engineers present today’ or ‘He has just left, but we will take on board your concerns’. Slide 11 please.

73. MRS CHISHOLM: The Chiltern Hills were designated an area of outstanding

natural beauty in 1965, as I’m sure you know. I know that during your site visit you visited Coombe Hill, our local focal point of the Chilterns. Living as we do within walking distance of Coombe Hill, we feel very protective towards the AONB and feel strongly that a fully bored tunnel would be the best method of preserving its iconic status. Slide 12 please.

74. We are ardent amateur naturalists, with particular reference to butterflies. Many years ago in fact, we contributed as recorders to the contents of a book entitled The Butterflies of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. The continued survival of several species is under threat due to habitat loss. The proposed scheme is likely to compound the threat to continued survival for those vulnerable species by at best disturbing, at worst destroying their habitat. A fully bored tunnel, especially once HS2 is operational, would have much less of an impact on them and their habitat. Slide 13 please.

75. MR CHISHOLM: Mr Chairman, I would just to like to add at this point build the best you can not the cheapest, and following on from that we would like our £7,500 compensation to help with the cost of any fully bored tunnel. Thank you.

76. CHAIR: Thank you.

77. MRS CHISHOLM: Thank you.

78. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

79. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. F irst of all, I’ve asked that we make sure an engineer attends the meeting on 11 November, so that if there are any questions they can be raised directly with an engineer at that meeting. That meeting will also be an opportunity to explore further the issue of traffic management and also I think to give further information about the handling of balancing ponds. But what I can say in relation to that issue is that balancing ponds will be planned and maintained so that they continue to function as they’re intended to do, which is to provide a balanced approach to flood storage, and obviously they will need to be designed to be of sufficient capacity to avoid adding to any existing flooding risks. And indeed we’ve made clear that opportunities will arise through the design of the balancing pond regime to alleviate existing flooding problems. So there may be an opportunity there to improve the

position if that is consistent with the design of those facilities in this location.

80. Going back to the question of noise, if we can put up P7572(4), what the Committee will have in mind is that these properties are already located on the A413 London Road, and I’ll just point out the location here. So they’re already subjected obviously to the noise that comes from being alongside that busy traffic route. What you can see here is with the coming of HS2, which approaches from the south in false cutting, then rises onto the – comes across the road and the railway on the Small Dean Viad uc t before going forwards along the western side of Wendover, there are a series of noise barriers proposed in the form of earthworks and noise fences as the railway passes to the east of London Road. And you can see there’s a 1.4 metre barrier on the west side of the S mall Dean Viaduct. That’s being pointed out now.

81. The prediction is that these and other properties in the London Road community will be within the LOAEL contour, so they are subject – so the design objective is to continue to seek measures to reduce noise where reasonably practicable to the LOAEL threshold. But the numbers, and I haven’t got them on slide but I can just give you a flavour of it in the – for those who wish to look at it it’s in volume 5 of the environmental statement. The numbers for assessment point 368607, which is the relevant assessment point for these properties, show that in the – without the scheme the noise environment is, as you would expect given the location, is dominated by traffic noise. So the day time ambient is 74 dB, the night time ambient is 69 dB and the max, the LAmax is 83, and the railway scheme would be at 55, 45 and 72/75, so you can see the correlation between those numbers. The do something numbers are 74 and 69 day and night respectively, and that leads to the position that the degree of change between the existing and HS2 is zero, and that’s a function simply of the fact that the location is next to a relatively busy road.

82. So, as I say, that doesn’t mean that as a matter of policy we wash our hands of it. As I say, the design policy in A20 is to continue to take steps to reduce – to bring properties in the LOAEL contour as far as reasonably practicable down to the LOAEL contour, but that’s the context.

83. Now, the question of electricity, there’s a very localised – there’s a need to make some very localised changes to the pylon run, but there’s no risk here of any outage

resulting to the local community, so power will be maintained whilst those works are being carried on.

84. Just finally on the compensation position, the homeowner payment is, as you know, is not strictly a fo rm of land compensation. I think the way the Government has described it is it’s designed to enable communities affected – property owners affected by HS2 to enable them to have an early share in the benefits that come from the railway. That’s the way in which the – that particular component of the compensation package has been explained.

85. CHAIR: Thank you.

86. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the opportunity for part one compensation claim after the railway comes into operation is there?

87. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is there. I’m bound to say, for the reasons I’ve given in relation to noise, whether the market value of these properties will be diminished as a result of the coming of the railway is perhaps less obvious here than it is in some other areas, but that’s not in any way to diminish your point, Sir Peter, which is that the right will be there for those who qualify as owner occupiers of residential properties.

88. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: And that right is supposed to be about blight rather than the physics? It’s essentially the market rather than physics.

89. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s the market’s – quite so. Yes.

90. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Brief final comment?

91. MRS CHISHOLM: I have no further comment to make.

92. MR CHISHOLM: Thank you for hearing us.

93. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. N ice to meet you. I hope the meeting goes well.

94. MRS CHISHOLM: Thank you.

95. CHAIR: Right. We now come onto 589 and 590, Susan Hetherington and Andrew Hetherington.

Susan Hetherington and Andrew Hetherington

96. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr and Mrs Hetherington live in Wharf Road Wendover, which is – the location of which is on the screen in front of you. It’s some 850 metres from the line of the railway.

97. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the Weston Turville Reservoir is where?

98. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Weston Turville Reservoir is way off, I think to the – off plan to the north east, as I recall. Yes. I think the Weston Turville Reservoir feeds the canal of which you have heard, and itself I think is very – the reservoir itself is very substantially fed, I think, by groundwater. That’s the point, I think, that’s being made.

99. CHAIR: Thank you. Who’s going to start then?

100. MRS HETHERINGTON: I’m s tarting. Slide 1. We are Andy and Sue Hetherington of Wharf Road, as has been said, and Wharf Road is on the east side of Wendover, so mercifully not as near to the line as many in Wendover. In fact it’s adjacent to the Memorial Hall, where I believe there is a roadshow at the weekend. However, the bombshell news in 2010 about HS2 made us resolve to move away. We actually went onto the TV programme Escape to the Country, citing HS2 as the reason we needed to escape from Bucks. If you could go onto slide 2.

101. We’ve lived in Wendover for 20 years, and 10 years ago we moved into the house you see on the far left hand side that was just nearing completion. And you’ll see it’s at the very head of the canal and our garden runs down to it, and we absolutely love the water and the wildlife it attracts. However, we were serious about escaping HS2, moving away, despite loving where we live, and the TV programme found us some excellent properties, but unfortunately a family bereavement by suicide changed everything and we weren’t able to move away at that time.

102. So, going on to slide 3, we’ve done everything in our power to make our voice heard, and we feel that democracy hasn’t been well served with the Hybrid Bill, and

then there have been consultations, but we’ve had very little confidence in them. And we’ve unfortunately felt we’ve – we’ve been disappointed in our MP, David Lidington, who has not felt able to oppose HS2 in the House of Commons.

103. MR BELLINGHAM: As a local MP, and obviously as a Minister, he’s bound by collective responsibility, but it hasn’t stopped him standing up for his constituents, and I’ve been very impressed with the representations he’s made to Ministers on a regular bas is.

104. MRS HETHERINGTON: As constituents that is not transparent to us, so we are very grateful for this opportunity to make our voice heard, which is really the main reason why we’ve petitioned. It’s absolutely not easy coming here but we’ve grabbed this opportunity to come and have our say. So you can take it that we subscribe to all of the big arguments, but we hear what you say that you don’t want to hear the same things over and over again, and so we are trying very hard to make this our personal presentation to you. And then the points that we’re wanting to make are in two parts. I’m going to talk about environmental matters and then Andy’s going to take over later.

105. So, going onto slide 4, the main way that the HS2 plans affect me are about the natural environment, both on my doorstep and further afield in Bucks. On my doorstep I’ve got the Wendover Arm Canal, and from my kitchen window I’ve seen the swans there and I’ve seen the heron, lots and lots of other things. Other visitors include mallards, mandarin ducks, grey wagtails, little grebes even and the occasional magical flash by of a kingfisher. There’s a real possibility, I understand, that the green tunnel proposed will interfere with the waters that feed the canal. The proposed Chilterns long tunnel, however, would safeguard this water supply. Should the water dry up, I personally would be very much affected by the eradication of this wildlife that I currently enjoy at the bottom of my garden, and actually it would have far reaching effects on lots of people, not least of all the volunteers who work on re-watering the Wendover Arm itself. There’s been thousands of hours of volunteer effort and all the money raised will all have been in vain. If the Wendover Arm dries up it will have a disastrous effect on the Weston Turville Reservoir and ultimately on the Grand Union Canal as well. Onto slide 5 please.

106. I’ve got a valid stake in the Bucks countryside beyond my own backyard. I’m a

life member of the Chiltern Society and BBOWT, and I volunteer on conservation work on a regular basis for Bucks, Berks and Oxford Wildlife Trust at Weston Turville Reservoir. Weston Turville Reservoir is owned by the Canal & River Trust and managed for ecology by BBOWT. It’s an SSSI for its botany, being a rare chalk stream fed marsh. Onto slide 6. And volunteer effort is needed to manage the reeds so they don’t encroach too far. In early summer you can see there is a profusion of early marsh orchids, and they’re systematically counted. So in the winter the reed cutting is done and then in the early summer that was when we were counting the orchids. Onto slide 7. But it’s not all botany at Weston Turville Reservoir. There are good bird watching opportunities too. A bird hide is available to the public where some amazing birds have been seen, including in the winter bittern, and thrillingly just recently an osprey staying for a few days on its southwards migration. Onto slide 8.

107. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not the osprey tagged by the BBC is it?

108. MRS HETHERINGTON: No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t tagged at all. Don’t know where it came from. It was a juvenile. Slide 8, yes. And even more excitingly, on a very rare occasion two winters ago we even had an otter. How amazing is that? An otter within walking distance of my home. The risk to this SSSI in turning off the water is just unthinkable. Slide 9.

109. Even further from my doorstep but places that mean something to me include Calvert Lake and at Finemere Wood up in the north of Bucks. These are both BBOWT sites and studied by groups I’m a member of. Taking Finemere Wood, the HS2 line will pass no more than one field away. Finemere is special for a lot of wildlife and also happens to be a fantastic bluebell wood, which is a sign of ancient woodland. And going on to slide 10, I’m a member of North Bucks Bat Group, and I’ve had the privilege of attending bat box monitoring in Finemere Wood where licensed bat handlers do the sort of things you can see. They check the boxes, weigh, measure and ring bats in a similar way as you might be familiar with in studying birds.

110. And onto slide 11, and one of those trees there is the particular tree where the group discovered a roost of Bechstein’s bats, and I don’t believe that the HS2 ecological study was robust enough. Had not North Bucks Bat Group happened to have discovered fo r the mselves that those bats were there, it could have been that HS2 destroyed them

before anyone even knew they were there. And the mitigation so far, I understand, is not good enough, basically. And this is the end of my bit, and I pass you over to my husband Andy.

111. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So roughly where is that? Roughly where is this roost?

112. MRS HETHERINGTON: In Finemere Wood.

113. MR HETHERINGTON: Okay. Next slide please. Okay. My concern with activities dependent on the water is that I’ve looked at the hydrology report but I can’t see anything in there that has a contingency if things go wrong. The assumption is that the green tunnel will have no effect, but I think that a contingency would be a sensible plan to put in place. Next slide please.

114. We’re going to get disruption to footpaths certainly for a short time, but a short time in construction is a long time in people’s memories, and I’m concerned that it will deter visitors and stop visitors from visiting the area, and once people don’t come to an area it’s very difficult to get them back. This will have an effect on local businesses due to reduced footfall. Next please. Even the Ridgeway, the ancient footpath, will be disrupted. There are a lot of visitors who use the Ridgeway, from older groups to young people doing Duke of Edinburgh’s Award so the High Street is, in the summer, quite full of walkers.

