Scanned Document

HL: 201 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Sue Paxton

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by Clauses 1-3, 31-35, 44-48, 51 , 52, 57-65.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is a resident of Chetwode and lives at 4 School End, Chetwode, Buckingham, Bucks. ("your petitioner's property"). The proposed route for HS2 runs through the middle of Chetwode. Your petitioner's property is accessed by roads that will be used during construction. Your petitioner uses the The Green and School End daily when commuting to and from work and to access local services including shops, health services and the post office. The Green is scheduled to be diverted during construction. School End and the School End Overbridge are scheduled to be diverted and to be used by construction traffic during the period of construction of the works authorised by the Bill. Your petitioner also regularly uses the footpaths through Chetwode that will be diverted under the scheme. Your petitioner is likely to suffer inconvenience from the closure and diversion of roads and footpaths, and from the additional and diverted traffic on the routes that remain open.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

Your petitioner favours a cut and cover ("Green") tunnel banked and landscaped over the top, starting to the south of the village of Chetwode and continuing through the high ground past Manthorne Farm, the Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Chetwode village and School End to avoid the many injurious effects in the parish of Chetwode.

The residents of Chetwode enjoy the full support of their local MP, the Church of England, Aylesbury Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council in petitioning for such a change to the construction of the scheme, and would respectfully point out that a tunnel on the alignment proposed by the Promoter would relieve many of the injuries to residents of Chetwode, the Conservation Area, the Grade I listed Church and the local environment identified in the Environmental Statement. Accordingly, your petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the railway will be placed in a cut and cover tunnel to minimise the local environmental impact, that corresponding changes will be made to all the subsidiary Works, and that the relevant Plans and Sections will be amended accordingly.

The proposed railway will pose a major severance issue for wildlife due to the long stretch of cutting, but also due to the security fencing that will be installed along most of the planned route. The Chetwode cut and cover Tunnel proposed by your petitioner would provide some relief to this by allowing the migration of local resident species.

Chetwode is a very tranquil parish. High noise levels from the operation of HS2 are predicted for a high percentage of residential properties in Chetwode after the mitigation currently proposed by the Promoter. The Promoter or the Nominated Undertaker should, at a very early stage, seek to agree a specification for further, more effective mitigation against the noise impacts. Chetwode is predicted to experience in-combination effects of significant visual and noise effects which, it is stated in the Environmental Statement, would have a major adverse effect. Current proposed mitigation of earthworks and noise barriers along just one side of the track is not sufficient. The Promoter should undertake further mitigation in the form of a cut and cover tunnel, banked and landscaped over the top. A cut and cover tunnel would be consistent with numerous Government statements of intent to minimize impact on communities and the environment.

The Environmental Statement predicts that the Grade I listed Church of St Mary and St Nicholas in Chetwode will have its setting permanently changed by the movement of trains and the associated increase in noise. The Promoter or the Nominated Undertaker should, at a very early stage, seek to agree a specification for further, more effective mitigation against the impacts to the Church and its setting. Without more effective mitigation for both the Church and its officers, a substantial endowment will be needed to safeguard the future of this internationally important Church.

Your petitioner is concerned about the effects that construction traffic will have on the single track country lanes currently proposed as a construction route. These lanes are not suitable for HGVs and are popular with dog walkers, cyclists and horse riders. There are no passing places and it is unsafe to take large amounts of construction traffic past the homes at School End where children live and play. Your petitioner regularly uses these roads and therefore will be directly affected by these issues. Your petitioner requests that School End is not used by HGVs at any time in order to decrease the negative impacts of construction. Your petitioners suggest that an alternative temporary construction route for HGVs is created along the trace of HS2. During construction, the nominated undertaker must maintain the quality of the roads in Chetwode parish, and after construction, the roads must be returned to their original size and character (no road widening, curb stones or urbanization of this rural parish), and all damage must be repaired by the nominated undertaker.

Your petitioner is concerned about the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed new Overbridges carrying public roads over HS2 at The Green and School End, which will be clearly visible from rights of way and residential properties in Chetwode, and which introduce new infrastructure into a very rural landscape. Plus the noise of the trains could be a hazard for people riding or leading horses across the proposed Overbridges, due to the high sound level and its rapid onset. Your petitioner requests that, in order to minimise the impact of the proposal, the design of the scheme should be produced with meaningful consultation with the local community, to fit in with the surrounding environment and character of the area, using materials that mirror local buildings and materials. Additional screening must also be put in place and this must be maintained to a high standard.

Your petitioner has set out in the preceding paragraphs just some of the harms that would befall residents, land owners, businesses, visitors, and the environment were the scheme to be constructed as proposed currently by the Promoter. These harms would be alleviated by constructing the entire section as a cut-and-cover tunnel, banked and landscaped over the top to prevent the requirement of lowering the route. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your petitioners and their rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your petitioners.

4. Theprayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considersthis Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc. each petitioner (or his Agent) MUST sign the petition here

Sue Paxton

04/04/16 HL: 202 To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London- West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF CLAIRE FALLOWFIELD

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill. 2. Your petitioner is an owner of a property in Little Kingshill, a village on the opposite side of the valley to the proposed route of the HS2 line through the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property is The Firs, Hare Lane, Little Kingshill, Bucks HP16 OEF.

Your petitioner's concerns

Your petitioner has lived in the Chilterns AONB throughout her life; being born and raised in Amersham and living for the past 30 years in Little Kingshill. Your petitioner has chosen to stay in this area because of the peace and beauty which can be found in the AONB. Your petitioner has always felt secure that this area would be protected by the government whose duty it is to stop development in AONB areas. Since the route for HS2 was announced, she has petitioned to stop the destruction of the Chilterns. Over the years more and more tunnelling has been introduced to protect Amersham and the Chilterns as far as South Heath but more tunnelling is required to see the job through so that the whole AONB is saved.

The current design for HS2 will cause permanent damage to the environment and the beauty and peace will be destroyed and with it your petitioner's life style will be wholly and completely destroyed too. The landscape will be scarred and the peace disturbed every 90 seconds. HS2 Ltd propose to run 17 trains an hour but this will be in both directions ie 34 trains an hour. Although the train is on the opposite valley to the petitioner's home, experience shows that due to the position of her house, noise crosses the valley very easily and will be heard in her part of Little Kingshill. HS2 ltd have not been able to tell your petitioner what volume of sound will be heard. Your petitioner does not believe that any research has been carried out to provide any answers to this question.

Your petitioner is not alone in enjoying walking in the Chilterns as a way of taking exercise and de stressing. This will not be possible should the train be built to its present design. Over 50 million people annually visit this area for recreational purposes and use the shops/restaurants in Great Missenden. This is your petitioner's local village and the local amenities offered by the village are invaluable as there is no public transport through Little Kingshill. If visitors stop visiting Great Missenden, shops etc will close and this will adversely affect your petitioner.

Your petitioner will also face considerable problems with everyday activities during the construction period. The A413 is the main road used by your petitioner. It is already a busy road especially during the rush hours and entering the A413 from London Road and Deep Mill Lane is not easy. Turning right (east) across the traffic towards Amersham is already hazardous and once construction traffic is added to this, joining the A413 will become even more dangerous. In addition to this the delays caused by up to 260 HGVs per day using the road, will have a marked affect on your petitioner's daily routine for up to five and a half years.

Increased traffic jams and delays are likely to make frustrated drivers look for alternative routes. The most obvious choice will be to turn off the A413 and take the narrow roads and lanes to Little Kingshill. Your petitioner lives along a single track lane which, since the introduction of Satnavs, has seen a marked increase in cars and even lorries trying to cut through. A further increase in traffic will lead to damage to the lane and make it dangerous for your petitioner to drive and walk here.

The other route through Little Kingshill, passes the local village school and although your petitioner has no children at the school, as a teacher herself, she is concerned about the dangers increased traffic will have on the safety of children entering and leaving the school.

In an emergency, your petitioner will have to travel along the A413 to A&E at Stoke Mandeville hospital. At such times it is imperative that the journey to Stoke Mandeville is not prolonged by traffic jams or slow moving vehicles. The only other way to the hospital would be via High Wycombe, a journey of over 30 miles.

Construction and construction traffic will be responsible for an increase in air pollution, noise and light pollution. Your petitioner, her family, friends and neighbours will all have to endure these pollutants for up to five and a half years.

Your petitioner is also concerned about the increase in crime as a result of itinerant workers living in the vicinity during the construction period.

Conclusion

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty must be cared for as stated in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Section 85. The original plan for HS2 saw it ploughing through the whole of the AONB. In 2011-2012, when Justine Greening was Secretary for Transport, she extended the tunnel from Chalfont St Giles to Mantles Wood near Little Missenden thus protecting Amersham and the surrounding countryside.

Earlier this year, the House of Commons Select Committee extended the tunnel to South Heath thus protecting the ancient woodland of Mantles wood.

Two thirds of the Chiltern's AONB has now been saved. Two government bodies have seen the need to help protect The Chilterns. If two thirds is rightly considered worth saving then surely the whole area should be protected as every part of the AONB is equally important.

Your petitioner strongly supports the petitions for an extension to the fully bored Chiltern tunnel to extend throughout the AONB.

The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that I or someone representing me in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

And the petitioner Claire Fallowfield remains etc HL: 203

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 PETITION against High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MILTON COURT RESIDENTS

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by 'the whole Bill' .

2. The petitioners are resident owners of properties in Milton Court.

3. Petitioners Concerns

Your petitioners allege that they and their property, rights and interests in Ickenharn in the London Borough ofHillingdon would be injuiiously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Milton Court is forty owner occupied homes around a grassy square owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon. It is less than one hundred metres from Long Lane (B466).

Long Lane is an important link with the A40 and much used by emergency services between Hillingdon and Ruislip and beyond. At present it is congested in the morning and late afternoon/evening. The DEFRA Fact Sheet on Air Quality admits that the UK does not meet E.U. standards on N02 but is planning to reduce emissions. This problem seems certain to continue for some time despite Government attempts to eliminate it. Your petitioners consider that the use of Swakeleys Road (8467) during construction will add significantly to the Long Lane problems, as other vehicles will be reluctant to use Swakeleys Road.