115. MRS HETHERINGTON: Could I just interrupt and clarify that the Ridgeway long distance path actually runs along Wendover High Street. How many villages have got a long distance footpath that goes down their High Street? It’s an amazing gift.

116. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Watling Street was a footpath at one stage.

117. MRS HETHERINGTON: You’d need to be a bit nippy there, if you walked along there.

118. MR HETHERINGTON: Next please. And our, sort of, one of our early MPs I’m sure would be extremely unhappy at the disruption that’s being caused in his village. Next please. As has been said earlier, HS2 is having an impact on the village. We now have three empty shops, two of which are directly the result of uncertainty caused by

HS2. In the 20 years that we’ve lived in the village shops have never been unoccupied for the amount of time they are at the moment. Even given, sort of, difficult economic times the shops were always viable. The problem is made worse, I think, by a lack of involvement and empathy from HS2, who I think see people objecting, you know, as problems rather than someone they should be engaging with. It’s hardly surprising when some of the comments made when HS2 was first announced and objections were made was that, you know, we’re just Nimbies and we should, you know, sort of, go back home and, you know, keep quiet and let the grown-ups build the railway. Next please.

119. Again, another shop closing. Next please. Also, this may hasten the loss of our one remaining bank in Wendover, because if we get reduced footfall the bank will quite rightly say, ‘Well, there’s no customer base so we’ll close’, which, again, will be another empty shop, another empty business. I realise that you’ve heard, you know, everybody’s saying that a fully bored tunnel is what’s needed, and I think it is because it will protect not only the environment but also our village. We are one of the worst affected areas along the line. There are a couple who are worse off than us, but we are definitely all pain and no gain. And so I would like to ensure that we get the best possible mitigation not the cheapest, because we will be paying for this twice, once through our taxes and once through the loss to our amenity. Next please.

120. What would soften the blow? Well, a long tunnel. Next please. But mo re modestly, perhaps some of the footpaths along the canal could be renewed. Next. And in order to help with the restoration of the canal maybe a canal bridge where they’re needed.

121. MRS HETHERINGTON: That particular broken bridge should be – Wendover Arm Trust managed to come all the way back up to Wendover. That’s the last one that’s there. It’s too low at the moment. It will require rebuilding so it’s raised, and the Wendover Arm Trust have successfully previously built an absolutely beautiful reconstruction of a canal bridge further down the line, so we thought that would be a fine replacement for the broken one.

122. MR HETHERINGTON : And finally thanks for listening to us, and – as you can see.

123. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

124. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. P7586. First of all, the question of the reservoir. This is one of the surface water baseline maps. The Weston Turville Reservoir is being pointed out to you now, and obviously the flow is south-eastwards through the town on the canal, and as we’ve said earlier, I think, the reservoir itself is largely fed by ground water from the chalk. As you can see, the works associated with HS2 are some distance away from that particular feature, but concerns about the potential for the HS2 engineering works to interfere with the broader ground water regime around Wendover have already been raised with the committee in some detail. As I me ntio ned earlier this morning, you’ve heard informed and expert evidence, both from the promoter but also of course from the hydrogeologist, Mr Williams, who was called as a witness by the parish council. As I’ve mentioned that resulted in further discussions and a number of matters were agreed; some matters were left over for further consideration. But one thing which was agreed was that the existing – the assessment in the Environmental Statement is appropriate for this stage in the process.

125. Another thing that was discussed, picking up on the particular point made by Mr Hetherington was, what if there’s a need for some remedial action to be taken because the groundwater regime is affected and need remediation by the project. Both of the experts I think were agreed that some form of pumping solution would be required. There was some disagreement as to how extensive that might be and how – what the cost of it might be. But the principle that pumping would be the contingency plan, if you like, was broadly agreed between those two parties. That is something which the project already has in mind as a contingency. Of course, this is an issue which is going to be the subject of continuing scrutiny not only by the promoter and by the local community, but of course by Natural England, the Environment Agency and Affinity Water, I think, as well. There are protective provisions under the Bill which preserve the rights and interests of other statutory bodies who have rights and responsibilities in relation to maintenance of the groundwater regime.

126. The other point I’d make is this: that the Bill does not authorise the project to sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, the project must be designed so as to avoid causing such damage. So, again, the existing regime of regulation and control remains in relation to statutory nature conservation interests of that kind.

127. We don’t actually propose any works in Finemere Wood, and indeed, as you’ve

heard in the context of petitions relating to Calvert, the project has proposed a series of significant interventions in order to improve connections for wildlife between existing belts of woodland to the north of Wendover, including between Finemere Wood and other woodlands such as Sheephouse Wood. We saw a plan of that the other day.

128. So far as footpaths are concerned, we don’t sever the Ridgeway. During construction it’s necessary to make a very minor diversion to the Ridgeway as it passes in the vicinity of Ellesborough Road, which will be – and the Ridgeway will be reinstated on its existing line across the green tunnel when the works have been completed. But it will be possible to walk the Ridgeway throughout the construction process in this location.

129. Insofar as the suggestion that it might be possible to do something to improve the canal path, that looks like precisely the kind of proposal that would fall within the scope of the Community and Business Fund Initiative, that the committee knows about, and as I’ve said, arrangements for eligibility and for bids for that are in the process of being developed and further announcements will be made during the course of the coming months by the government in relation to the administration and make up of those funds.

130. Finally, I am not aware that HS2 has ever characterised those who are concerned about the potential impact of the railway on their communities as NIMBYs certainly that is not the basis upon which I am asked to consider them and I certainly don’t consider those who have these concerns in that way. We are looking to resolve people’s concerns by explaining and improving upon our mitigation where we are able and think it’s appropriate to do so. I would repeat the point I made yesterday, that whilst I understand that people continue to push for a long tunnel in this location, it is possible that there won’t be a long tunnel in this location and therefore it would be sensible, I would suggest, if we all look towards disseminating the mitigation that is available and which the committee has itself impressed upon the project through its interim decision on extending the Wendover green tunnel and the mitigation in that area in the announcement made in July.

131. CHAIR: Thank you Mr Mould. Any final comments?

132. MRS HETHERINGTON: The comment about the water it’s - at this time, I would urge you to continue to keep a very careful on the water issue because the impact,

it would be absolutely huge on the Wendover Arm Canal and on the Grand Union Canal. And the comment that perhaps doing something to renovate the current watered end of the Wendover Arm – the footpaths and bridges – who would put forward that suggestion? What’s the mechanism for doing that?

133. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Your community. Your local community; that is the intention, that these should be community-led initiatives and the detail will become clearer, as I say, over the course of the next six months or so when the Secretary of State makes further announcements about appointing a chair to the Community Fund administration body and then following that appointment, the eligibility arrangements for applying for grant funding – for funding, rather, will be developed.

134. MRS HETHERINGTON: So it would be Wendover Parish Council in our case?

135. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, it could be Wendover Parish Council, certainly.

136. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed, both of you; thank you for your attendance. We now move on to Petition 18, Carol Perkins?

Ca rol Perkins

137. CHAIR: Mr Mould, if you could do a brief introduction?

138. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, we are – Mr and Mrs Perkins live in – this is the very north-eastern edge of Wendover, on Lionel Avenue, and you can see the location of their property on screen. They’re some 648 metres from the HS2 railway line. I should have said, sorry, Mrs Perkins – she occupies a business unit on Station Approach which is being pointed out to you now; I think it’s Unit 10 of Station Approach which is her place of work.

139. CHAIR: Okay, thank you; welcome.

140. MS PERKINS: Good morning.

141. CHAIR: Good morning.

142. MS PERKINS: My name is Caroline Perkins, this is my husband Kim Speller. I live and work in Wendover, and enjoy walking and cycling in the surrounding

countryside. I’m 51 years old and I have lived in Wendover for 27 years. I was born locally and I’ve lived in Buckinghamshire all my life. I have concerns for both the construction phase and the operational use of HS2. In fact, my petition was going to be presented by my Roll B agent originally, but we met on the Manor Waste in Wendover earlier in the summer and I presented to talk to you about mitigation, and I said this was the place to come and discuss such a thing, so I have changed my petition and come to present my petition to you.

143. Our home is just 650 metres from the proposed northern portal of the green tunnel, and Unit 10 is just 100 metres from the construction line. My husband and I operate a business out of Wendover, relating to high-end, specialist secure telecommunications and critical UK network infrastructure. My husband provides technical design and support consultancy for major UK data and voice networks, including strategic UK network infrastructures and mobile phone operators.

144. You can see from the position on the slide, number 1 is our house, number 2 is Unit 10 and number 3 is dog walking routes which I’ll come onto. I walk my dog daily in the field indicated and am a regular user of the footpaths around Wendover including the Wendover Canal and Weston Turville Reservoir. We enjoy walking and cycling as a family.

145. Many of these issues have been raised by previous petitioners both in the summer and the last week so I will be brief. During the construction phase, I am concerned about the direct impact – sorry, need to go to the next slide? During the construction phase I am concerned about the direct impact of the construction on the value of our home and Unit 10 properties. I am concerned about the disruption caused by the construction on the whole of the village of Wendover, particularly for traffic flow, access to our home and access to Unit 10 at Station Approach. We will have to put up with the construction noise affecting Unit 10 for at least three years, making working from the premises difficult if not impossible. What mitigation measures will be put in place?

146. The use of the A413 will be impeded by construction traffic, and severely affect the traffic flow. Recently, road works took place simultaneously on two roads around Wendover, causing major tailbacks and resulting in gridlock of the village roads. Often

the bypass is at a standstill, which we can see out of the window of Unit 10. Many of these concerns were presented by Tim Guy yesterday from the Wendover Chamber of Commerce.

147. There will be a negative impact on the loss of my environment, including impact on dog walking and cycling, particularly walking along the canal, meadows, and at the Weston Turville Reservoir. This is because of the effect of the green tunnel’s construction on the surrounding hydrology and the effect of the supply of the water to the Wendover Canal and the Weston Turville Reservoir, as presented by previous petitioners. I am also concerned about access to Coombe Hill which will be restricted for walkers during the construction phase. Do we really believe that the construction will take just three years?

148. Therefore, I am concerned about the impact on my family and working life through noise and vibration. Will we have to put up with night construction work as well?

149. During the operational phase: again, I’m concerned about the value of my home and Unit 10 properties, will be negatively affected during the operation of HS2. I have already stated that our home is 650 metres from the northern portal and Unit 10 is within 100 metres of the proposed HS2 line. Will we experience a loss of sleep through the operation of night trains and noise from night maintenance? This is a major concern, as my adult son who lives with us is on the autistic spectrum. Sleep can be at a premium and he is affected by noise. Recently we’ve experienced night maintenance from the Chiltern Railways, interrupting his sleep and, of course, ours.

150. I am concerned about noise of trains exiting at CH55, on daytime office operations at Unit 5. What will be the vibration impact on office operations and the environment at Unit 10 when working? All of these concerns will significantly impact on my working life and family life. How exactly will we be compensated if HS2 does not start until 2025?

151. Night time noise, already we hear maintenance on the Chiltern Line at night, what mitigation will be in effect for maintenance and night time operation? Day time noise, I’m led to believe that the green tunnel will not actually be a fully-covered structure, but there will be vent holes at the point that the tunnel passes Unit 10. If that is the case,

Unit 10 will be significantly – will be effectively just 30 metres from track noise, if not, the portal is within 200 metres of Unit 10. HS2 talk about noise screening; I have not seen the proposed AP5 as yet; how are the six metre high noise screens going to help us? What mitigation will there be on the vibration impact on the unit, with sensitive equipment inside?

152. I feel that Wendover Canal and the reservoir at Weston Turville will be materially affected by the construction, thereby affecting my environment.

153. So, in summary, I believe that the only mitigation for all these concerns will be a bored tunnel past the entirety of Wendover. I feel we as a family are impacted in every aspect of our lives, both at home, work and leisure from the proposed construction and operational use of HS2.

154. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much. Did you want to add anything?

155. MR SPELLER: No, I think that’s –

156. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Mr Mould?

157. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to put up P7572(5) which gives us an indication of the airborne noise position following construction. Station Approach, I’m pointing out to you now. As you can see, the effect of the green tunnel passing to the west of Wendover is that properties in Station Approach lie outside the LOAEL contour and plainly, the petitioner’s home which is I think hidden – or possibly just below the box here – that is also outside the LO AEL contour.

158. I haven’t got the slide with the numbers for the most useful assessment point, but 360117 which is Station Approach, Wendover, General Commercial, is showing a baseline noise environment without HS2 with ambient noise levels of 53dB daytime; 44dB night; and a LAmax of 55dB. The railway is at the 37dB daytime, 28dB night, and 58db, 61dB LAmax, which the effect is that both in terms of ambient noise and in terms of the degree of change, we’re not predicting any significant effect. The prediction is zero in terms of the ambient and as you can see, there’s a correlation between the baseline LAmax levels of 55dB and the railway, which is at 58db and 61dB for European compliant trains. So, there should be no significant effect – or certainly no

significant effect predicted in terms of airborne noise.

159. In terms of ground-borne noise and vibration, I take the point about the sensitive nature of the activities that go on within this industrial unit. Our policy is to make an assessment – have an assessment zone for noise sensitive properties. For noise sensitive properties, Station Approach does fall within the assessment zone, so this is a Unit, depending on the activities that go on within it, which will be subject to further assessment. But the design criterion for ground borne noise is a LOAEL of 35dB LAmax, and judging from the slides that you saw, that would correspond broadly to the existing environment that the petitioners have put forward; and so that’s the design objective for the project. In terms of vibration, my understanding is that we’re not predicting any significant vibration effects here, but as I say, because the property is one that, if it’s subject to sensitive activities, will be subject to further assessment, then that is something that would – that is further work to be done in relation to this unit.

160. I think that was the main point raised, and so that’s the response on that.

161. CHAIR: You were petition 18; you must’ve been pretty high up the queue!

162. MS PERKINS: I was looking at the numbers, yes. I got in quick, clearly?

163. CHAIR: Brief final comments?

164. MS PERKINS : Yes, I raised the issue about vents in the green tunnel, can you confirm whether that’s the case?

165. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry, can you say that –

166. MS PERKINS: Are there likely to be vents in the green tunnel?

167. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, it’s not long enough to require a vent.

168. MS PERKINS: It’s totally covered?

169. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s totally covered, yes. There will be porous portals –

170. MS PERKINS: Porous portals?

171. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The purpose of those is to provide further noise

mitigation.

172. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It softens the sound, in effect, using non-technical usage.

173. MS PERKINS: That’s during the operational phase?

174. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s during the operational phase.

175. MS PERKINS: The construction is another level entirely in terms of, we’re very close to the construction –

176. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and my understanding is we’re not predicting any significant construction effects. The management of the construction works enables us – which take place beyond the existing railway and beyond the existing road – enables us to mitigate the noise and disturbance from the construction activities so that it shouldn’t give rise to significant adverse effects on yourself and others who work along Station Approach.

177. MS PERKINS: And is AP5 in the public domain currently?

178. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, but the basic components of the AP5 changes, as regards Wendover, I summarised in the course of proceedings yesterday, so that’s set out in the transcript of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings.

179. MS PERKINS: Okay.

180. MR SPELLER: Could I also just ask, do HS2 fully understand the noise implications of entry and exit to CH25, is it, well understood in that there’s a significant increase in noise at that point?

181. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You mean the risk of –

182. MR SPELLER: The whoosh –

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, well we understand it as best that anybody can understand it. We have done extensive laboratory testing in order to improve our understanding. We have taken account of such operational evidence as there is, which is relatively limited in other countries where high speed railway trains operate, and the

porous portal is a now relatively well-established technique to deal with that potential risk. We are not predicting any appreciable impact from aerodynamic in that way; and the porous portals are being designed precisely to seek to avoid that phenomenon occurring on the operation HS2. The committee has been very keen to understand the work that we’ve been doing on that; I think we’ve provided some further information to the committee in response to its Interim Report, and I think that we’re continuing to discuss, through the usual channels, with the committee whether we’re able to provide further information. But we’re quite limited, in a way, because it is – the phenomenon – the porous portal technique which has been used elsewhere on the continent, for example, I think I’m right in saying, is so successful is that it’s very difficult indeed, to provide actual evidence of the phenomenon occurring. It does not occur because it is successfully avoided. So what you have to do is to rely on laboratory modelling in order to demonstrate how you avoid it, and that is what we have done.

184. CHAIR: Okay, alright, thank you very much for that. Thank you.

185. MS PERKINS : Thank you.

186. CHAIR: Alright, we now go to 1708, Conor Gallagher? Mr Mould, if you could give a quick introduction?

Conor Gallagher

187. MR MOULD QC (DfT): A1558, I think, we will use Mr Gallagher’s own slide? Mr Gallagher lives and owns Wellwick House, or Wellwick Manor – I’m not quite sure whether it’s – House, which is on Ellesborough Road, to the west of Wendover. Wendover is off-screen, obviously to the right of the slide in front of you. you can see the railway, coming out of green tunnel and into deep cutting as it passes to the north- west of Wendover, and you can see the extent of the Bill limits, construction area; and you can see the property and its attendant land holdings outlined in red on the screen in front of you.

188. CHAIR: Okay, continue please?

189. MR GALLAGHER: So I’m Conor Gallagher and I originally wanted to petition on two grounds: one, if we call it the construction of the project. I think, as per the

correspondence, over the summer, you’ve heard a lot about that, you’ve heard a lot today. Suffice it to say that in terms of economics, ecological impact, and all of that stuff, I firmly put my name together with everything that you’ll have heard from other petitioners on that subject. I think if we do have to have this railway, it should be tunnelled as far as possible, away from the area of outstanding natural beauty. So that was going to be the first part of my petition. But rather than dilute the second part with that, I’d rather focus on the second part, which is the question of compensation for those affected by the railway and the positioning of it.

190. I noted in the correspondence, from the committee over the summer, that you wanted to hear our personal stories, so I will tell you my personal story, which happened a couple of years ago. Admittedly the compensation arrangements have changed slightly now, to what is referred to as the Need to Sell basis, but if you can bear with me during the story, you will see where my concerns are, and what I would like the committee to bear in mind when they’re making their recommendations to HS2.

191. Essentially, we’re focusing on people’s civil liberty to move house should they want to. In a moment, the Need to Sell compensation regime and the previous regime focuses on triggers that are necessary for people to apply for compensation, in discretionary zones. Sorry, this is not the statutory, 100 metre zone; this is slightly outside that we are affected. So there are – both regimes have a series of triggers which you have to establish, and then you have to establish financial hardship and I would contest that, given the duration and size of this project that if people are genuinely affected by this, they shouldn’t need a trigger and they shouldn’t be means-tested on the compensation available to them.

192. If you will, I will read story to try and give some narrative. So, Wellwick House – we bought Wellwick House in 2003, it’s a 500-or-mor e-year-old, Grade II* listed house of significant historical interest. We bought it because it was a beautiful building; we were starting a family, we wanted to move out of London and live in a nice village environment, surrounded by fields and be part of a village community. The plan was to develop and upgrade the house over time, and you know, if as would invariably be the case, in our middle age, my employment circumstances would change, I would look to sell the house, downsize and move on; a fairly standard approach to most people’s careers.

193. At the time I bought the house, I was earning more than enough to support the mortgage, the outgoings on the house, and the maintenance that we foresaw for the property. My wife, at the time, was a housewife and a mum – we had young children and we had no source of income from her. At the time, after the credit crisis, my income reduced by at least 50%. In broad terms, this meant that we could barely afford to stay in the house; we could just about afford the mortgage and the sort of outcomes, but let’s just say that maintenance plans would have to be put on hold. That’s quite significant for a house of historical interest that’s listed in that way, because you are sort of a tenant that is obliged to keep the house up for future generations rather than just let it rot.

194. This situation was made worse in 2012 when I was made redundant; we immediately put the house on the market, and it was clear at that moment, one would have to sell-up and downsize, the moment had come. That’s fine, let’s put the house on the market and sell up and move on. We put it on with Christopher Pallet, who is a local estate agent. They told me that, in the year – or the thick end of the year it was on the market, they had in excess of 150,000 hits on the various websites for property searches. In that time, we had two viewings, and the reason for that was that when people looked on the map as they do, they thought it was too close to the railway. The two people who actually came for viewings confirmed that the reason they didn’t want to proceed with it was that it was too close and they were worried about the noise.

195. This is set out on page 7 – I think is the right slide to look at, there’s a letter from the estate agent, and at the bottom of that letter, you can see where he confirms that, ‘The facts are that the HS2 route has seriously blighted the property to the extent that a saleable Grade II listed residence has become unsaleable because of the HS2’. So we were very disappointed, but what could we do? So during that year, we were liquidating and spending various savings and investments that we had in order to fund our ongoing lifestyles, and it caused us to run out of savings over time.

196. MR BELLINGHAM: Just one second – we’ve got an aerial photograph haven’t we? I’m trying to picture it better, we’ve got 1563 which gives – we haven’t got a photograph of it, by any chance? That’s the one I’m looking at is it?

197. MR GALLAGHER: So the property is – you can see the route where the A413 is

–

198. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: P ut your finger on the house.

199. MR GALLAGHER: The house is there.

200. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The left hand side?

201. MR GALLAGHER: Yes, the one on the left.

202. MR BELLIN GHAM: So basically the house has the – looks as though it’s got the fields sort of around it, and then are those other houses?

203. MR GALLAGHER: The other houses to the right are a series of farm cottages, about four farm cottages and another house.

204. MR BELLINGHAM: Right, okay.

205. MR GALLAGHER: So it’s like a small – I think the farm cottages used to belong to our house in the distant past.

206. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

207. MR GALLAGHER: But as you can see, the tunnel in its current proposal comes out, roughly – if you drew a straight line from our property to the village, it’s maybe three-quarters of the way across, probably about here I think, without being scientific. So it’s effectively across a couple of open fields. Open fields, which I should add, have the public footpath that goes around these fields, so into the village through our property. So that also was mentioned earlier on.

208. So anyway, as I said, during that time we’d spent a lot of our savings and so on and we were rapidly running out of cash, we needed two separate applications on the exceptional hardship scheme. In that scheme, cutting it short, your five criteria, four of which pertain to the property and whether or not you’re affected; and the fifth one is financial hardship and whether or not you really are in financial straits. Both of these applications – and I’m not seeking to appeal the applications here – but both of the applications were turned down on what I thought was fairly spurious grounds: that I hadn’t provided enough details about my redundancy package, and I haven’t proved that

my wife was a housewife and wasn’t working. I don’t know exactly how I could do that, but that was the content of it.

209. So we were sort of running into financial difficulty. The minutes of the – I actually obtained the minutes of the second application which again is on page 2, under Freedom of Information Request, and on page 2 you can see where we’ve satisfied the first four criteria, but the fifth one, they recommended it was rejected because we didn’t meet the criteria. Again, I don’t understand how, because in amongst the documentation which I provided them, I provided them proof that I’d borrowed money from a friend in order to cover off my mortgage outgoings, something that’s important because as someone that works in banking, we have to have current credit at all times, otherwise you won’t have a licence from the FCA, so it imperative. So I started to borrow from my friends to cover the mortgage, selling furniture on eBay to feed the children, and I was also over my overdraft limit at the bank, and there’s a letter on page –

210. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve seen that.