Your petitioners consider the Construction Site between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South will seriously spoil the much used and pleasant walk to the Grand Union Canal and Denham Country Park. The attractive Celandine Route, sponsored by the London Borough of Hillingdon, will also be badly affected. Alternative routes have been suggested by HS2 Ltd but they are most unattractive and in some cases hazardous to use.

Your petitioners support the petition oflckenham Residents Association. ln particular we support the need for the extension of the tunnel beyond West Ruislip. London Borough of Hillingdon prepared a report which made a strong case for a tunnel extension but HS2 Ltd opposed it and the grounds for their objections have been questioned. The House of Commons select committee did, however, decide to support HS2 Ltd. Your petitioners consider that the tunnel issue needs to be reviewed. 4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House of Lords, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in thi s petition to the Select Committee which will consider this Bill.

And the petitioner remains, etc.

On behalf of Milton Court Residents, Tckenharn J

v To the House of Lords HL: 204 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF freeholders STEPHEN AND ERICA PERKINS

Declares that:

1. The petitioners and our property and ri ghts as occupiers of the dwell ing at Sla Mornington Terrace, London, NWl 7RT would be specially, directly injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners are residents of Mornington Terrace where we have lived since autumn 1999, at which time we purchased the 'garden fl at' (Sla) as our sole residence. Ou r property faces directly towards Camden cutting in which the railway track out of Euston Station is located. We chose to live here in full knowledge of an operational mainline ra il line; however, during our residency with limited exceptions there ha s been only limited inconveni ence to our enjoyment of our dwelli ng as a direct result of the railway's operation. We are not ' NYMBYs' - having made use of the line for our own travelling purposes from time to time between London and the Midlands and beyond. However, the like ly disruption understood to arise from the application of the Bill, should it succeed in Parliament, resulting in we understand up to two decades of disruption during the construction of HS2 seems to be beyond reasonable levels of tolerance for those who have made t heir long-term home in the location we occupy.

3. Your petitioner's conce rn s are

• Th e amount of closure and traffic on our road means taxis or emergency vehicles will not be able to pu ll up to collect us, rendering us not only inconvenienced but also placed at risk in emergency situations.

• Th e mitigation suggestions from HS2, even they admit, still leave us seriously adversely affected . We ca nnot be expected to live like this for twenty years.

• Noise levels 24 hours a day averaging 80dcb - even with secondary double-glazing - will adversely affect quality of life in single-brick built houses, reflecting their vi ntage (in a 'listed' terrace).

• Air pollution and attendant health risks.

• Risk of loss of avenue of mature deciduous trees along the Terrace as

t IS~ Pc1111on per~ms-household doc, - 2 - well as the retain ing wall between the pavement opposite our property and the cutting.

• Heavy vehicles using Mornington Terrace causing damage to infrastructure - risk of undermining foundations of our old ( early Victorian construction) house - with 'sleeping policemen' on the road exacerbating the vibrations, let alone damage to road and footpaths along the Terrace.

• Prospect of work taking place overnight - we sleep in basement at front of property and are likely to be disturbed from resting.

• Lack of proposed financial compensation taking no account of the extent to which over more than a decade enjoyment of the property and its financial value likely to be reduced .

• Risk of vermin being driven to relocate from around the inside of the cutting and towards residences such as ours, with risks of injury to safety and health that will flow from such outcomes.

We ask the Select Committee to require the promoter to give an undertaking or assurance about the following:

• Spoil removed by rail not lorries, and materials in by rail - in short, to support the solution that has the least impact on Mornington Terrace residents and the environment.

• Providing fair urban compensation on a par with rural compensation.

• Mitigation for 20 years construction such as noise insulation agreed with each householder and adequately monitored.

• Minimal disruption and duration of every aspect of HS2 construction.

• No temporary or permanent loss of trees along Mornington Terrace.

• No worsening of air quality from HS 2 pollution.

• Timely information from HS2 enabling genuine engagement with an opportunity to offer alternative actions to those the promoter proposes, through being fully informed of all the issues in play.

II S2 Pe1i11011 perkins~household docx - 3 - 4. The prayer

Th e petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remai n, etc.

Name: STEPHEN J. PERKINS Signatun

Name: ERICA F. PERKINS Signatur

HS:? Pcm1on perlr.m~-hou~hold doc, - 4 - HL: 205

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Derek Paxton

Declares that:

1. ThepetitionerisspeciallyanddirectlyadverselyaffectedbyClauses 1-3, 31 -35, 44-48, 51 , 52, 57-65.

2. Your petitioner

3. Your petitioner's concerns

4. Theprayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc. each petitioner (or his Agent) MUST sign the petition here

Derek Paxton

04/04/16 HL: 206 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ROHIT MANNAN AND BHAVNA MANNAN

Declares that:

1. Your petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioners are husband and wife, with two young children who rely on local bus services to travel to and from school. The petitioners' property, Nightingales, Lappetts Lane, South Heath is a four bedroom detached property situated within 300 metres of the route of the line through Sibleys Coppice. The family's only access route to Chesham and Great Missenden is via King's Lane.

Your petitioners live in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AON B) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioners, are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

1. Your Petitioners will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioners requests that the presently proposed fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by Dff and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact ontheAONB.

2. Your Petitioner further requests that in assessing the alternatives of adopting tl1e full tunnel proposals instead of the Promoter's current proposals for the AONB section of the line, the Promoter is instructed to commission and publish a fully independent cost analysis of such alternatives and to undertake and publish a full cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts for such AONB section. 3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/14 to 2/20 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

4. In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel throughout the AONB, which is the primary alteration to the Bill your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended to Leather Lane, as it will address, most but not all, of your Petitioner's concerns.

5. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adverse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitigation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern it and to which it objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if its fully bored tunnel proposals are rejected, below.

6. Traffic Congestion: The disruption over eight years of access to and from Great Missenden for your petitioner travelling to the shops, medical appointments and to the station arising from the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of construction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. This major adverse effect will continue for your petitioner who needs to travel along the A413 to and from Wendover and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Aylesbury. Your Petitioner is also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Road Roundabout will lead to rat-runs through Great Missenden and the hilltop villages especially along Kings Lane with its associated safety hazard. This is of particular concern to the Petitioners as their children cross Kings Lane on a regular basis to get to the school bus stop. The increase in traffic volume on a winding road such as King's Lane is a clear safety hazard to young children.

7. Construction Haul Road: Your Petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of construction traffic using the haul road from the South Heath portal onto the A413 at the Link Road roundabout, such as damage from HGVs (270 HGVs a day at the peak), noise and dust from vehicle cleaning operations and the high risk to users of the Skate Park, Tennis Courts and children's play area adjacent to the roundabout and children going to the Great Missenden Combined Church of England school nearby.

Remedies:

2 1. The construction haul road should be relocated further north beyond the Mobwell junction1 hence reducing traffic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the B485 roundabouts and lessening the impact and visual blight of the haul road on residents and businesses in Great Missenden. Traffic signals can be implemented on the junction with the A413 to control the flow of construction traffic. 2. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the trace.

8. Maintenance Access Road: The permanent maintenance and access road - Work No 2/18C from the South Heath portal joins Frith Hill (SHL) at a bend on a narrow part of the road. This leads to your petitioner having concerns about road safety especially as the footway and road is used for walking and cycling to Great Missenden. Safety could be further exacerbated by temporary contractors using it to access the portal during construction. Furthermore there is concern for the safety of children at the Great Missenden Church of England Combined School using their Forest School Outdoor Learning Centre and their playing fields as they are adjacent to the Frith Hill roundabout.

Remedies: 1. Construction traffic should not use the maintenance access road off Frith Hill during construction. 2. Any temporary construction contractors should not park their white vans at the South Heath portal but at the main construction compound at Wendover and be bussed onto the site. 3. If the construction haul road is relocated as mentioned above, it could be retained so that access to Frith Hill (SHL) will no longer be required

9. Noise and Dust: Your petitioner is concerned that there will be construction noise and dust (and operational noise) as a result of the deep, wide cuttings at the South Heath portal and the cuttings beyond towards Wendover. The dust and noise will be at its worst during the eight year construction period but thereafter some mitigation of the dust will be provided when plantings have matured but not the noise.

Remedies: 1. Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMP) to be monitored and enforced by Bucks County Council with all costs to be borne by HS2 Ltd 2. A tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns AONB, or at minimum to Leather Lane will obviate the need for deep, wide cuttings in the South Heath and Potter Row area. 3. Other remedies would be retained sides for the cutting and higher trackside noise barriers with barriers on the east side (as well as west) of the line towards Leather Lane.

10. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner is 600 metres from the trains exit/ entrance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tunnel and are the finding their house prices blighted. They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dysfunctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un-

1 HS2 Ltd had given Bucks CC in January 2016 an assurance that it would relocate this haul road but the conditions placed upon the County Council to achieve this were unrealistic 3 blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current rm-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell .... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable rm-blighted valuations.

11. Health and Wellbeing: Your Petitioner is concerned that their Health & Wellbeing has been adversely affected, and continue to be, since the announcement of HS2 in 2010. The undeniable result of HS2 is worry, anxiety and stress and, in some cases, clinical depression requiring medical treatment. A further worry is that emergency response times will deteriorate further during construction when ailments such as respiratory disorders will be at their maximum.

Remedies: 1. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern over high levels of dust and pollution, with independent monitoring and powers to halt construction until preventative measures are implemented and verified. 2. The provision of an air ambulance service is requested to complement emergency medical services which are already struggling.

16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/ or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

17 Secondary Mitigation In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Turmel that your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the haul road from the South Heath portal to the Link Road roundabout be moved along the A413 beyond the Mobwell junction, as it will help to lessen the impact of the construction traffic on the Great Missenden Area.

18 Other Matters There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners, their rights, interests and property, and for which no adequate provision is made to protect them.

Conclusion 19 Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Chiltern Tunnel that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being petitioned 4 by the local County, District and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. If your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

21 For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully requests that unless the Bill is amended as proposed above or suitable undertakings obtained from the Promoter, the Bill, along with accompanying Schedules, so far affecting your Petitioner and your Petitioner's area, along with the wider AONB, be not allowed to pass into law.

22 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner's parishioners, their rights, interests, property and your petitioner's area and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that the petitioner, or someone representing the petitioner in accordance with the rul~s and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remains, etc.