211. MR GALLAGHER: We’ve seen that, which basically declined me further credit. So we really were in financial hardship, and I don’t understand what further financial hardship HS2 would want you to be in, in order to satisfy that criteria.

212. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask, by the way that the transcript of your speaking to us today gets sent back to the panel, because it seems to me that you’re illustrating points which those preparing for consideration of the applications ought to understand.

213. MR GALLAGHER: I will submit the text. Okay, so the long and the short of it, we thought we were in financial hardship. Since our application, the process has changed; earlier this year, they brought out, as I said, a non-exhaustive list of scenarios which may trigger a claim under the new Need to Sell regime. Again, I think that this comes down to civil liberty: if a property owner, if a property is adversely affected by this railway, and of something this size, that is so unforeseeable, I think that if people want to move house, they should be entitled to move house. I don’t think you need to have unemployment or illness or divorce or any change of job; you shouldn’t need to change that. If something that is effectively a 15-20 year programme, affects you in that way, you should have the right – after some due process of putting your house on the

market, reducing the price, whatever the process is – you should be entitled, at some stage, draw a line in the sand and move on at a price. The current Need to Sell regime still doesn’t do that, because it has still got the trigger events that are required and it still has means-testing because you need to prove that you will be in financial hardship in the next foreseeable future. I think that, overall today, as well as thinking about longer- bored tunnels and stuff like that, my very personal story which the committee asked for, was that I had a very, very hard time.

214. Luckily, shortly after the second application I got another job, but I will be candid, the job is not as well paid as it used to be; I don’t imagine at my age, I will be able to continue to do it until the railway is constructed, so at the moment, I’m just hanging on in there, hoping that something changes for the better. So, my takeaway for the committee should be that they should think carefully on their recommendations about the compensation strategy for HS2 and that it should be civil and equitable for all, not just those that they force to show extreme hardship.

215. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for telling us your story. Do you have any comments, Mr Mould?

216. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just on the basic facts: the property is about 530 metres from the line, I’m just going to put up CT06039? This is going to show it, just to give the committee a sense of the relationship between the property and the railway following completion of construction. So, here is Wellwick Farm, I think the property itself is just on the western side of the farm buildings and so forth isn’t it?

217. MR GALLAGHER: Correct.

218. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And you mentioned the footpaths going through. So you can see that there is the tunnel portal. We don’t propose, as you know, to change, alter the location of the tunnel portal as part of AP5; what we do propose is to provide a noise barrier on the eastern side of the railway, but as you can see on the western side, there is a very substantial line of earthworks which will provide visual and aural mitigation to properties on the western side of the railway line, and the railway itself is in fairly deep cutting at this point as well.

219. If we go up, if we can just scroll up, we can see, clearly, that during construction,

to create those features, a fairly substantial amount of construction work is going to be going on, half a kilometre to the east of the farm, including the creation of these earth bunds, the construction of the railway, and obviously these darker brown areas are areas of s tockpiling of earth and other related matters. So there is no doubt that the construction phase here is going to be fairly prolonged and will be very noticeable. That’s reported as such in the Environmental Statement. The permanent position will be that the property will be well-protected by the combination of the green tunnel, the cutting and also the earthworks to the west. As a result, we’re not reporting any significant noise effects for this property; it’s well outside the LOAEL contour.

220. Turning then to the question of compensation, I am not going to say anything about the history of applications under the exceptional hardship scheme. As you will recall, that was a scheme where, effectively, the decisive criterion was the need to demonstrate an urgent need to sell. You’ve seen the rationale for rejecting Mr Gallagher’s applications under that scheme. It’s now ceased to operate in relation to phase I, and the Need to Sell scheme is operating, along with other schemes. As I understand it – well, clearly Mr Gallagher is able to make such an application if he chooses to do so, and that scheme operates under different criteria, and in particular, it’s not necessary to demonstrate an urgent need to sell; the criterion is a compelling reason to sell, in relation to the fifth – the criterion of that scheme which corresponds most closely to that on which his previous applications under the EHS scheme failed.

221. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask, and this is a question to which you may not know the answer, do you know roughly when the major earthworks will have been done?

222. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I can find that out very quickly, I’m sure.

223. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: While they are doing that, Wellwick House, which is a glorious looking house, you’re looking out to the west, aren’t you?

224. MR GALLAGHER: The front of the – the house is interesting, the front of the house, essentially faces the village, to the east; but the front of the house is on the lawn, and the rear of the house I guess faces west.

225. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So the cars are on the west?

226. MR GALLAGHER: The cars are on the west.

227. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the lawn is to the east?

228. MR GALLAGHER: The lawn is on the east.

229. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you’re not looking north, are you?

230. MR GALLAGHER: It’s a fact of day-to-day life that most of our life is spent in the kitchen – as most people’s lives are – and the kitchen looks north towards the – basically looks directly where the tunnel entrance will be. It’s an L-shaped kitchen.

231. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: With a little bit of experience, in other circumstances, I think in – I’m not licenced to give advice – I would actually put in, so far from Wendover, there will be an embankment between the house – I would put it straight in the detail straight away, so that if you’re reading that, you will actually understand the situation if you keep it on the market. I would be very open. No need to answer.

232. MR GALLAGHER: I totally understand what you’re saying; the house was on the market for over a year, and we thought about every approach. We even had a two- page article in the Bucks Herald, which is online if anybody wants to look it up, and we tried everything. We agreed with the estate agent that the best approach when discussing arranging viewings for people who may – not to warn anybody – but the people that may want to come and see it, we’d be candid about the position vis-à-vis the railway, but to try and say, ‘By the way, it’s far enough away that it won’t affect us’.

233. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I would put it in the first page of details rather than to hear about later on. It’s only my advice, but I’m not your agent. Sorry, you were saying roughly when?

234. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The answer to your question is, those earthworks are programmed during the early part of construction, and I think on current programme, between 2018 and 2020. So, really quite early on in the main construction –

235. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So in the foreseeable future, the mound will be there?

236. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

237. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It won’t necessarily be grassed or looking mature?

238. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s right. Although I think the position we’ve reported to you hitherto, as a general policy, is that where we can begin the process of grassing and restoring to whatever vegetation is proposed, we do that as early as we can.

239. CHAIR: Alright, any brief final comments?

240. MR GALLAGHER: My final comment is thank you for listening; I will be able to tell my children and grandchildren that I at least had a go, and I think that – again, I can only say that, without focusing on the project itself, I think that things like this of this size are going to affect thousands and thousands of people up and down the country, the government really needs to safeguard people’s civil liberties, in that situation and I would contest finally, that the right to cut the cloth and just to personal circumstances, or whims about where you want to live, should be something that we all have. I’ve tried very, very hard, and given the nature of the house, it’s just been impossible to sell.

241. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think a view, from those minutes, that you would think that the decision on the exceptional hardship was clumsy.

242. MR GALLAGHER: That’s one word for it.

243. CHAIR: We are going to have another look at compensation; I have written to other MPs on the line to get them to come back with their concerns so that we can –

244. MR GALLAGHER: I’ve got a very thick file of everything that I submitted, and I’m happy if anybody wants, for the record, to go through my experience with –

245. CHAIR: If needed, we’ll get the C lerk to contact you, but we may get enough information anyway, but if needed, thank you very much indeed.

246. MR GALLAGHER: Thank you.

247. CHAIR: Right, we now to go to 543, Michael Barden?

248. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just before we leave Wendover, can I just correct something on the transcript yesterday. I think yesterday I inadvertently referred to the

provision of a rail head at Nash Lee Road, when I should have said a road head. Thank you.

249. CHAIR: Mr Barden, you need to swear on the bible, or affirm?

Michael Barden

250. CHAIR: I think you’re almost the first person to do that on camera!

251. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Barden lives on Kings Lane in South Heath where we were for a few moments yesterday with Mr Rivas, and his property is being pointed out to you now. It’s some 268 metres from the line of the railway which of course, is in tunnel as it passes to the west of his property.

252. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Barden, would you like to continue?

253. MR BARDEN: Yes, the written petition I’ve overtaken with what I have to say today. We are blighted by HS2 and several close neighbours including Mr Rivas, yesterday. I’ve been unable to sell because of it. We will benefit from the 2.6km extension from Mantles Wood to the north portal at Bury Farm, and for that we thank you. I happen to be a retired engineer with major construction and project experience, and have from the outset been part of the CRAG engineering group who have made extensive proposals to you and I still support a fully-bored solution as this is superior, technically, to the whole AONB preservation.

254. I have had a short time to look at the AP4 changes, which I’d like to make some comments on. First off, I would say that if you lower the line speed from the north portal at South Heath through to Wendover, you will create less of a sound problem and it needs to be protected because that is a particularly tranquil area in the AONB. You could avoid using ballast for the rails and use instead cushioned track supports which will have two effects, one is it quieter for running and, two, you don’t need to do ballast tamping at night. I would expect you to extend the off-road facilities as described in the AP4 documentation to allow proper of construction traffic from the A413, and egress and parking for both the trucks and the workers’ transport needs to be seen. It’s not shown at the moment at all; it’s just an area of construction.

255. I would expect the project, HS2, to pay for all the changes to the road systems,

and in particular, I would hope that you would specify in the contracts that the maintenance access on Frith Hill into the site at Bury Farm would not be opened until after all construction is finished and that the operating traffic of the trains will be running.

256. I think you should provide for special assistance to the blighted homeowners in South Heath that have had so much trouble, and even with this change of the extension from Mantles Wood to Bury Farm, there is a hangover effect of blight which is affecting people. I think to demonstrate how much you can ease that blight, all the properties which HS2 has purchased through its agents, I believe the Highway Agency, in South Heath should be put back on the market and re-sold back into private ownership as a demonstration of how much it’s worth in the market because right now, you’re renting those properties, or some of them, and some are just sitting empty, derelict, and the whole tone of the village could be improved by putting those houses back on the market that you don’t need.

257. I do reserve the right to petition specifically about AP4.

258. CHAIR: O n the Order Paper here, we have 664, S usan Barden, is that your wife?

259. MR BARDEN : Yes.

260. CHAIR: Is she presenting separately in a moment or are you speaking on her behalf?

261. MR BARDEN: No, I’m not speaking on her behalf; she’s going to speak for herself.

262. CHAIR: Excellent, well, Mr Mould?

263. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I’ve explained that as a result of the AP4 scheme, we’re predicting no significant noise effects on properties in Kings Lane. I won’t go through that material again unless you would like me to –

264. MR BARDEN: I’m not talking about the sound and noise at Kings Lane; I’m talking about the tranquil area, past Potter Row.

265. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. And for the record the relevant slides were

P10157(2) and (4), we don’t need to put them up. Insofar as the treatment of the north portal is concerned, I think the committee has already heard during the course of the September hearings, that the railway emerges from the north portal in very deep cutting and the AP4 scheme makes provision for treatment of the noise insulation arrangements – sorry, the noise attenuation arrangements, particularly on the eastern side of the railway as it emerges from that portal, so as to optimise the location of the sound barrier. You’ll recall there were two alternatives: one was the barrier right close up against the track, the other was to place a barrier further up towards the top of the cutting. Work continues in relation to that, and the powers in the Bill will allow those matters to be optimised as the detailed design progresses. On that basis, as we will be coming to Potter Row petitioners for example shortly after the short recess next week. But we’ll explain further that we’re confident on our predictions that the noise environment for those properties will be significantly improved as a result of the changes that respond to your recommendation in July.

266. In regards blight, I don’t propose to say anything with respect to the petitioner on that issue; the property compensation schemes are now well-known. I’m certainly not going to – the Secretary of State I think is very unlikely indeed to embark on a policy of early-resale of properties that he has acquired simply because he has a duty to the public purse to make sure that he realises best value. At the moment, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the best way of achieving that, of satisfying that obligation is to rent those properties out whilst the – at this stage in the process, with a view to their resale at a more appropriate time, much closer to the completion of the construction works.

267. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Presumably because they’re blighted, they should be held until they are unblighted?

268. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Exactly, yes.

269. CHAIR: Right, okay. Any brief, final comments?

270. MR BARDEN: I would just say that demonstrates that the Secretary of State is aware that the properties are blighted.

271. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s why he bought them.

272. MR BARDEN : Thank you.

273. CHAIR: In that case, I’m going to call Susan Barden, and then we’ll get the family all done at once.

Susan Barden

274. CHAIR: Welcome. Is it a bit cold over there?

275. MS BARDEN: It’s getting very cold over there. It’s nice and warm here, thank you. Good morning everybody. I’m so pleased that the Select Committee visited the Chilterns and listened to our concerns, and I thank you for your recommendations for a bored tunnel as far as Bury Farm, South Heath. This is very good news for the people of Hyde Heath, Heath End and some of South Heath, but not good news for the people who live on Frith Hill, Bayleys Hatch, Potter Row and the area to London Road and Wendover.

276. I am here today as someone who has been privileged and lucky enough to live in the Chilterns for over 40 years and I ask that the AONB is protected by a twin bored tunnel from Bury Farm to the north of Wendover and this is further investigated, and considered by yourselves.

277. Surely, it is money well-spent and makes good sense to spend money now to protect the landscape so that future generations can enjoy this wonderful amenity so close to London, that we have enjoyed. Most of us you’ve seen here will be kicking up the daisies long before this is done, so please it is not just for us, it is for the future.

278. There has been over five years of uncertainty and worry, not to mention health problems for many of us. All of this may have been avoided if HS2 had planned the route with due respect for the AONB, as HS2 planned for Cannock Chase by avoiding, in their words, impact, on Cannock Chase, and going around Alderley Edge. Lastly, there is lack of provision by HS2 for those in their 70s like us, who wish to move in the near future, as we do not qualify under the hardship scheme at the moment. This could be extended for those in their 70s that wish to move without loss of open market value, by blight which you’ve talked about from HS2.

279. This year, the AONB is 50 years old and is being celebrated locally. We should

not have to be protecting the AONB by petitioning when the Parliament of 50 years ago had already protected the area. Thank you.

280. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould?

281. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I have nothing further to say in response to the petition, thank you.

282. CHAIR: Need to sell on the basis of age and stage?

283. MS BARDEN : W ish to sell, that’s what I’m asking –

284. CHAIR: We can look at it, but I am sure you qualify in terms of age and profile.

285. MS BARDEN : Thank you very much.

286. CHAIR: Thank you. Right, we now go to 163, Derek and Jane Pitts?

Derek and Jane Pitts

287. CHAIR: Mr Mould, could you give us a brief…?

288. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, Mr and Mrs Pitts also live on Kings Lane in South Heath and the location of their property is shown on the map. They are 313 metres from the line, a little further away than where Mr and Mrs Barden, because as you can see, the road moves slightly further away from the line – or should I say, the line moves slightly further away from the road.

289. MR PITTS: Okay, good morning.

290. CHAIR: Good morning.

291. MR PITTS: I’m aware that at the end of September, Mr C hair, you said you no longer wanted to or hear any further arguments pertaining to the issues that we’re here to petition on. However, we due to appear in September but unfortunately we were unable to do so because of annual leave commitments. So I feel that my arguments that I wanted to raise then, I still would like to raise with you today. However, I’ve taken into account your comments and have attempted to personalise my presentation as you requested, whilst endeavouring to adopt a different angle in the hope that this might

encourage you to see our concerns and the arguments we have for mitigation from a different perspective.

292. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can we prepare ourselves by knowing roughly how many pages there are?

293. MR PITTS: There are 25 slides but some of them are just flick-through slides.

294. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have you got the slides?

295. MS PITTS : You should have.

296. MR PITTS : You should have, they’re on the screen.

297. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, fine.

298. MR PITTS: So, next slide please? So prior to commencing the petition, I would like just to register a formal complaint about HS2 Ltd insofar as they contacted me on 21 October with an unsolicited call in an effort to dissuade me from appearing with you today. The reason for that was simply that in my original petition, they now considered that my arguments had been fully justified, dealt with and there was no – or any reason for me to appear before you today. I’d just like to –

299. CHAIR: That is sort of part of the process in that you petition, they respond, they try and engage you in a conversation, and try and agree mitigation, whatever you want; so there has to be some kind of –

300. MS PITTS : But I don’t think that anybody else had received a phone call from the people that we’ve spoken to in our village.

301. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They may be jealous. If the question is, is the register, you’ve said it –

302. MS PITTS: Yes, that’s enough.

303. MR PITTS: Thank you. So, next slide please? Who are we, where do we live and what do we stand to lose? Next slide? We’re Derek and Jane Pitts, we live at 7 Kings Lane, this is our property and our garden. We’re Londoners born and bred but we decided nine years ago that we needed a change of environment, and looked to move

outside of London and chose South Heath for its tranquil and rural location, in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There’s local woodland, walking, there’s no light pollution at night, so it was a very tranquil place in which to move to, and it feels like we’re on holiday most of the time, and we’re actually living there.

304. Unlike, or contrary to common belief, we were made to feel very welcome by the community – we joined the Horticultural Society, and it’s not taken us very long as outsiders to become accepted. In fact, we have more friends here now than we did ever in the whole time that we lived in London.

305. Next slide please? As you can see from this map, I’ve pointed out exactly where we live; we’re on the very cusp of the homeowners’ protection zone three. In fact, as soon as I step outside of my front door, I am covered by it, but when I’m inside the house, I’m not. I contacted HS2 about that, and I was told, quite categorically that the larger proportion of my property has to be in the zone to qualify for, as in this case, £7,500 worth of compensation, which is not worth the paper it’s written on, frankly.

306. Next slide please? Property facts timeline: we moved in 2006, we had extensions and improvements undertaken on the house by the end of 2009, which were valued roughly at £100,000. HS2 was announced in March 2010, and like people before us, we’re aiming to actually downsize as part of our retirement plans in August 2024, so at the moment, we have no need to move; at the moment we don’t want to move. But at the time we will be wanting to move in 2024, we’re still going to be suffering the same blight position as we currently face at the moment. The line won’t be actually up and running in 2024; it’s not proposed to be fully working until 2026. That said, South Heath was an affluent, thriving community with its own shop, post office, restaurant, pub, gym, garden centre. All that’s left now is the garden centre and the gym, whilst it’s waiting to be demolished as part of the tunnel preparations.

307. Next slide please? Some property blight facts, I think they speak for themselves. This has come from quotes from David Newnes, the Director of LSL Property Services. He’s basically saying that the blight in the area is reckoned to be in the region of 25 to 30%. And that property is not going to improve until 2026 or, indeed, if ever with the line in place.

308. Next slide, please. So looking at property blight from our own personal

perspective. When we moved house in 2006 we actually looked at a number of properties; and it turned out that four of the properties that we went to visit have come onto the market subsequently. The three properties shown on the left of the slide are all not affected adversely by HS2 and, as you can see, have increased in value in the intervening period between 17% and 25%. On average that’s 20%.

309. The house at the top on the right, number 1, three doors away from us was on the market for 750 and was sold a year ago at the value of 723, which is a 3.6% decrease. So if you take our own property, which was the same price as number 1 in 2006, we would now be looking at a price of around £900,000 if we were not blighted. At worst, if you take David Newman’s figures and use the minimum of his blight figure at 25%, we’re going to be looking at a value of 675. But if you take the actual sale of number 1 last year, then we’re looking at a figure of 723.

310. Next slide, please. So, in conclusion, worst case scenario: at the moment we are potentially standing to lose £250,000 on the blight that HS2 has put in our way.

311. Moving on, next slide. The construction phase and route design: our concerns. I’m not going to go into a great deal of detail on this because I think most of these facts have been said before by other people and I don’t have the technical knowledge to be able to go into a lot of detail. But I will just illustrate to you what our continuing concerns are.

312. Next slide, please. Air quality. It’s a known fact that spoil movements from lorries and the storage of spoil above ground is going to potentially contaminate the air. My wife suffers from asthma. This is a condition that’s registered with her GP and we are concerned that the poor quality of health from the works as they progress is going to make her life a misery and potentially keep her indoors. It’s also going to affect a lot of other people in the area and older people as well.

313. Next slide. Traffic. Again, we’re very grateful for you having agreed to extend the bored tunnel. But we still have concerns regarding the traffic flow of spoil mo ve me nts. I understand that these are going to be moved down a newly purpose built road which will link Berry Farm to the A413 Link Road roundabout into Great Missenden. This is the main access route for all goings on in the area. All the villages where we are – South Heath, Ballinger, The Lee – all have to go into

Great Missenden. Everything comes out of Great Missenden in terms of emergency services, fire, ambulance and that’s where all the shops are. So that area has to be kept clear and free-flowing for our community to continue to function normally. And the concern is that with all the lorry movements that are proposed, that roundabout – or those roundabouts; there’s two there – would actually be jammed. We already have traffic jams during the rush hour in the mornings and in the evenings. This will make it untenable.

314. In addition, the area suffers very severe winters. Nine years we’ve lived here; eight years out of those nine we’ve had heavy snow. And one particular Christmas there was continuous black ice from the Wendover bypass right the way through beyond Great Missenden. And that’s something that I don’t think HS2 would necessarily have factored in in terms of the snowploughs and gritting for them to be able to continue their business.

315. Next slide, please. Construction camps. Not a great deal to say about that other than reiterating the bad winters and whether or not the camp, wherever it might be sited, is going to be able to cope with the fact that it could get snowed in. Similarly, the area – Great Missenden in particular – is not a big enough community, we feel, to be able to accommodate construction camp traffic in terms of the numbers of people that will want the facilities that we have to offer to enable them to be able to use that for their own means as well as catering for our own local needs.

316. Next slide, please. This slide is entitled ‘Noise’; however, having heard Mr Mould’s comments from earlier, perhaps I should have renamed it ‘Sound’. Our main concern was the whooshing noise from going in and coming out of the tunnel. I hear what he says this morning about the porous portal. I am concerned still that, you know, if you only have laboratory testing by the time the actual railway is up and running, if it is noisy, it’ll be too late then to do anything about it. So my concerns continue there that the noise is going to be untenable. South Heath and the surrounding area, as you’ve heard from Mr and Mrs Barden, is a very tranquil area. We can hear virtually a pin drop. You can hear all the wildlife. It’s a very quiet area and any additional noise will actually spoil the tranquil lifestyle that we’ve become accustomed to.

317. Next slide, please. Water supply. We have some concerns because we understand that HS2 has made no provision to ensure that water standards will be checked or maintained; and there is a potential risk that through the works the quality of the water in the area will go below acceptable levels. What we ask for, or ask that consideration be given to, is for monitoring of drinking water to be undertaken long before commencement of works start so that there is a benchmark to measure future readings and that independent assessments should be made throughout the construction phase and made available to the public so that we can clearly see if and when standards fall and then for HS2 to actually put into place a contingency to provide us with replacement drinking water and certainly to keep us well-informed on what the position is. Boiling tap water for seven years isn’t the answer.