5 HL: 207

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MATIHEW SEMPLE, SYLVIANE CLARK, PETER CLARK, CAROLE DELANEY, MICHAEL DELANEY, ROSEMARY PARTNER, ROY PARTNER, KAREN LANE, HARINI SWAMINATHAN, RHODA MAW, JOYCE M ARNOLD, KEITH C ARNOLD, SHEILA CLAYDON, JOANNE CLAYDON, & STEPHEN ROWLAND

Declares that: l. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners are the owners of property located in Three Oaks Close in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

3. Your petitioners allege that as owners of property in Three Oaks Close they are specially and directly affected by the Bill and their property, rights, and various interests would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Introductory

4. Your lead petitioner (Matthew Semple) submitted evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs which reported that the Government had not made the economic case for the project. Nothing has happened since to alter that conclusion, in fact events have only strengthened it. Your lead petitioner 's opposition to the Bill is so strong, he feels it must be recorded in this petition.

5. The petition reflects the situation at early April. HS2 Ltd has indicated - in their interim report on the Hillingdon Traffic Study - that t hey will decide by mid-June on any recommendations. The London Borough of Hillingdon and Transport for London have reserved the right to petition the House of Lords should they disagree. Your petitioners respectfully request your honourable House to extend that right to all those petitioners affected, regardless of the outcome of t his petition. In the meantime, the following apply:-

(a) There has been no independent comparison of fill the costs and benefits (including adequate mitigation and non-pecuniary) of the extended tunnel beyond the West Ruislip Portal and the overland route by viaduct across the Colne Valley;

(b) Despite the request from the House of Commons Select Committee last July for mitigation for lckenham, Ruislip and Harefield, no acceptable proposals have been forthcoming from HS2 Ltd.

Your petitioners request respectfully that your honourable House asks that t he independent comparison referred to at 5(a) be carried out.

1 General Concerns

6. Before addressing the specific concerns which specially and directly affect your petitioners, we would like to record our support for the concerns expressed by other petitioners most of which contribute incrementally to the adverse effects on our property, rights, and various interests.

Specific Concerns

Congestion

7. The additional congestion resulting from the imposition of extra HGVs is unacceptable. The haul road proposals emerging so far are inimical to safety, and would add to congestion In the surrounding area (causing gridlock at times for an over four mile stretch of the A40). Traffic has already reassigned to all the possible 'rat runs' for at least 6 hours a weekday, and it only takes an isolated incident to clog up the whole area. Your petitioners journeys whether by car, bus, or on foot (see Pollution below) would be adversely affected, whether for work, or other purposes - e.g. hospital appointments. The passage of emergency services would also be hindered.

Pollution

8. Your petitioners are concerned about the effects on the health of those who live, go to school, or work in the area. Pollution is a concomitant of congestion. Emissions already exceed EU limits; and the proposed HGV movements will add to the existing high levels of particulates and oxides of nitrogen, made worse by vehicles stationary with engines running.

Sustainable Placement

9. The Sustainable Placement site proposed between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South is 100 metres from property in Three Oaks Close. HS2 Ltd's Additional Provisions 4 (AP4) proposes an additional ('temporary') topsoil dump on top of the 3 metres high dumping already proposed. Not only a blot on the landscape, but with the gradient - dangers of landslip; and also no substantive measures have been proposed to deal with the additional flood risk.

Public Rights of Way

10. Numerous footpaths/bridleways are subject to closure and/or diversion often decanting users on to roads (some of them busy and without paths). Many of these PRoW are used by residents to get from A to B, not just by recreational walkers/riders. For recreational walkers the diversions will add distance and delay (through areas supervised by contractors) hindering 'connectivity' of walks as well as making it difficult to continue to enjoy the landscape and flora and fauna of this beautiful area on the outskirts of London. Your petitioners highlight two major concerns (amongst many):-

(a) The proposed diversion of one footpath (U81) making it much longer (temporarily), and then permanently between the tracks of HS2 and the existing Chiltern Line; and

2 Concluding Remarks

11. Locus Standi. Your petitioners respectfully submit that this was applied inappropriately at the House of Commons Select Committee. The advice provided for petitioners was written by the Promoter and therefore not objective. Indeed the 'precedents' were antiquated; and the definitions - e.g. 'interests' means 'property interests' unacceptably restrictive. Your petitioners respectfully request that your honourable House is more objective in any application of locus standi.

12. Your petitioners respectfully ask your honourable House to bear in mind the disparity in resources (staffing, time, money, and the quality of advocacy) between HS2 Ltd and your humble petitioners. This, especially if HS2 Ltd continue their working practice of bombarding the Committee and petitioners with documentation and new proposals 'at the 11th hour' without sufficient time to evaluate them properly.

13. Finally, your petitioners respectfully submit that the effects of their specific concerns accumulated with those raised by others requires that a bored tunnel be constructed instead of an overland route beyond the West Ruislip portal, and they ask your honourable House to find in favour of a tunnel. Failing this, your petitioners request mitigation such that the nominated undertaker is required to remove spoil from lckenham by rail and that HS2 HGV traffic should not have access to the existing local roads. As a result the proposal for a Sustainable Placement site between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South should be removed.

The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Matthew ·semple

continued

3 AND the petitioners remain, etc.

/ Matthew Semple

·~ HL:208

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail {London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF: Sheila Ann Cooper of Hillcrest Farm, Coventry Road, Berkswell CV7 7AZ

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. The petitioner Is a 74 year old woman, who has lived and farmed the above smallholding for twenty plus years breeding, riding and showing ponies and horses. She also breeds and shows rare, primitive sheep. Her son, daughter-in-law and three Grandsons live in Hob Lane, Balsall Common. She is a Councillor on Balsall Parish Council and is Chairman of Balsall Parish Council Planning Committee. She has sat on the Local Access Forum for So li hull, Coventry and Warwickshire for some 12 years.

The petitioner has a lifelong and qualified interest in the environment, conservation and ecology. She continues to enjoy varied equine and rural pursuits in the countryside surrounding her home. As a dog owner she regularly uses the Kenilworth Greenway and local footpath network. Your petitioner has recently undergone double knee replacement surgery to enable her to carry on with her active lifestyle into old age.

The local area provides the petitioner and her family with vitally important relaxation together during difficult times. The ecologically rich area has been used by the petitioner as a teaching aid for her grandchildren teaching them to recognise and value the richness of their surroundings and bio-diverse nature of their local environment. Their love of nature and animals stems directly from time spent with the petitioner, in the field, learning about the importance of conservation. The needless destruction of the area by the High Speed Rail project will cause ecological devastation to the areas round Berkswell and Balsall Common preventing future generations enjoying the same pleasures that she and her grandchildren continue to enjoy today.

The petitioner is, therefore, specifically and directly affected. 3. Environmental Impact:

Ecology.

The petitioner is deeply concerned for the destructive impact HS2 will have on the local environment. This includes the rare and often endangered ecology of her area, ancient woodland and hedgerows, bogs and meadowland, sites of special scientific interest, the River Blythe valley and flood plain together with its tributaries and other water cou rses . Th ese offer habitats to a often endangered species including 17 breeds of protected bats, an ancient heronry, endangered otters, owls, amphibians and other varied species that all form flourishing and healthy ecosystems.

High Speed Rail Ltd quote and continue to quote 'no net loss' of bio-secu rity in the petitioner's rich and bio-diverse area, however, it has recently come to light that 'no net loss' is in fact a line wide average ca lcu lated from flawed methodology. This statement provides no meaningful protection for the bio diverse nature of the environment in your petitioners area. The whole project is being carried out by HS2 Ltd from a position of indisputable ignorance using flawed methodology.

High Speed Rail Ltd have provided no meaningful mitigation to secure bio diversity and appear to know nothing about the science of secondary succession following a man made destruction of ecosystems. The quality and conclusions published in the Environmental Impact Statements are woefully lacking emanating from often merely desk based resea rch.

The petitioner has spent many years practising ecological and conservation techniques both in her working and private life and fears for the future health and viability of her local environment if the long bore tunnel option is not secured as full and meaningful mitigation in her area.

Pollution:

The effects of both ground and airborne pollution during construction and its effects on the health and wellbeing of your petitioner and the communities of Berkswell and Balsall Common has not been given the serious consideration its deserves. The petitioner suffers from asthma a condition exacerbated by airborne pollution. The in evitable effects of her close proximity to the compounds, ground work, moving of spoil and other pollution and increased movements of construction traffic t hrough the area will affect her health. A significant increase in vehicle emissions is also inevitable; an estimated 750 HGV and other traffic movements a day will move up and down the narrow and often weight restricted roads and lanes in the area. No road or lane will be free of construction traffic. This increase in t raffic will compound the already overloaded local road network. Your petitioner is, therefore, specially, directly and injuriously affected.

The petitioner asks that in mitigation airborne pollution monitors are put in place immediately at many strategic points throughout her local communities to give base line data which can be used to compare levels of airborne pollution in the future.

Traffic:

HS2 Ltd has published data showing an additional 750 HGV and other traffic movements a day through the narrow and often weight restricted roads and lanes through Berkswell and Balsall Common during the construction process. The inextricab ly linked villages of Berkswell and Balsall Common use a network of narrow roads and lanes to move round the area between schools, shops, doctors surgery and other vital facilities; all local roads and lanes will be used for construction traffic; the network is already at saturation point during busy times of day. The main artery A452 through the area will also be used as a construction haul route together with every lane and rural road during the construction process. A normal, safe and acceptable daily life and free passage round the area will be impossible.

The petitioner's daughter-in-law who lives in Hob l ane, Balsall Common is battling a chronic and life threatening illness. The petitioner, therefore, requires free, safe and rapid passage at any time of the day and night in order to reach and assist her family. At the present time every road and lane between the petitioners home and Hob lane will be directly affected by HS2 with safe and rapid passage impossible. The petitioner is, therefore, directly and specifically affected.

In mitigation the petitioner asks that the tunnel option under Balsa II Common and Berkswell is commissioned to ameliorate the devastating implications of construction traffic on the lives of the petitioner and t he inextricably linked loca l communities.