318. There are also some concerns regarding the River Misbourne aquifers in terms of the tunnelling. Again, I don’t have the technical expertise to be able to talk to you at length about that other than to say that we have a concern about that and I’d just like to register that.

319. Next slide, please. Light pollution. As you’ve heard before from other people, we are in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty almost at the top of the Chilterns and we don’t have any light pollution. That’s one of the reasons we chose to move outside of London: because it’s nice and dark and you can see the night sky, the Milky Way, etc. We are concerned that whilst the line is being constructed, and also once it’s been completed, there will be considerable light pollution from lighting along the trackside which will actually just spoil the whole of the natural environment that we’ve come to accept and enjoy.

320. Next slide, please. A hamlet divided. South Heath is actually a hamlet. Not wishing to teach you how to suck eggs, Great Missenden is the village and the village is determined by the fact that it has a church. South Heath does not have the church so it’s the hamlet to Great Missenden. It’s been recognised as one of the most affected areas in the country in terms of the works being done by HS2. That was from a response by the parish council to the Environmental Statement back in February 2014. The bored tunnel extension to Berry Farm, whilst greatly accepted, only goes so far in protecting the hamlet. There is one quarter of the hamlet which is still going to be quite seriously affected by the works that are carried on; and we are hopeful that the same consideration

should be given to the whole of the hamlet and be protected completely.

321. Next slide, please. So mitigation proposals for the construction phase and the route design.

322. Next slide. The minimum accepted mitigation that we would like to see is a further extension of the extended bore tunnel by a further mile to thereabouts around Leather Lane, which was the proposal put forward by REPA. This will then protect all the populated areas of South Heath and alleviate the majority of the concerns that I’ve just raised with you. It would also alleviate the need to build a specific road from the Berry Farm estate down to the A413 Link Road roundabout. It could come out further up the A413 between Missenden and Wendover and the traffic could be dispersed more effectively in either direction and not actually affect the log-jam that would be the Link Road roundabout into Great Missenden.

323. Next slide, please. Full mitigation. As everyone is pushing for, we are hopeful that full mitigation may be given by putting in a fully bored tunnel throughout the whole of the AONB: either the CRAG T3i option or the Chilterns Long Tunnel option. That would not only protect South Heath residents but it would also protect the entire Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

324. Next slide, please. So, just to finish off, some arguments and facts to support the long tunnel option that I’d like you to consider.

325. Next slide, please. Some quotes worth highlighting. The government in March 2012 said that ‘AONBs have equal status with national parks re: planning consent’. The Right Honourable Cheryl Gillan has said that the Chilterns AONB are the ‘lungs of London’ and it’s ‘the largest unspoilt area of countryside in the south-east of England’. In September 2015, the Managing Director of HS2 herself said that she’s determined to keep the environmental impact as small as possible and it’s about striking a balance between engineering cost and environmental impact. Not putting in a long tunnel would have a very big environmental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that is the Chilterns.

326. The cost is negligible when you look at the scheme as a whole. And the engineering, I understand, of putting the tunnel through would be quite straightforward.

327. Next slide, please. On 20 August this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Tories are the party of rural Britain and that they would pledge to continue to protect the green belt and would always want to protect our green belt and our natural environments. And then on 24 October, last month in fact, the Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, approved extensions to the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks effective from August next year, which will be a big boost to rural tourism and will support local businesses. And she states that, ‘The Dales and the Lakes have some of the country’s finest landscapes, beautiful vistas and exciting wildlife. They are part of our national identity,’ and she is ‘delighted to be able announce this extension and protect even more space for generations to come.’ I ask you the question: is the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty not a treasured national asset worthy of the same levels of protection?

328. Next slide, please. Cost considerations.. In HS2’s own exhibits, Exhibit B in fact, sent out to me on 29 October by Claire Thomas, the estimated cost of constructing the Chilterns Long Tunnel is £485 million which is less than 1% of the overall construction cost of the first phase. The estimated cost of repairing the Palace of Westminster, in which we’re currently sitting, and the Elizabeth Tower could be as much as £6 billion I read on the internet. But these iconic monuments to our national heritage are here to stay; no-one’s going to knock down the Palace of Westminster because that would be the cheaper option. It’s here to be protected and will be looked after and it will serve people in the future and provide lots of tourism and interest. So I ask the question similarly: no price should be put on protecting our environmental heritage. If we get this wrong now in the planning stage, the damage done would be irreversible and have a lasting adverse impact on future generations. Like the parliamentary state, HS2 is a lo ng-term project: it’s here to stay and it will last the test of time. The Select Committee, yourselves, have the power to ensure that it is appropriately built in a way that protects this country’s long-term future and heritage. It’s worth the effort and it’s going to more than pay back its initial outlay in the long term.

329. Last slide, please. This slide largely speaks for itself: I leave you with these two comments and thank you for listening to our petition this afternoon.

330. CHAIR: Thank you. You moved through your slides pretty quickly. One of the disadvantages of not coming in September is that we had answers to most of the points

that you raised. So is there any other points you want to pick up, Mr Mould?

331. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Two things. Firstly, air quality. We have carried out an assessment of potential air quality effects. We’re not predicting any significant effects in air quality in relation to the construction and operation of the railway under the AP4 scheme in this location and, secondly, there will be no operational lighting on the railway at South Heath.

332. CHAIR: Yeah.

333. MR PITTS : Thank you.

334. CHAIR: No lights.

335. MR PITTS : No. Good. Thank you very much..

336. CHAIR: Thank you very much to you both. Thank you.

Jonathan, Jacob, Alexander and Fiona Jones

337. CHAIR: Right, we now move on to petition 112, 264, 265, 266 which seem to be the Jones Family: Jonathan, Jacob, Alexander and Fiona Jones.

338. MR JONATHAN JONES: I’m Jonathan Jones and this is Alexander Jones. And we’re representing our family. Only we can be here. And we just wanted to read out some short statements.

339. CHAIR: Okay.

340. MR JONATHAN JONES: We actually live in Tabor Grove in Marriotts Avenue whic h is there. Yes. But we do roam a lot. Although we say we live here, we roam a lot all over the place so in a sense the whole area affects us and that is our life. Alexander wanted to speak first.

341. CHAIR: Okay.

342. MR ALEXANDER JONES: Hello. I’m Alexander Jones of Tabor Grove, Marriotts Avenue, South Heath and I’m 11 years old. I live in the Chilterns and I feel it is my duty to do as much as I can to stop HS2 from permanently devastating this Area

of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This train line will create huge hindrances for all people living along this country-wide scar, especially in the Chilterns which is meant to be protected by law.

343. When construction begins, local roads around South Heath and Great Missenden will be turned into rat runs and choked with traffic and, as a result, will be extremely dangerous. More personally, some of my favourite family walks will be redirected; some of them even permanently closed. Annie Bailey’s, the former restaurant I go past everyday on the way to school, is now a mere crumbling ruin unlike the bright and cheerful building I used to go past. I often use the surrounding lanes as cycling routes but now I will be overwhelmed by traffic and it will be extremely dangerous for me to carry on cycling the routes I’ve been using for years.

344. It is very important to me that the AONB is protected. I don’t want my children to ask me how this destruction of amazing countryside was allowed to happen, which is why I want my points to be recorded. Thank you.

345. CHAIR: Thank you.

346. MR JONATHAN JONES: And now on behalf of Jacob C Jones, who is aged 13. ‘I know you have probably heard most of these points before. However, my argument is a little different for one reason and one reason alone. Your generation is the one making all the decisions but my generation will be the one that has to deal with the consequences of your actions. Therefore, with the little democratic power that a minor has, I am asking you as the voice of the future to think about the long-term. Do we really want to put short-term economic gratification before the greater price of the lo ng-term environmental destruction of Britain’s green spaces? Britain has already committed vast amounts of funding to this project. Is it not possible to commit just a little more to save an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? A tunnel through the entire Chilterns is both an affordable and proportional compromise. Please be the ones that secure the beauty of England’s green and pleasant land for the future. Be our voice and give the Chilterns the tunnel it needs and deserves.’

347. And now from Mrs Jones. ‘I love high speed rail. As a French teacher, I extol the virtues of the TGV to my classes. But to route a 250 mph train through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not fill me with joy; it fills me with dread. Now the

proud parents of three young boys, me and my husband moved to the Chilterns just before our eldest son was born 14 years ago from an urban borough near London Bridge. Why? Because the Chilterns offered the most beautiful countryside within a 45 minute commute of the capital and because it was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This gave us the pleasure and confidence as first-time buyers to invest in a home in this area because it was considered so beautiful that it should be protected by law for future generations and thus centuries to come.

348. ‘The reason why we need a full tunnel through our AONB is so simple that it’s staring you in the face. So simply that even a toddler understand the argument. An area of countryside that was given special status in law because of its beauty should be protected. No excuses. No explaining to my nine-year-old son and to my future grandchildren how and why this terrible decision was made. No sadness that we can’t budget for the future we planned because the value of our house has diminished. No sadness that the stillness and beauty of this ancient land has been irrevocably changed. No sadness that the very valleys featured in Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr Fox have been devastated.

349. ‘So while it’s unbearably sad that it seems too late to reroute the line, it isn’t too late to say what should rightly be, by law, protected forever: this idyllic land of the red kite, the wild orchid, the ancient beech wood. The beauty of this countryside deserves to be protected forever, not gone forever. Give us the tunnel the countryside deserves.’

350. And finally, from myself. My family and I live in Marriotts Avenue, South Heath, just over the crest of Frith Hill. We are an owl-loving, footpath-walking, nature-loving, running family and we are also cyclists. We have been told that you believe that you have heard enough on these matters already so I merely want to put on record the depth of my feelings on this matter.

351. HS2 is to be built by Act of Parliament. The protection of the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty also came about because of an Act of Parliament. This countryside was to be preserved from exploitation because it embodied everything that we cherish in this land. That position has not changed.

352. We have been informed that the Committee does not find a convincing argument for a tunnel all the way through the AONB, yet MPs before you felt strongly that there

was a reason to preserve this tract of land and by Act of Parliament ensure that it would be. The creation of HS2 and the preservation of the Chilterns are not mutually exclusive. I believe it is not a choice but an obligation to tunnel under the AONB and an obligation you were left by your fellow parliamentarians who created the mechanism to protect our natural heritage.

353. I understand that in the end it is a matter of affordability. But I do not believe this country can afford to lose any more of its precious green spaces. So I would ask you to be bold and protect the Chilterns for our future generations. Thank you for listening.

354. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. I’m not sure there’s much to add from the project. Are you back at school this afternoon, Alexander, or have you got the day off?

355. MR ALEXANDER JONES: I think so.

356. MR JONATHAN JONES: Yes.

357. CHAIR: Yes?

358. MR ALEXANDER JONES: Yes.

359. CHAIR: Which school is it?

360. MR ALEXANDER JONES: The Beacon School.

361. CHAIR: Is it good?

362. MR ALEXANDER JONES: Yeah, it’s good.

363. CHAIR: You did very well. You read very well.

364. MR ALEXANDER JONES : Thank you.

365. CHAIR: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much.

366. MR JONATHAN JONES: Thank you for listening.

367. CHAIR: Okay.

Sarah and Anthony O’Connor

368. CHAIR: Right. We now go on to 108 and 111, which is Sarah O’Connor and Anthony O’Connor represented by Wayne Griffiths. Well, you look like you’re related but there’s no Wayne Griffiths so are you representing yourselves today?

369. MR GRIFFITHS: This is Wayne Griffiths.

370. CHAIR: O h, you are?

371. MR GRIFF ITHS : The white hair is the connection.

372. CHAIR: Okay. You could be.

373. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve put up P10100 on the screen. You can see that Mr and Mrs O’Connor live in Sibleys Rise, I think it is, which is just off Ballinger Road going down into Frith Hill.

374. MR GRIFFITHS: That isn’t correct. They live in Frith Hill.

375. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Alright, Frith Hill. Thank you very much. So Frith Hill, which is this highway here. And their property is about 120 metres to the east of the line. Apologies for getting the address wrong.

376. CHAIR: Okay.

377. MR GRIFFITHS: I’m sure they’ll forgive you for that. My name is Wayne Griffiths and I appear as a conduit really for Mr O’Connor and his views; and Mrs O’Connor sits at the back row of this Committee room.

378. Good morning, Chair, and Committee members. I have been asked to speak for Mr and Mrs O’Connor as a long standing family friend. I met them both at university in the 70s and I know of their very great fondness of the area of South Heath where they moved to in 1990, where they have two children. And for 25 years they’ve lived in an idyllic area.

379. They’re both very hardworking, now retired, professionals. They live in a semi-detached house in Frith Hill. And unfortunately it’s only 200 metres from the now recognised portal.

380. Whilst they are very grateful to this Committee for recommending an amendment to the previous plan, so that AP4 is now in a different position, it’s still something which they believe is perhaps inadequate as far as they’re concerned.

381. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Good afternoon.

382. MR GRIFFITHS: I’m sorry?

383. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Good afternoon.

384. MR GRIFFITHS: Oh, good afternoon. So can we go to the next slide, please? That’s just an introductory slide. It’s something that reflects the fact that that’s their house on the slide. Semi-detached. The only noise they have to here are red kites. Sometimes a busy Prime Minister travels across the sky with his helicopter or his ambassadors. But no more than that. So the decibel level at most is 40 to 50.

385. Next slide, please. This is the position of their house compared to the portal. The basis of their submissions are threefold effectively. And I don’t wish to be repetitious and clearly you’ve heard a lot of very good arguments in the last 12 months, and I appreciate that. Well-reasoned arguments. And today there’s been very eloquent speeches made to you and submissions which I’ll try not to replicate. But there are issues which really do relate to Mr and Mrs O’Connor personally.

386. Mr and Mr P itts gave very good submissions to you. O f course they live even further away than Mr and Mrs O’Connor. So the general information they gave to this Committee in submissions is even more exacerbated in relation to Mr and Mrs O’Connor and their home at Frith Hill.

387. The first of the bases of their submission is that the noise that will emanate during the operation and construction will affect them at only 200 metres away.

388. Can I go to the next slide, please? This gives an idea of where their house would be after the proposed line is constructed. Mr O’Connor and Mrs O’Connor can’t comprehend why the track height of 67 metres – and I don’t pretend to be anything other than a lay person here submitting this – but that’s a tunnel under the River Misbourne and S hardeloes Lake in Amersham, Little Missenden. The route then climbs 120 metres in just a few kilometres – a bit like Wales in fact - to emerge just beyond

South Heath. It then continues to rise to 187 metres only to come back down through a series of cuttings and viaducts to take it outside the AONB at Nash Lee near Wendover. I’m sure you’re aware of that.

389. So the concept of taking HS2 up a hill and back down again, what’s the logic in that? Is there some magic reason why that has to happen. Because HS2, in our submission, simply shouldn’t be at the top of a hill. The gradient that this route produces is one of the steepest in the UK, let alone that area. And it requires difficult and unnecessary power usage for locomotion and will probably mean unnecessary levels of maintenance expenditure.

390. So the rationale of going through the AONB is that it’s in the national interest. There’s cross-party support for the route. Already you and your colleagues, Chair, have agreed that the tunnel, which is to the right of this picture, has been extended. Clearly, you have a right to tweak plans although not diverting the route as such too much. You already agreed to the extension by 2.6 kilometres. All that the O’Connors are suggesting – and others probably in South Heath – is: why on earth aren’t you extending it by another 3 kilometres, which take it through the area under the ground and out towards Wendover. Why on earth isn’t that a more reasonable proposition? I’d argue that is a very cogent reason for doing so.

391. Now, South Heath is a tranquil hilltop village. Average daytime / night-time sound levels are 45 / 50 decibels. The AP4 amendment sound contour maps claim that there will be negligible additional noise in Frith Hill, South Heath from the HS2 passing every 100 seconds, every hour for 14 hours a day. It’s quite a lot of traffic if you’re living there when nothing has happened before that.

392. So data from HS2 themselves projected – agrees – that the dB readings would be as much as 65 or 67. That’s two or three times louder than the current daytime background noise and four to five times louder than the current nigh-time levels. So the Chiltern tunnel extension to where it is now, it just simply does not protect South Heath from this operational noise. To say it does is an absolute nonsense, and in fact, at a recent meeting -

393. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Should we turn on to your slide five and then slide six?

394. MR GRIFFITHS: Yes, I’m sorry, five and six should be read in conjunction with four I’m sorry.

395. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: So, five has given us your question about the ups and downs and six is bringing us onto the noise aspect.

396. MR GRIFFITHS: Yes.

397. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Six and seven, six.

398. MR GRIFFITHS: Thank you. HS2 wrote to Mr O’Connor on 22 October said, in answer to his query about day night time changes of decibel levels, ‘Look we've done – effectively we've accepted 60 – 67 perhaps at times. But we’ve done our own finding at LA Max on this and this could be above that, or a little bit below perhaps, but above perhaps as well. So, the story from HS2 Ltd seems to be that in a five minute period, they’ve recorded and existing max noise above 67, therefore there will be no noticeable difference in the future. Well, is that really logical when you consider a train every 100 seconds passing out of that portal, with that level of decibel usage? It makes a difference if you're living near it, in my submission. So, it’s basically, in submission from Ms O’Connor, disingenuous, misleading.

399. So, moving on to the noise levels as well, regarding the cutting and the number of vehicles that will be used, the new temporary construction route on the A413, which is slide six?

400. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Slide 7 I think.

401. MR GRIFFITHS: Seven sorry, it is going to mean, although Mr and Mrs O’Connor is grateful for the proposal of using Frith Hill was scotched due to this committee, to be fair, it will mean the use of an alternative route, which really is going to bring vast amounts of traffic within the area, to the roundabout on the A413, which is already at capacity peak. So, any journey to Great Missenden, Chesham, Aylesbury, Amersham, for seven plus years will be affected. So that's another argument, in my submission, as t to why not, therefore, extend the tunnel to this away from that area, where people, live, to an area where far fewer live.

402. Now, at a recent meeting at Ballinger Hall, on 16 October, Mr O’Connor spoke to

an HS2 construction expert, David Eames. And he said to Mr O’Connor ‘you’re right about us suggesting using Frith Hill as a construction route, we should never, ever have proposed it in the first place, it was completely unsuitable, it was the consultants who came up with it, not me. So, what can I say, however, I agree with you, it does make you wonder what else we may have got wrong.’ Quite a telling comment.

403. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, it’s the right approach to anything isn’t it?

404. MR GRIFFITHS: Yes, but in my submission, what else could be wrong? The tunnel could be wrong, and how far it proceeds through the Chilterns? That could be wrong? If there’s a recognition they’ve been wrong as far as Frith Hill is concerned, could it be wrong as far as the volume of traffic that’s going to use it daily, on an excessive basis, along the temporary route?

405. The next slide please, the third point that Mr and Mrs O’Connor wish to make is about potential property blight. That’s’ be aired already this morning by others before you. Obviously, the local housing market’s been severely disrupted with the outset of HS2. The reality is for Mr O’Connor and his wife is that if they wanted to sell their property now it would be a 28 – 30% hit, therefore a significantly reduced price. In a property they’ve worked hard to pay off a mortgage and bring up their family.

406. There’s a quote that of course that’s in these slides, slide eight. It’s a quote from Philip Hammond and that quote resonates entirely with, I’m sure, other people besides Mr and Mrs O’Connor, where project in the national interest imposes significant financial loss on individuals, shouldn’t they be compensated fairly? It’s right and proper that those who suffer serious financial loss in the natural interest, should be compensated. So, what’s the solution to that, extend the tunnel, in my submission. Mr and Mrs O’Connor go a little further, they suggest that as an aside issue there could possibly be the introduction of an impartial non-means tested, ‘we want to sell’ scheme, compensating anyone who wishes to sell from being financially disadvantaged. That’s going to be, perhaps, a better proposal.

407. So, for the three main basis of their submissions, unacceptable construction and operational noise, severe traffic disruption for seven plus years, significant property blight until 2026, that’s on the next slide please; that Frith Hill, sorry. So, hopefully not how Frith Hill will look following the start of construction, because lorries shouldn't be

going up there must they, that shows you how limited that access is, which you and the Committee are aware of, of course, next slide please.

408. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: Not much chance of anyone breaking the speed limit there is there.

409. MR GRIFFITHS: Certainly not. So, those are solutions propose, they are very much from a layman’s perspective, clearly, because there are lots of other issues you’ve got to consider. But, for those three separate bases of concern, it’s exactly the same answer, and the answer seems to be a relatively inexpensive one when one compares to the global cost of HS2. £485 billion, that’s a lot of money in anyone’s language. But relative to what damage it could cause, to communities, woodland and properties and what is an area of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps isn’t that so difficult. Already the cost, you will appreciate, has increased to HS2 construction, but that, of course, should be reconsidered in the event of successful submissions. So, on the basis of those submissions to you I commend Mr and Mrs O’Connor’s observations in hope that you will accede to them in all, whole or in part. Thank you.

410. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Mould.

411. MR MOULD: If I just put up P1015(51), and I will show you plan which gives you some basic dimensions and the noise measurement, 1015(51), I apologise. Whilst that’s going up, what I can tell you is that, as you can recall from earlier sittings, the railway will emerge from the north portal at South Heath, at a depth of cutting of about 16.5 metres. And the engineering of the tunnel, the point raised by the petitioner, the engineering of the tunnel clearly responds, both the underlying geology. It responds to the need to try to avoid excessive depths of shafts and it responds to the need to try to avoid excessive depth of cutting, as the railway emerges from the tunnel as a surface railway. And those, and other matters, dictate the gradient of the railway, and you heard some expert evidence about that during the course of the tunnel hearings in July, both for Mr Smart and from the agent on behalf of the District and the County Councils.

412. You can see that reflected on the screen in front of you, we have the - this is a noise map obviously what you can see is that the combination of deep cutting and of noise attenuation barriers and the mounding, will produce an overall height of noise attenuation at 17 to 20 metres along the eastern side of the railway as it emerges from

the north portal of South Heath here.

413. Now, if we can just blow this up, I can show you that there is an assessment point, 374849, which is just across the road, or there or thereabouts, from the petitioners’ property and is a little closer to the railway. And so that provides a useful proxy for the noise effects of construction and operation.

414. We then go to P1015(71), and I can show you the assessment construction phase, 374849, Bailey’s Hatch, you can see the prediction is between 47 and 54 decibels during the day, during construction; and the highest forecast noise levels, as you’d expect, are coming from the excavation of the South Heath cutting. I think we were told that the petitioner’s own view is that the noise environment is in the high forties and low fifties at the moment, so you can see that that corresponds very closely to the existing noise environment.

415. If we go onto the operation phase, P1015(73), again, if we just pick out 374849, fourth line down, you can see that the predicted base line environment, noise environment, without the railway at daytime ambient of 50, and night time ambient of 41, and a peak noise of 63, no doubt reflecting proximity to the road. And then the scheme is predicted to generate noise at this location, of 48 during the day, 38 during the night and 64, 66 max, comparing to 63 without the scheme. And that leads to an overall assessment that there will be no significant noise impact and no significant change in the noise environment as a result of the operation of the railway, at a property that is a very good property for the petitioner’s property. They are a little further away, just across the road.