Noise:

The petitioner is often disturbed by the existing West Coast Mainline train s which run in a cutting. The prevailing winds are westerly with her home situated in an elevated position in Berkswell. High Speed Rail rolling stock will be passing every 4 minutes in both directions on a 30' viaduct throughout the day and much of the night. There will be little protection or respite from noise which will occur in 'spikes' likened to the sound of a jet engine. Moreover, High Speed Rail Ltd measures noise as an average rather than individual events. Th is methodology, therefore, does not accurately reflect the reality of individual and frequent episodes of noise on your petitioner and the other affected residents of Berkswell and Balsall Common. The petitioner, therefore, cha llenges the legitimacy and accuracy of the HS2 Ltd noise mapping and predicted levels of noise in her area. Unacceptable levels of noise are well published as affecting health and wellbeing.

Th e petitioner is, therefore, specially and directly affected.

As the long deep bore tunnel option is the only full and fair mitigation to secu re the preservation of the ecological richness of the areas of Berkswell and Balsa II Common and the lives of your petitioner and all the other residents of the area. The petitioner requests that the long overdue independent cost/benefit analysis report on the tunnel option be commissioned. Until now the request for a tunnel under Balsall Common and Berkswell has been comprehensive ly denied by HS2 Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport, the Promoter, on the grounds of cost, however, no independent cost/benefit analysis report has ever been co mmissioned. How can cost be used as the reason for denying the petitioner, and other affected residents, good health and wellbeing?

4. Human Rights:

The petitioner firmly believes her Human Rights have been breached by the maladministration practised by High Speed Rail Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport, the Promoter, during the passage through Parliament of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.

The Promoter's view on Human Rights is as follows and I quote:

"In my view the provisions of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights".

"It is considered that interference with t hese rights is justified by the considerable public benefits of the railway. There is a compelling case in the public interest w hich makes the level of interference proportionate and as such as to strike a fair balance with the interference of rights".

Accusations of maladministration, apologies by CEO of HS2 Ltd for mistakes made, flawed implementation of the Aarhus Convention, continuing unwillingness to publish controversial and damning documents, HS2 Ltd's treatment of affected residents described as 'fall ing below reasonable standards' and reports and abu se of due process where deadlines for petitioning were put in place. .b.y HS2 Ltd to include the 2015/16 Christmas and New Year period and t he 2016 Easter holiday when no professional advice could be obtained. Amendments tabled at the Third Read ing of the Bill by the pet itioner's MP, Caroline Spelman, were not heard ; I rest my case.

Human Rights:

'right to respect for home, family and private life'

and her:

'right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions'

The Petitioner believes her Human Rights have been and will continue to be breached if High Speed Rail is allowed to continue in its present form.

The petitioner's submission to the Public Administrative and Constitutional Affairs Committee HS2 Ltd Inquiry has been accepted into evidence .

The petitioner is specifically, directly and injuriously affected by the Bill.

5. Equines and Rural Way of Life:

The petit ioner asks the Promoter to ensu re safe rights of way are made avai lable for exercising equines safely on the roads, lanes and bridleways in Berkswell and Balsall Common and the surrounding areas during the projected circa six years construction of High Speed Rail.

Equines and farm animals are inherently unpredictable; sudden and unexpected noise and or movement is a health and safety issue for both horse, rider and keeper. Your petitioner asks that long overdue steps are taken to provide a safe environment for exercising horses and ponies during the construction process and after the railway is commissioned; no mea ningful mitigation has been put in place. Without robust mitigation fatalities of horses, riders and moreover car drivers is a strong possibility. This issue is a health and safety and animal welfare issue of enormous significance in a rural community where horse riding is a popular and legitimate pastime. The lack of knowledge exhibited by HS2 Ltd during negotiations has been woeful and the legitimacy of riding as a rural pastime questioned by HS2 Ltd in the wider scheme of High Speed Rail; with HS2 Ltd representatives treating riding, as a rural pastime, an irreleva nce. The Promoter's ignorance was compounded when he used factually inaccurate data to prop up his defence. The 'flash' movement of trains passing at 250 mph every few minutes combined with the noise events likened to a passing jet aircraft will cause fight and flight responses in horses; they will not habituate to this type of event. There will be accidents and fatalities if robust forms of mitigation are not put in place. Thus far no assura nces have been confirmed and no meaningful mitigation has been put in place.

Similarly no habituation will occur on roads and lanes where HS2 Ltd project 750 extra HGV and other traffic movements a day together with all the necessary traffic management necessary to facilitate entering and exiting the co nstruction site and compounds. Frustrations and accidents and fatalities are likely to occur.

The petitioner asks that the long deep bore tunnel option is commissioned for her and the local equine community as the only full, fair and safe mitigation to ameliorate all the above health and safety and animal welfare issues.

The petitioners lifelong relationship with equines and her ability, and that of other riders, to ride out safely during the construction process and beyond is in doubt. Your petitioner has enjoyed a lifelong and continuing active outdoor life and is, therefore, specially and directly affected.

6. High Speed Rail Ltd versus those Specially and Directly affected

High Speed Rail Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport, the Promoter, have treated those specially and directly affected with distain and as a mere distraction in the process of building HS2 at any cost. The petitioner and many others have been made to feel irrelevant and belittled at the hands of HS2 Ltd's 'expert' representatives who often displayed a frightening and unacceptable degree of ignorance of their subject.

High Speed Rail Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport, the Promoter, have not made a credible economic, robust scientific or reliable engineering case for building the railway. They continue to use fundamentally flawed scientific and engineering principles and methodology to make their case.

The ir failure to publish the 2011 Major Projects Authority Report resorting to defending long lega l battles before applying the Ministerial veto was lamentable. The veto was eventually overturned and the damning 2011 MPA Report published, however, they have continued the same process of blocking and secrecy for all subsequent reports. The long legal battles were undertaken at the taxpayers expense. The economic and scientific viability of High Speed Rail remains in question.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee are currently investigating HS2 Ltd. The PACAC has already confirmed maladministration and described the treatment of affected residents as 'falling below reasonable standards'. Simon Kirby CEO High Speed Rail apologised publically for mistakes made. The petitioner asks their Lordships to decide if the lack of honesty, openness and transparency exhibited by HS2 Ltd and the Promoter is acceptable behaviour by Government when it leaves your specially and directly affected petitioner, her communities and her Member of Parliament at a considerable disadvantage due to a lack of accurate and accessible vital information. The petitioner's su bmission to the above inquiry has been accepted into evidence.

The HS2 Project remains a concept with a inherent lack of honesty, openness and transparency at its heart. No meaningful mitigation for the petitioner or her area has, thus far, been put in place. HS2 Ltd intend that High Speed Rail will be built doing whatever it takes and at whatever the cost to the petitioner and all other affected residents. Your specially and directly affected petitioner asks their Lordships to mitigate aga inst all of the above by ensuring the veil of secrecy is lifted and the practises of maladministration and the questionable ethics used by HS2 Ltd and the Promoter is not allowed to continue to breach her, and other affected residents, Human Rights and, therefore, their day to day lives, health and wellbeing.

7. The Prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

SHEILA COOPER 12 April 2016 TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2015-16 HL: 209

PETITION AGAINST THE

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

THE PETITION OF ALEXANDER AND NATASHA DOUGLAS

Declares that:

1. Your Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by all of the Clauses of the Bill.

2. Your Petitioners are Alexander and Natasha Douglas, who are the freehold owners of Mill Lane House, Chipping Warden, Banbury, OXON OX17 1JZ. Mill Lane House is in the Chipping Warden Conservation Area. Mill Lane House is less than half a mile from the proposed line of Phase One of HS2. In common with most old properties in the area, Mill Lane House is built on clay and has very little in the form of foundations.

3. Chipping Warden is a particularly beautiful and tranquil village in South Northamptonshire with several listed buildings, and the church of St Peter and St Paul which is of specific historical significance, and is included in the South Northants Special Landscape Area. The centre of social activity for the village, accessed only by the Culworth Road, includes The Griffin pub, a large and well used village hall, a cricket pitch which doubles as a football playing field in the winter and the village playing field for young children. This 'hub' of village life is 250m from the proposed line of HS2, and there are no physical barriers between this hub and the line.

4. Your Petitioners are frequent users of the only road out of the village to the east, Culworth Road , and are also frequent users of the network of bridleways and public footpaths in South Northamptonshire, particularly those to the south and east of Chipping Warden , which your Petitioners consider an important amenity for the village. One of your humble petitioners, Alexander Douglas, also commutes daily by bicycle from Chipping Warden to Banbury Station, his route goes via the Culworth Road , Wardington Road and Banbury Road before joining the dedicated cycle path to Banbury thereby avoiding the very dangerous A361 except for a short stretch of 30mph speed restricted road in Wardington itself.

5. One of your humble petitioners, Natasha Douglas, is a member of Chipping Warden Parish Council and in that capacity has had meetings with HS2 Ltd with a view to trying to find ways of mitigating the damage to the village that will be caused by Phase One of HS2.

6. Your Petitioners allege that they and their property, rights and interests in the Chipping Warden area and in the wider South Northamptonshire/North Oxfordshire area would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in its present form . Accordingly, your Petitioners object to the Bill for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Impact on public roads, bridleways, public footpaths and other rights of way

7. As frequent users of the road network in South Northamptonshire and North Oxfordshire, your Petitioners are gravely concerned about the effects that construction traffic will have on the roads, including B roads and other minor roads within the District due to their lack of suitability for HGVs and the popularity of local routes with cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians.

8. Your Petitioners are also gravely concerned about the use of inappropriate rural lanes for relatively high volumes of traffic. Even if construction and operations traffic is prohibited from using minor roads, as it should be, there will be an upsurge in traffic on these roads as other traffic seeks to avoid the heavy machinery on the main roads.

2 9. Your Petitioners request that roads below an 'A' classification are avoided by HGVs in order to minimise the negative impacts of construction. Where routes other than 'A' category roads are required , designated haul roads should be considered in discussion with the Local Highways Authorities, the relevant District Councils and the relevant Parish Councils as well as residents. During construction, the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker must maintain the quality of the highways on which it is the predominant user, and after construction, roads and footpath, cycleway and bridleway disturbed by construction work must be returned to their original size, and character, and all damage sympathetically restored by the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker.