416. So, on that basis there is a reasonable prospect, let me put it that way, of the AP4 tunnel, as it becomes better known in the market, helping to reduce the degree of blight, and the duration of blight that exists, that may exist in this area. The coming of a bored tunnel, one of the purposes of that is to reduce the construction impact and to reduce the operational effects.

417. CHAIR: Thank you. Brief, final comments?

418. MR GRIFFITHS: I think, as purely lateness, and I tried to represent as best I can for the O’Connor’s today; I’d still ask you C hair, and the committee, I know you’ve

been experiencing this project for over 12 months, since its inception in April 2014. But 100 times a day it’s not just your hand being hit with a pin, not once a day, it’s 100 times, it’s one every 100 seconds, 14 hours a day. Although my friend has alluded to reasoning as to why the levels of noise will not affect the area, well that’s simply – it doesn’t work in logic, in my submission, when you look at how many trains re going to be coming from that portal.

419. The easiest proposition is to move that portal, for a relatively expensive amount, further down the line, where it’s going to affect far, far less people, and also far less cherished woodland and countryside, which obviously everyone wants to protect. I've got to mention, as usual, as a final slide, number 11, it just gives a summary of what so me me mber s o f the Economic Affairs Committee have mentioned, the statisticians, I know you and your colleagues have been - on the Committee have received submissions similarly, to mine today. But you do have the power to redress the balance and you’ve used it already against HS2. All I hope that I've tried to bring out to you is that other features of HS2’s proposals, which may be questioned. And that the most optimum result for the residents in the area can be achieved in a different manner at a relatively inexpensive costs. Those are my submissions.

420. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed, right, we now move on to petition 451257, which is Stuart Smith and Robert Moreton, represented by Simon Morrison, which will be the last petitioner we will hear this morning and then we will reconvene at 2 o’clock.

Stuart Smith and Robert Moreton

421. CHAIR: Welcome back Mr Morris. Do you want to do introductions?

422. MR MOULD: Yes, Mr Smith is on Browns Road I think, High Heath, you can see he is just off the Chesham Road, and he is some 715 metres from the line. And then, if we go to 1011(17), we have Mr Moreton, and he is at Little Hundridge Lane, as I understand it. And he is 1,462 metres from the line, as you can see shown on the plan in front of you.

423. MR MO RRIS : Thank you, I do have some slides, which would show that actually. Have you got those slides?

424. MR MOULD: That’s all I want to say about that thank you.

425. CHAIR: Right, carry on.

426. MR MORRIS: The next slide please. Mr Mould has kindly addressed the first issue, which is where they are, and can we have the next slide please, which shows the same thing. And you can see where the portal is; I reckon they are both approximately a kilometre from the portal, which is the more relevant position.

427. If we can go to next slide please, Robert Morton has been living in the area for 35 years; Stuart Smith has been living in the area for 52 years. I am agent to both of them and since their situations are very similar, and their views are very similar, I felt it was easier to deal with them both at once.

428. In a nutshell, their issue is that they are both very passionate about the environment and its preservation and they are very concerned that the tunnel, that the train, that the proposed route is going to ruin the AONB. If we go on to the next slide, that illustrates that what their issues are, and you can read that, and I will give you a little bit of background. Interesting enough Mr Smith was rung up by HS2 Ltd on the same lines as Mr Derek Pitts was earlier today. Mr Smith was equally irritated by the suggestion made that the points in his petition were dealt with by C6, and that he could withdraw his petition. I understand the point that that's just trying to manage the time of this committee, but it illustrates something; he clearly said in his petition that he wanted a full tunnel. He clearly said to them, when they rang up, that they fell short by 8.5 kilometres.

429. They must have seen, it but they clearly didn’t really believe that somebody who is no longer directly affected by the track, feels strongly about the AONB. And it’s coming out, from all I've heard this morning, that there’s an awful lot of people who feel very strongly about the AONB; whether they live next to the track or not. And Mr Smith; that was the reason that Mr Smith was rather irritated, that they seemed to believe that his case had been dealt with when it clearly hadn’t.

430. Mr Moreton and Mr Smith are both highly intelligent people, and they’ve followed what’s been happening in this committee quite closely from their computers at home. One of the things that they don’t understand is how HS2 Ltd makes judgements,

to lead them to their recommendation, or their desire for not having a tunnel. Back in July, when the tunnel hearings came about, T3i was presented and supported by cost benefit analysis.

431. HS2 Ltd said that their approach, first of all they rubbished the cost benefit analysis, they didn’t believe it was a useful approach to making these decisions, and they explained that their sift analysis clearly judges the environmental aspects of the line. And they then took into account other matters, and hey presto, they balanced the two, and came up with a conclusion that it didn’t merit building a tunnel.

432. The problem it that clearly one of the questions is, and I think this is one of the questions that certainly irritates my petitioners in this case, is they don’t understand how HS2 Ltd comes to this judgement. How do they judge a sift analysis, which is a load of ticks and crosses, against the other matters, which has got to be cost, which I assume £349 million extra that it would cost to do a T3i for instance, through the entire AONB.

433. So, who in HS2 Ltd makes this judgement? Well, it’s not the computer, so it’s got to be the people. But the people, of course, are biased and conflicted, and I know, Mr Chairman, you recognise that HS2 Ltd, you don’t necessarily believe what – the figures that they give you and you don’t believe the figures that the rest of us give you either. And you have got to act as; I think you said, ‘the Judgment of Solomon’ to decide between these two conflicting issues.

434. My petitioners pointed out that you are seriously lacking some information, and believe that it is a great pity that there hasn’t been a call for primary research regarding the Chiltern AONB to assess the public’s willingness for the country to pay to save the AONB, in other words, don’t believe HS2 Ltd, don’t believe us, because we are living there, so we are conflicted too in a sense. But there could easily be primary research, the Treasury’s Green Book permits that, or caters for that. And I believe the approach that they recommend is the stated preference approach, which was used in 1999, or the year 2000, to look at the situation in Stonehenge and whether they should build a tunnel to avoid the A303 ruining that bit of environment. Why can't that approach, why hasn’t that primary research been done why hasn’t it been called for, and that would make this committee’s judgement A. Far more understandable to petitioners and people who suffer from this railway and B. Hopefully it will be helpful to help you make the right

judgement for the country.

435. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: Just to interrupt you for a second, what’s the conclusion that we ought to, or ought not to be able to see Stonehenge if we went down the A303?

436. MR MORRIS : I have no idea what that conclusion was, all I understand is that one of the conclusions was that the general public, and this is done by taking a survey, which is over a big area, their analysis came to £140 million. They thought the Government should pay, be prepared to pay an extra – or to pay £140 million just to pay fo r tha t.

437. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: To stop people seeing the most wonderful thing there is in this country outside the AONB? I don’t want to distract you; I just think the general population were wrong.

438. MR MORRIS: I’d like to pick that up. There have been one or two people who have written letters to the press about the AONB, saying that it’s absolute awful that you're trying to tunnel it, you should be allowed to see it as you go by. Given that they would see it for all of about one minute, that really doesn’t meet the point, does it. I basically made the point I wanted to make, sorry, my petitioners wanted to make; they obviously are much in favour of a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB, to save that environment because that’s what they care about. Thank you.

439. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Mould do you want to add anything?

440. MR MOULD: The only point I wanted to make was that actually, strange to say it wasn’t HS2 Ltd who made the decision whether or not the project should promote a fully bored tunnel to the AONB, it was actually the Secretary of State. And he does so as a member of the Government, and his decision is subject to scrutiny, because this is a public Bill, scrutinised by Parliament.

441. MR MORRIS: I did not study politics, but okay, he made that decision, the Secretary of State I imagine is looking to HS2 Ltd to provide him with most of the information.

442. MR MOULD: Yes, but your question was, who within HS2, made the decision.

I’m saying it wasn’t anybody within HS2; it was the Secretary of State. He appointed HS2 to advise him I grant you that, but the decision was made – if you want to see in a public document, quite a careful explanation of the reasons why the project was promoted in the way that it was. You will find that there is a careful, well, I won't say careful, an analysis of the impact of scheme in the area of outstanding natural beauty in volume three of the environmental statement. And there is a detailed section in section 2.6 of the community forum area report nine, the central Chilterns, which explains consideration of a range of options, including a bored tunnel option, and a tunnel extension to Leather Lane as well.

443. MR MO RRIS: All I’ll say to that is that the sift analysis showed that T3i, virtually every aspect of it, was ticked as being preferential to the proposed route. I think except for the fact that it had to come out at Durham Farm, as an intervention gap because that’s what the European laws of safety say.

444. MR MOULD: Which is your point.

445. MR MORRIS: On an environmental basis T3i was far better than the proposed scheme, so somehow or another, or okay, then I should address this point to the Secretary of State, he took the fact that we had a scheme which was far better for the environment, an all counts, in the proposed scheme, and put against it something, what did he counter against it, he countered the cost.

446. MR MOULD: He asked himself the question, is the extra cost of extending the tunnel to the end of the AONB, is that cost justified by the additional environmental gain that would result from that work? He took the view, which is the sort of judgement that, if I may say so, members of the Government have to make day in, day out. He took the view that that cost wasn’t justified. Many, many petitioners who come before this committee, if I may say so, have suggested that that judgement was wrong and have asked the Committee to review that judgement, which is a matter that the Committee has felt, if I may say so, perfectly properly is within its remit. And as expressed an interim view on that and as I understand it, is going to report its final conclusions on that in its report.

447. MR MO RRIS : Thank you very much for that instruction, I therefore direct my comments to the Committee and say please review your – well, I’m not sure that you’ve

made any judgement yet, but you have said that you haven’t come across any overwhelming reason why there should be a tunnel. I would ask you, sorry, my petitioners would ask you to review that judgement and if that was possible to review, having taken some primary research so that you get some idea of what the general public feel about the value of this would be helpful.

448. CHAIR: I would point out that the Secretary of State has, in the past, there have been three or four of them, he or she’s and a number of them made different judgements to do with the route, and all we have done in this Committee, is add something to the Secretary, what previous Secretary of State’s had agreed. And the current Secretary of State has accepted that, on the basis of it seemed a sensible judgement to make. So that’s mainly - whenever you're talking with big ticket items, it’s the Secretary of State that makes the decisions.

449. MR MORRIS : I understand that.

450. CHAIR: We may end up, at some point, disagreeing with the Secretary of State, but at the moment we are proceeding to hear our petitioners and try and do our job.

451. MR MORRIS: But this Committee has the power to go back to the Secretary of State and say ‘We believe there should be a full tunnel’.

452. CHAIR: Yes.

453. MR MORRIS: If it so decides. I very much ask that the Committee come down in favour of a full tunnel.

454. CHAIR: We have to come to the right judgement and just because lots of people appear before us and say we ought to do it, that doesn’t necessarily change the balance of arguments for what is a sensible decision.

455. MR MORRIS: I understand that, but the point that these petitioners are making is that you haven’t had all the information you should have had. There should have been primary research done.

456. CHAIR: We’ve had information coming out of our ears. We’ve done this for nearly 18 months, we’ve had papers, information, witnesses, barristers, goodness knows

what else. It’s very easy to say you haven’t had all the information, if you don’t feel we've come to the right judgement or the right decision. We could have done with rather less information I think, to get through this process, and rather more. But we’re doing our best; we’re doing our best and trying to get through as many petitioners as we can to make the right judgements, and we have to, as I say, balance the promoters and all the petitioners and to try to make a difference where we can.

457. MR MORRIS : Thank you.

458. CHAIR: Alright, thank you. I am going to adjourn now and we will come back at 2 o’clock and hear the next petitioner, which is going to be 110, Geoffrey and Christine Channon. Order, order.