10. Your Petitioners drive frequently between Chipping Warden and Greatworth, where one of your Petitioner's parents live. As such, your Petitioners make frequent use of Culworth Road in Chipping Warden. The entrance to the Culworth Road from the A361 is totally unsuitable for construction traffic, not only is it too narrow, only one car width at times due to parked cars, but also it is the 'hub' of village social life and is constantly used by pedestrians. Also, your Petitioners are gravely concerned at the proposal that Culworth Road from Chipping Warden should be closed not just during the construction phase but on a permanent basis. Culworth Road is approximately 1.0 miles long and the shortest alternative route between the two ends of that road would be more than twice this distance at 2.3 miles, of which 1.1 miles would be along the heavily used and dangerous A361. Your Petitioners believe that Culworth Road , Chipping Warden is too valuable to be lost and that the alternative route is too long and too dangerous to be viable. Your Petitioners therefore request that all construction traffic access the area from the north, via a purpose built road if necessary, and every effort be made to find a way of keeping Culworth Road open on a permanent basis so that it is only closed to village traffic for a short period during the railway construction.

3 11. Your Petitioners understand it is intended the Culworth Road in Chipping Warden will be used by construction and operations traffic to access the Chipping Warden Green Tunnel (South Portal) Satellite Compound and the Portal Building. This will result in extra traffic on the A361 through Wardington and Chipping Warden, as well as along the Culworth Road through the heart of the village. An alternative route from the Welsh Road could and should be constructed to avoid all of these issues.

12. Traffic anticipated to visit the proposed main construction site in South Northamptonshire via the A361 will have significant adverse impacts on the health and livelihood of local residents due to increased noise and air pollution. The proposed bypass of Chipping Warden village will alleviate some of these concerns but cannot hope to alleviate the wider issues of congestion on the A361 , together with attendant safety, environmental and social concerns.

13. Your Petitioners understand HS2 intends to reduce the construction traffic on the highway network by using a haul road alongside the railway construction site. Without an explanation of the location of this road , its proposed construction, the duration of its use and the hours of the day in which it will be used your Petitioners are unable to judge if this is an acceptable solution. Your Petitioners live within half a mile of the railway and therefore could be within half a mile of the haul road and negatively impacted by its construction, noise during its use, and dust and other pollution. The haul road would be to the north east of the property, which is currently a direction from which little or no natural noise at all emanates; you Petitioners consider the HS2 project should preserve this situation at all times during construction and operation of the railway, including construction and use of a haul road .

14. Your petitioners are concerned at the prospect of heavy construction traffic, and increased other traffic related to the construction, on the A361 in general and particularly through the village of Wardington. Many of the houses in Wardington are old and directly on the road , which is narrow and winding. The road currently is extremely dangerous when HGVs pass

4 along it; this will be multiplied several times over with construction traffic. This danger is (i) to the integrity of the buildings in Wardington in the face of vibration from the traffic, (ii) to the residents and buildings in the event an accident results in a collision with a building, (iii) to the residents and others using roadside pavements and the roads themselves, whether in cars, on bicycles or on horseback, and (iv) to the health of the residents when faced with atmospheric pollution from diesel particulates and other pollutants, and the increase in noise and vibration. Your Petitioners suggest no construction traffic, whether heavy plant and HGVs or construction workers in their cars, should be permitted to pass through Wardington. A new access road to the construction site and depots should be built to connect with a suitable trunk road or motorway, to address this risk to life and property.

15. Your Petitioners request that the above concerns over construction traffic through Wardington largely apply also to the remainder of the A361 which it is planned will be used for at least 500 truck journeys each way per day during construction. The use of the A361 for construction traffic in this way will greatly reduce its capacity for local traffic and greatly impact the journey time to Banbury and the M40 of residents of Chipping Warden including your Petitioners. The safety and environmental concerns apply equally to road users on the remainder of the A360. Your Petitioners suggest the solution would again be to construct a temporary access route to avoid using the highway network. Any such route should be subject to full consultation with local residents and not result in any additional noise, pollution or inconvenience. As noted elsewhere in this petition, a haul route along the railway site may not necessarily solve these problems without additional burden on your Petitioners or other residents of Chipping Warden.

16. As frequent users of the network of bridleways and footpaths in the South Northamptonshire/North Oxfordshire area, your Petitioners believe that the opportunity of the HS2 project should be used to bring improvements to existing bridleways and public footpaths, where this can be done at

5 relatively little cost. Your Petitioners request that the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker should be required to engage in discussions with Local Authorities and the relevant statutory consultees and local residents along the route to see where inexpensive improvements can be made to the present right of way infrastructure.

17. In any event your Petitioners request that alternative provision for cycling safely between Chipping Warden and Banbury be provided; the A361 is not an appropriate route now and will be considerably less so with increased construction traffic. The short section of route on the A361 through Wardington itself, which it is necessary to use to get to Banbury safely at present, will be unacceptably dangerous to all users with construction traffic on the road , and particularly dangerous to cyclists. The Welsh Road will become busier during construction and will not be an appropriate route for cyclists, particularly as the Culworth Road is purported to be permanently closed from construction onwards. In each case, alternative provision should be made to avoid or mitigate the risk of injury and death.

Noise standards during Construction and Operation

18. As people who live in South Northamptonshire and who hugely cherish the tranquillity of Chipping Warden village and of the wider South Northamptonshire/ North Oxfordshire countryside, your Petitioners are gravely concerned about the impact of noise on the tranquillity of the area. South Northamptonshire Council has carried out local noise monitoring and has evidence that the local dBA level is typically between 25 and 30, measured at six locations in the district within 200m of the proposed line, a mere fraction of what it will be during construction and once the proposed railway line is constructed.

19. The current guidance is that noise mitigation is not considered necessary where average Decibel levels are below 50dBA. In short, an urban area will receive mitigation where noise levels are anticipated to rise from, for example 45dBA to 51dBA, whereas a rural area, such as South

6 Northamptonshire, could see levels rise from 25dBA to 49dBA without any mitigation.

20. Your Petitioners request that the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker be required to provide mitigation to reduce the nuisance where ambient dBA noise levels are set to increase by more than 3 dBA and in any event be required to achieve an absolute sound pressure level of 35dBA and an increase on ambient measured noise of less than +3dBA. Such mitigation should be in place to control noise levels during construction, by restricting working hours and providing physical screening from noise, and the subsequent operation of the line by means of placing as much of the line as possible in tunnels or other sound containing enclosures. The tunnelling at Chipping Warden , as in many other places on the proposed route, is inadequate to protect the community and should be extended in both directions but particularly southwards to screen Edgcote and other residences. One of your humble petitioners has twenty years of experience of implementing and managing infrastructure projects worldwide; for reference in Cote d'Ivoire, which may be considered less sophisticated than South Northamptonshire, new development must result in a sound pressure level at the closest receptor of less than 35dBA at night (45dBA by day), AND an increase on previously measured ambient noise of less than 3dBA- wh ichever is the more stringent. You petitioners humbly suggest the United Kingdom should require at least the equivalent protection for its citizens, and very probably much greater protection.

21 . Your Petitioners note the Promoter's use of average noise levels to justify levels of operational noise, particularly night time noise. Your Petitioners request that account be taken of peak noise levels, to properly consider the impact on rural activities including equestrian pursuits, and on sleep during the night or day for those who work at night. If the peak noise level will be above that likely to wake any resident, including your Petitioners, appropriate mitigation should be taken by the Promoter or its Nominated Undertaker (irrespective of whether a person chooses to sleep with a

7 window open or in their garden in a tent) to eliminate the nuisance and well documented risks to health.

22. HS2 has previously suggested that placing more of the railway in a tunnel would not be practical for reasons of cost and scheduling. Your Petitioners submit that reducing the impact of construction and operating noise, emissions, dust and other issues on residents along the HS2 line, including your Petitioners, should not be limited on cost of scheduling grounds. Your Petitioners live mid-way between the two stations on the Phase 1 line and as such will suffer all the downside in construction and operation of the line, for none of the benefit of using it. Your Petitioners request that HS2 or the Nominated Undertaker should be required to implement the most sympathetic route and engineering solutions possible, regardless of cost and where such solutions do not eliminate the impact on local residents they should be fully financially compensated.

23. Further and without prejudice to the specifics of the foregoing, your Petitioners request that as the main driver for the proposed railway is apparently no longer speed , and as noise is directly related to speed, the night-time running speed of the railway in rural areas should be limited to control noise to a negligible increase over background levels between 10pm and ?am.

Impact of the Main Construction Compound and other Construction Issues

24. Your Petitioners are gravely concerned over the siting of a 'main construction compound' north of the village on the airfield by the A361. Your Petitioners feel that a rural village environment is most unsuited to an influx of construction workers, particularly when there are limited amenities in the village. Any provision for such workers will alter the character of the village to its detriment, and without such provision the village will be at risk of the behaviour of bored itinerant workers. Your Petitioners request that there is no onsite accommodation at the main construction compound and that workers are accommodated somewhere

8 more suitable, such as Banbury or Daventry, and transported into the construction site in accordance with the transportation restrictions requested elsewhere in this Petition.

Impact on Carbon Dioxide Emission Levels

25. Your Petitioners are acutely aware of the various policies throughout the United Kingdom, the European Union and a substantial part of the rest of the world, relating to reducing carbon dioxide emission levels with a view to reducing or eliminating climate change impacts for this and future generations. You Petitioners are also aware of the significant sums of money expended, and visual and other environmental impacts of schemes such as wind farms and solar farms. Your Petitioners are extremely concerned at the carbon emissions represented by a train travelling at the speeds at which HS2 is proposed to operate, and by the construction activity to put in place the infrastructure to allow the train to operate at all. Your Petitioners request that the speed of HS2 be limited to allow a fraction of the energy to be consumed and hence keep C02 emissions to a more environmentally friendly level, bearing in mind that halving the speed of the train would approximate to using a quarter of the energy and hence C02. Your Petitioners are perplexed by the paradox of a low carbon electricity generation industry and a high carbon public transport network when the goal is an overall reduction in C02 emissions.

Property Compensation Scheme

26. Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions in relation to property that is not compulsory acquired and other matters are not sufficient to compensate your Petitioners adequately for the loss and damage they may incur as a result of construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development.

27. Your Petitioners request that the Bill should be amended to ensure your Petitioners and other persons outside the safeguarded area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should be entitled to claim full compensation for the loss of value in their property,

9 and the cost to them of any delay in selling their property and other related costs resulting from HS2.

Visual impact of construction

28. Your Petitioners and other villagers attach great importance to the views from the village, particularly from the cricket pitch and the public footpaths to the east and south of the village, including the famous 'Battlefields Walk' that runs from the village to the ancient battle field of Edgcote which is an English Heritage registered battlefield and is recognised as a significant heritage asset by the Battlefields Trust. The earthworks will be clearly visible from many points accessible to the public in an unspoilt ancient landscape. Your Petitioners request that visual screening be put in place, and that this must also be maintained to a high standard.

Visual impact of rail infrastructure

29. Your Petitioners attach great importance to the countryside of South Northamptonshire and North Oxfordshire and are therefore gravely concerned about the visual impacts of the anticipated urban design nature of infrastructure such as road bridges, viaducts, culverts, green tunnel mouths and vents. These structures will be clearly visible from many points accessible to the public in an unspoilt ancient landscape. The designs shown in HS2 Ltd's own visual interpretations will not fit in with the surrounding environment. This will have a significant negative impact on the landscape, and ruin the aesthetics of the local environment.

30. In order to minimise the impact of the proposal, your Petitioners request that prior to construction, the Promoter or the Nominated Undertaker be required to consult with South Northamptonshire Council, the neighbouring Parish Councils and local residents on the detailed drawings and plans for bridges, viaducts, culverts and green tunnel mouths and vents, which your Petitioners believe must be designed to fit in with the surrounding environment, respect the local vernacular and be maintained to a high standard. Your Petitioners request that visual screening be put in place, and that this must also be maintained to a high standard.

10 . .

31. Your Petitioners request that the design of infrastructure should be appropriate to a rural setting , in that the structures, construction materials and surface finishes are ones that complement the surrounding. Your Petitioners request that, where possible, structures that will be visible should be faced in brick similar to that used extensively in the construction of the Great Central Railway, the last major railway to be built in the country, which was closed some 60-70 years after it was opened in circa 1900. The bricks used on the Great Central Railway fit very well into the South Northamptonshire/North Oxfordshire countryside and your Petitioners earnestly request that similar bricks be used in facing as many as possible of the new HS2 structures, especially the portals and other structures at the mouth of the green tunnel by Chipping Warden.

Planting with appropriate species

32. Your Petitioners are gravely concerned that the impact on the unspoilt rural landscape will be exacerbated by the use of alien species of planting and that species used for mitigation purposes such as visual screening and reducing the effects of noise may be 'generic' along the route.

33. Your Petitioners request that the Promoter or Nominated Undertaker be required to ensure that the species used are those that will resist climate change, and be complementary to the local habitat and that the species to be used in South Northamptonshire should be agreed with all appropriate agencies including South Northamptonshire Council, local Parish Councils, the Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trust and local residents.

General

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

11 . .

Your Petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND your Petitioners remain, etc.

Alexander Douglas Natasha Douglas

11 April 2016

12 HL: 210

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Mary Cockerell, John Cockerell, Jane Cockerell, Brian Adams, Martin Harris, Sheila Harris, Sandra Butler, Aimee Butler, Arthur Dark, Enid Dark, Roy Dowsett, Sylvia Dowsett, Paul Fowles, Thomas Fowles, Sue Andrews, Rosemary Gilbard, Roberto Brandoni, Susan Brandoni,Penny Fowles, Ellena Fowles, Sue Kilby, Phil Kilby, Carol Page, Ron Lavender, Jess Page, Ian Jenkins, Brenda Squires, John Squires, Kim Richardson, Ron Richardson, Brenda Bateman, Margaret Spencer, Kathy Nicholl, Mary Castello, David Bond, Eileen Bond, Antonio Castello, Pauline Start, Sean Stark, Sydney Harper, June Harper, Ray Heyd, Richard Piper, Heather Piper, Sumeera Malhotra, Riya Malhotra, Simran Malhotra, Shriya Malhotra, Sunil Malhotra, Clive Beard, Anna Beard, Chris Bull, Margaret Stokes, John Stokes, Doreen Meldon, Brigid Croxford, Mark Holland, Jodie Holland, Ben Holland, Angela Adams

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly affected by the whole bill.

2. Your petitioners are the owners of residential properties located in Break.spear Road South in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

3. Your petitioners allege that they are specially and directly affected by the Bill and their property, rights and interests would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions ofthe Bill ifpassed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Introduction

4. Your petitioners oppose the Bill in principle. Whilst your petitioners acknowledge that the principle of the Bill is established at third reading, your petitioners' views on the subject are so strong, they must be recorded in this petition.

5. Your petitioners consider that the Environmental Statement did not adequately assess the impacts on Ickenham roads, schools, employment, ecology, air quality, local

1 services, emergency services, drainage and flooding. It was prepared with great haste and the most adverse effects were never discussed at Community Forums.

6. HS2 Ltd refused to engage in discussion to mitigate the adverse impacts on Ickenham. Even with the intervention of our local MP in September 2013 HS2 Ltd refused to meet with your petitioners to discuss extending the tunnel beyond West Ruislip.

7. There are many matters which cause great concern to your petitioners arising from the proposals in the Bill. Your petitioners are hopeful that many of their concerns can be met by agreement with the promoter of the Bill.

General Concerns 8. As residents of Ickenham your petitioners have identified several specific significant concerns which are set out below. This list is by no means exhaustive, and due to the inadequacy and inaccuracies of the Environmental Statement prepared by HS2, it is inevitable that the construction ofHS2 will disrupt the lives of your petitioners in ways which have not yet been considered.

Tunnel Extension 9. Your petitioners respectfully submit that the proposal to carry the railway overground through the area between Ruislip and the M25 will give rise to many community, health, business and environmental impacts. In your petitioners' respectful submission the cumulative effects of all these adverse impacts requires that a bored tunnel should be constructed instead of an overland route across Ickenham and the Colne Valley.

10. Given all the concerns and issues arising from the overland route in lckenham and the Colne Valley your petitioners believe that the additional costs of an extension of the London tunnelling would be justified.,_

11. The following paragraphs set out in more details your petitioners' justification for a tunnel and they also explain the remedies that your petitioners seek as a minimum in respect of the matters that are covered, should your honourable House not find in favour of a tunnel.

Specific Concerns

Noise 12. Your petitioners understand from the Environmental Statement that there will be significant adverse noise impacts as a direct result ofthe overground high speed railway in Ickenham and during the construction of the works. Your petitioners will suffer adverse effects from construction sites in Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South for a period of ten years.

2 13. Your petitioners are concerned that the noise thresholds chosen by HS2 Ltd do not reflect current World Health Organisation standards or the latest research which shows adverse health impacts from prolonged exposure to noise above WHO limits.

Your petitioners request your honourable House to require the nominated undertaker to ensure that operation of the high speed railway does not exceed 40dB, the threshold identified by the WHO as appropriate for ensuring no long term health issues for persons living nearby.

14. Your petitioners request your honourable House to require that the nominated undertaker should be compelled to use best available techniques in the construction and operation of the high speed railway and its associated development to ensure that no noise can be felt in the residential dwellings and there are no other adverse effects.

15. Your petitioners also request your honourable House to require that there should be binding mitigation measures on the nominated undertaker including effective noise mitigation and monitoring system in place before commencement and during construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development together with the provision of adequate compensation measures.

Construction Traffic 16. Your petitioners are gravely concerned about the inadequacy of measures proposed to mitigate the effects of construction traffic throughout Ickenham. The siting of three construction sites in Ickenham up to 10 years with other constructions sites in nearby Harefield will cause significant disruption and congestion to Ickenham suburban roads by HGV traffic which are already heavily congested by local traffic and through traffic from commuters across North West London. Breakspear Road South, Harvil Road, Swakeleys Road, Ickenham High Road are already heavily congested during morning and evening peak times. A number of side roads such as Copthall Road West, St Georges Drive, Greenacres Avenue, Thornhill Road, Ivy House Road, Warren Road are already affected by 'rat running', Your petitioners are concerned that they will be adversely affected in travelling to their jobs, taking children to schools and in carrying out their day to day activities.

17. Your petitioners also request that the nominated undertaker be required to mitigate by amending the Code of Construction Practice to strictly enforce the measures such as but not restricted to the following:

(a) restricting HGV movements inside peak hours throughout Ickenham and prohibiting HGV movements near school routes for 30 minutes before and after the start and end of the school day ( during term time)

(b) operating a low emissions shuttle bus system for construction workers from key public transport interchanges to avoid parking for contractors at the construction compounds

3 (c) constructing such facilities as may be necessary to remove spoil from Ickenham by rail, so avoiding the creation of the spoil dumps between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South.

Health and Welfare 18. Your petitioners are gravely concerned that the emergency services will be unable to provide timely support to their families and property due to road congestion during the construction period. The roads in Ickenham provide access to Harefield Hospital dedicated Heart Attack Centre which is used for emergencies from outer north-west London; according to the Trust speed of treatment has shown to be crucial to survival in these cases. Your petitioners wish to ensure that the nominated undertaker will at all times during the construction works maintain adequate access through Ickenham for emergency services.

Environment 19. Your petitioners make extensive use of the recreational facilities afforded by the London Borough of Hillingdon and the Colne Valley and are very concerned about the following impacts of the high speed railway: ( a) Diversions of public rights of way are so lengthy and in some cases diverted to onto busy roads, e.g. Breakspear Road South, with no footways representing a danger to the public's lives. (b) The loss of the Hillingdon Outdoor activity Centre which provides leisure and educational facilities for your petitioners and their families ( c) The impacts on Uxbridge and Ruislip Golf courses which may require their temporary or permanent closure ( d) Adverse effects on the ecology in particular on the bat and owl populations. ( e) The use of the green belt areas of Ickenham between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South as spoil dumps.

20. The only practicable mitigation for all these impacts is the full tunnel as requested above. 21. Should your honourable House not find in favour of such a tunnel, your petitioners request that your nominated undertaker be required to construct such facilities as may be necessary to remove spoil from Ickenham by rail.

Air Pollution 22. Your petitioners are concerned that unless the railway is constructed in a tunnel a significant amount of HGV traffic arising from three major construction sites will be directed through Ickenham and will converge on Swakeleys Road, a roadway already exceeding minimum EU standards for health and used by the petitioners' schoolchildren walking to Vyners School. HS2 HGV traffic should only use haul roads and not have access to our local roads.

4 Vibration

23. Your petitioners are concerned about the effects of vibration ansmg from the construction of the high speed railway and associated development including heavy construction traffic.

24. Your petitioner requests your honourable House to require that there should be binding mitigation measures on the nominated undertaker, including vibration and resultant damage mitigation and monitoring system in place before commencement and during construction and operation. Binding mitigation measures should include but not be limited to an express obligation to undertake specific measures to limit structural and other damage to their properties.

Drainage and flooding 25. Your petitioners are also concerned that there is an increased risk of surface water flooding from placement of excavated material and construction of works between Harvil Road and Break.spear Road South. Your petitioners believe that the Bill as it stands makes no provision to safeguard your petitioners' roads and properties from flooding and groundwater contamination and the provisions necessary for their protection have been omitted from it. Your petitioners request that the nominated undertaker commission a detailed independent assessment of the risks of surface water flooding or the implications on ground water contamination which can form the basis of comprehensive mitigation proposals.

Proposed Railhead at Ickenham

26. Your petitioners would request your honourable House to require that the proposed railhead at lckenham be operational as soon as possible and well in advance of any tunnelling works, in order to minimise the transportation of spoil and materials by roads and the dumping of spoil in green belt areas of Ickenham between Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South.

'Sustainable Placement Areas' 27. Your petitioners are concerned about the vast quantity of spoil that is to be dispersed in Ickenham. Your petitioners consider that the areas that have been selected for the 'Sustainable Placement' of material have not been properly assessed. Your petitioners request your honourable House to require that HS2 re-evaluate the areas identified for the deposit of spoil in terms of their suitability and prepare alternative proposals for consultation.

Local Transport Services

28. Your petitioners are concerned that the proposals for HS2 will cause significant disruption to existing bus, rail and underground services. The Ul, U9 and UIO bus

5 routes are vital links for many of your petitioners' older constituents and these services will be greatly impacted by the increased traffic congestion levels. The extensive construction works and railhead required at West Ruislip are a particular cause for concern as the LT Central Line and Chiltern railway are used by your petitioners to travel to their places of work. Your petitioners request your honourable House to require assurances from the undertaker that your petitioners transport services will not be disrupted during construction works.

Landscape

29. Your petitioners understand from the Environmental Statement that there will be significant adverse impacts on their landscape both during the ten year construction phase and from the dumping of excavated materials. Your petitioners believe that as the Bill stands it makes no provision to protect the landscape character of their area and request that the Bill is amended so as to provide protection to your petitioners.

Compensation

30. Your petitioners own residential properties which are subject to adverse effects up to 10 years from construction sites in Harvil Road and Breakspear Road South, high volumes of HGV traffic and the dumping of spoil up to 3 metres high in fields opposite and adjacent to the properties. HS2 do not propose to pay compensation for this blight and your petitioners are unable to sell their properties when they require and at un blighted prices.

31. Your petitioners request your honourable House to amend the Bill to ensure your petitioners outside the safeguarded areas who are also injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value to their properties should be entitled to claim compensation.

Heathrow Spurs 32. Your petitioners are of the view that there is no business case for the Heathrow spurs and there is no positive cost benefit case for the disruption during construction or operation as part of Phase Two of the HS2 project. Your petitioners ask that the Bill be amended so that passive provision for the spurs is removed. Your petitioners request that HS2 take the opportunity to use the costs savings from the dismissal of the Heathrow spurs to build the Colne Valley tunnel as requested.

33. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, ifpassed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights and interests and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners.

6 The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill. AND the petitioners remain, etc

7 HL: 211

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MATTHEW SEMPLE, SHEILA ROBINSON, LYNDA CRANE, JOHN CRANE, MARGOT HALLIDAY, GERRY HALLIDAY, CHRISTINE M ELLIOTT, CAROL LANE, JUNG JON TUCKER, IRENE GREENWELL, BELINDA SZVMANSKI, BRENDA WOOLLEY, ANDREA GOHIL, & ROBERT JONES-OWEN

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners are some of the 30 or so recreational walkers from an informal Thursday walking group known as the Odds and Ends.

3. Your petitioners allege that as walkers they are specially and directly affected by the Bill and their interests would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Specific Concern

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

4. Numerous footpaths/bridleways are subject to closure and/or diversion often decanting users on to roads (some of them busy and/or without paths). Many of these PRoW are used by residents to get from A to B; not just by recreational walkers/riders. For recreational walkers the diversions will add distance and delay (through areas supervised by contractors) hindering 'connectivity' of walks as well as making it difficult to continue to enjoy the landscape and flora and fauna of this beautiful area on the outskirts of London.

5. Your petitioners highlight two major concerns (amongst many):-

(a) The proposed diversion of one footpath(U81) making it much longer (temporarily), and then permanently between the tracks of HS2 and the existing Chiltern Line;

(b) The severance of the Celandine Route, and the diversion on to the busy Breakspear Road South and under the Chiltern Line bridge. HS2 Ltd gave an assurance that this diversion could be made 'whilst maintaining traffic flow and ensuring pedestrian safety'. None of the 5 proposals put forward by HS2 Ltd's consultants - Mott McDonald - achieve this. The least disruptive of t he 5 proposals would still delay vehicles and pedestrians. One effect not mentioned hitherto is that the prestigious and longstanding 20 mile road race that passes under the bridge 4 times would have to change its route.

1 Mitigation

6. Your petitioners respectfully submit that the only satisfactory mitigation for the effects on their specific concern accumulated with those raised by others requires that a bored tunnel be constructed instead of an overland route beyond the West Ruislip portal, and they ask your honourable House to find in favour of a tunnel.

7. Failing this, your petitioners ask your honourable house to request an independent comparison of fill the costs and benefits (including non-pecuniary, and others difficult but necessary to quantify; plus the costs/benefits of mitigation measures) of the extended tunnel beyond the West Ruislip Portal and the overland route by viaduct across the Caine Valley. They respectfully request that your honourable House reserves judgement until the results of the comparison are available.

The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Matthew Semple

continued

2 AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Matthew Semple HL: 212 To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill.

THE PETITION OF Thomas A Bankes

Declares that :

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by "the whole Bill"

2. The petitioner is a private individual who is the sole owner to a 90 acre site of land and Lake that the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) proposes to cross. The property is known as Savay lake, and the address is Moorhall road, Nr Denham, Uxbridge UB9 6PE. Savay Lake is situated within the Colne Valley and the site has been run as a nationally known Freshwater Fishery and Wildlife site for the past SO years.

3. The current proposal for the Bill is that Hs2 plans to cross 500 metres of the mentioned lake and land with a double tracked viaduct situated 15 metres above water surface level that will fragment the lake and land into several broken boundaries that will bare the va lue of the petitioners property near useless as the access rights will have unusable and unsaleable complications. The sites value within the SSSI Colne Va lley Park is due to its tranquillity and uninterrupted establishment since its excavation as a gravel pit after the second world War, therefore if the Bill is passed in its present form it will become a great loss to the local community and all those that use it.

Due to the proposed Visible and Audible destruction that the proposal will cause to the site, surrounding area, and Petitioner, t he compensation for loss of Business and Value can only be realistically accessed after the proposals construction and running use has taken place that would become due to the Viaducts unknown impacts, therefore a possible lack in compensation before realistic detriment is fully understood is of considerable concern to the petitioner. The inevitable devaluation of land along the length of the line will also encourage unauthorized access and possible theft of assets from the Fishery which is of primary concern and an issue that the petitioner feels the promoter should be fully liable to prevent and maintain boundaries by all means if construction is to take place.

The petitioner along with many other petitioners from Denham and Harefield have petitioned for the consideration for the construction of a tunnel through the Colne Va lley Park now that the Heathrow Spu r has been omitted from the Bill and taking into view that independent valuations have shown that a tunnels construction would cost marginally 2% more than a viaduct of the same length for the benefit of preserving the Colne Valley Park and its SSSI status as it presently exists. This would make tunnelling a proposal that the petitioner is still very much in favour of consideration.

4. The petitioner t herefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues ra ised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND t he petitioner remains, etc.

Thomas A Barlkes

Date: 1-z. T"' APIZ IL '2o 16 HL: 213 To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF BRIAN CABLE MBE

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. The petitioner:

Your petitioner is the joint owner of the property at 10 Harvil Road, Ickenham. Your petitioner's property has the valuable attractions of unrestricted and picturesque views across open fields and Greater London together with easy and convenient pedestrian access to open countryside across the land currently occupied by Uxbridge Golf Course. The enjoyment of their house by your petitioner and his wife and their quality of life will be severely affected by the proximity and nature of High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) construction activity and the impact of construction traffic on local roads and the environment. Your petitioner is particularly concerned that the adverse impact on all households along and adjacent to Harvil Road has barely been considered at all.

3. Your petitioner alleges that he and his property, rights and interests in Ickenham would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in their present form and he accordingly objects to the Bill for the reasons, amongst others, stated hereafter.

Introduction

4. Your petitioner is concerned that three years after the Environmental Statement was published and after several additional provisions, plus several degrees of unconvincing community engagement, HS2 Ltd has still not adequately assessed the impacts on Ickenham countryside, roads, schools, employment, ecology, air quality, local services, emergency services, drainage, flooding and the destruction of the quality of life for many residents. Your petitioner is concerned that HS2 Ltd also fails to address many of the issues and necessary interventions identified as crucial to recognising the residential nature of Ickenham and its community. 1 5. Your petitioner has identified several significant concerns which are set out below. This list is by no means exhaustive and, due to the inadequacy and vagueness of statements and position papers issued by HS2 Ltd, your petitioner has little confidence in the ability of HS2 Ltd to mitigate the impact on our community. Consequently, it is inevitable that the construction of HS2 will disrupt the lives of your petitioner and numerous other residents in ways that have yet to be identified.

Tunnel Extensions

6. Your petitioner respectfully submits that the proposal to carry the railway over-ground through the area between Ruislip and the M25 is ill-founded and will give rise to many community, health, business and environmental impacts. Your petitioner also submits that the cumulative effects of all these adverse impacts require that a bored tunnel should be constructed instead of an overland route across Ickenham and the Caine Valley. Given the multitude of concerns and issues arising from the overland route in this area, your petitioner believes that the additional costs, if any, of an extension of the London tunnelling would be justified.

7. Given HS2 Ltd's persistent objection to a tunnel extension, your petitioner believes that there should be an independent, detailed cost comparison of the proposed tunnel extension versus the total costs of overland construction through Ickenham and the Caine Valley. The cost evaluation should be comprehensive, including land purchase, relocation of the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre (HOA(), haul roads, compensation packages, long-term costs of ecological mitigation sites, land restoration, mitigation measures and total real cost to the local economy.

8. Should your honourable house not find in favour of a tunnel across Ickenham and the Caine Valley your petitioner requests that the tunnel as a minimum is extended to beyond Breakspear Road South, Ickenham thereby avoiding significant adverse operational noise impacts from an over-ground railway on many hundreds of households in Ickenham. This would eliminate the requirement for the tunnel portal excavation and construction compound to be situated in a residential area with existing high levels of traffic congestion. The feasibility of such a tunnel extension has already been analysed by HS2 ltd.

9. Any extension of the tunnel would require the passive provision for a Heathrow Spur to be removed from the Bill and your petitioner respectfully submits that this should be deleted in toto.

Specific Concerns about Overland Construction

10. The following paragraphs outline your petitioner's concerns and identify the remedies that he and the Ickenham community seek as a minimum to allay their collective anxieties should your honourable House not find in favour of the tunnel being extended.

2 Construction Works

11. Your petitioner is concerned about the impact of the construction and operation of HS2 and its associated development including, but not limited to, the establishment of three large construction compounds in the area of Ickenham, heavy volumes of construction traffic, the dumping of spoil on green belt land, a large construction site on ancient farmland with a concrete tunnel lining component factory, de-contamination plant, lorry parks and storage of fuel. Your petitioner will also be affected adversely by an almost unbroken sequence of large construction sites extending 1.8 miles north to South Harefield.

12. Your petitioner requests your honourable House to require that HS2 Ltd commits to binding mitigation measures to limit the impacts of all these works on the community. Binding commitments should include, but not be limited to, operating hours, restrictions on noise, dust and vibration, total daily HGV movements and restricting HGV movements inside peak hours throughout Ickenham.

Construction Traffic

13. Your petitioner and other residents are gravely concerned about the inadequacy of measures proposed to mitigate the effects of construction traffic throughout Ickenham. The siting of three construction compounds in Ickenham for up to 10 years with other construction compounds in nearby Harefield will cause significant additional disruption and congestion to Ickenham suburban roads by the HGV traffic supporting HS2 activities. All local routes are already heavily congested by commuter traffic and through traffic from across North West London. Breakspear Road South, Harvil Road, Swakeleys Road, Ickenham High Road and Ickenham Road are already heavily congested during morning and evening peak times. A number of side roads are also badly affected by 'rat running' and this adds to the overall degree of congestion in peak hours.

14. Your petitioner is concerned that HS2 Ltd has yet to devise credible and acceptable measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the volumes of heavy traffic and the inevitable congestion and possible gridlock. He has no confidence in the various predictions by HS2 Ltd on HGV numbers, particularly along Harvil Road. The predicted numbers have been reduced significantly in successive HS2 Ltd revisions, but there has been no transparency on the reasoning or project adjustments to accommodate these changes. Moreover, the overall scope of the HS2 construction has not changed. Thus it remains a matter of serious concern to your petitioner and the residents of Ickenham that the overriding concerns about traffic congestion across Ickenham, including Swakeleys Roundabout, articulated on.numerous occasions, have yet to be addressed by HS2 Ltd. There is still no traffic management plan and references to modelling continually refer to reduction of overall traffic numbers, due to the influence of Crossrail, and an unfounded assumption that 30% of traffic will reassign to avoid congestion. Your petitioner shares the view of many others that there could be no degree of confidence in any traffic plan proposed unless local traffic flows are fully taken into account. Your petitioner therefore requests that HS2 Ltd be required to develop robust traffic management plans that fully take into account local conditions including the existing 3 high levels of HGV construction traffic along Harvil Road and Swakeleys Road, to and from local recycling sites, and the unique nature of many loca l junctions.

15. Your petitioner acknowledges that HS2 Ltd has undertaken to conduct a comprehensive review of traffic issues with Transport for London and the London Borough of Hillingdon, but your petitioner is concerned that any undertakings on traffic measures will be heavily caveated to accommodate exigencies for the project programme, construction delays and cost overrun.

Temporary Haul Roads

16. Your petitioner believes that the scope for using internal haul roads within the HS2 construction boundaries should be developed to connect the West Ruislip portal compound to the Northolt Tunnel Main compound on Harvil Road via the Breakspear Road South site.

17. Your petitioner recognises without reservation the potential benefit of the planned haul road across Uxbridge Golf Course from the Swakeleys Roundabout to the Northolt Tunnel Compound and the associated reduction in HGV traffic along Harvil Road and Swakeleys Road. However, your petitioner is particularly concerned that any failure to address traffic management and the unique problems arising at the Swakeleys Roundabout could result in HGV traffic diverting from the haul road back onto Harvil Road and any benefit would be nullified after great expense.

Traffic Mitigation

18. To accommodate the serious and persistent concerns of your petitioner and the Ickenham community you r petitioner respectfully requests that:

a. HS2 Ltd are required to make a clear and definitive commitment to a maximum daily number of HGV movements on local roads.

b. Wherever possible, HS2 HGV traffic should avoid local roads by using internal haul routes.

c. All necessary measures be taken to import material and to remove spoil from Ickenham by rail, to minimise the need for HGV traffic on local roads.

Placement of Spoil Material

20. The Hybrid Bill outlined detailed plans to deposit 2.8 million tonnes of spoil on parcels of land to the east of Harvil Road extending from just north of the junction of Harvil Road/Swakeleys Road and Breakspear Road South up to South Harefield. Additional Provision 4 introduced changes to the area bounded by Harvil Road, Breakspear Road South and the Chiltern Main Line that have significant impact upon your petitioner and his property. The area on which spoil is to be placed up to a height of 3 metres now has plans for temporary storage of additional spoil up to an unspecified height likely to be 4 well above 3 metres. Whereas previously your petitioner had received assurances that the placement areas would be quickly reinstated as grassland, the temporary storage is forecast to be 3 years at least and reinstatement could not be started until removal was completed. Thus the blight and construction activities on the Green Belt opposite will last many more years than originally forecast with consequent detriment to your . petitioner's quality of life, amenity and the value of his property and those of his neighbours.

21. Your petitioner is also concerned about the inconsistency of HS2 Ltd's declared intentions for the placement areas. HS2 Ltd's report dated 24/9/2015, page 8, includes a diagram dated 15/09/2015. It indicates that the placement area south of the Chiltern Main Line could be removed subject to construction of the haul road. The AP4 map (CT- 05-019a-Ll), however, is dated 17/09/2015, only two days later and shows the retained placement and temporary storage detailed above, with no indication that the permanent placement will not take place. The uncertainty created and sustained by these contradictions has greatly increased the already unreasonable degree of stress and anxiety suffered by your petitioner and his wife and neighbours.

22. Your petitioner acknowledges that HS2 Ltd has undertaken to conduct a comprehensive review of spoil placement and permanent dumping areas issues with the London Borough of Hillingdon, but your petitioner is concerned that any undertakings on spoil placement measures will also be heavily caveated to accommodate exigencies for the project programme, construction delays and cost overrun.

Mitigation of Spoil Placement

22. Your petitioner respectfully requests that HS2 Ltd be required to:

a. Re-examine the requirement and plans to establish permanent placement and temporary storage of spoil as defined in Paragraph 5.2 of the SES3 and AP4 ES Volume 2 - CFA 6 South Ruislip to Ickenham.

b. Commit to removing all spoil from the listed "sustainable placement" areas by rail.

c. Provide an undertaking at the very minimum to remove the sustainable placement area south of the Chiltern Main Line entirely.

c. To move all excavated and fill materials locally entirely on haul roads and avoid all public roads and rights of way.

Loss of Local Public Amenities and Open Spaces

23. HS2 will provide no benefit to Ickenham or indeed any part of Hillingdon Borough. Indeed, the Hybrid Bill will inflict extensive damage on the open spaces, footpaths and public sports facilities currently enjoyed by the residents of Hillingdon. Ruislip Golf Course will suffer temporary closure and never be reinstated as an eighteen-hole golf 5 facility. HOAC will disappear and its chances of survival and revival in a new location in its current form appear scant indeed.

24. Now the new proposals contained in AP4 will result in the destruction of Uxbridge Golf Course. AP4's vague plans for temporary closure and establishment of a much reduced facility will not work for a number of practical and economic reasons. Add to this the loss of public amenities and the industrialisation of countryside the length of Harvil Road, it becomes patently clear that the legacy of HS2 for our community will be one of destruction with no economic benefit at all.

25. Notwithstanding the apparent benefits of the proposed haul road, the Promoter has failed to acknowledge the socioeconomic impact of this plan and has not offered any level of mitigation that would compensate our community in the longer term.

Mitigation of Public Amenities

26. Your petitioner respectfully requests that:

a. Due recognition be given to the damage inflicted on public sports amenities in Ickenham and asks that provisions are brought forward by the Promoter to restore Uxbridge Golf Course to a full 18 holes of high standard as part compensation to the community.

b. Up to 150,000 cubic metres of inert spoil material is made available for renovation and reinstatement of Uxbridge Golf Course. The significant cost saving to HS2, by removing the need to transport this quantity of material away would pay for much of the repair and reinstatement of the golf course.

c. Construction spoil is used to establish mounds at the south end of Uxbridge Golf Course along the northern edge of the A40 trunk road, as a noise reduction measure for residences nearby.

Compensation

27. Your petitioner submits that the compensation provisions in relation to property that is not compulsory acquired and other matters are not sufficient to compensate your petitioner and other residents of Ickenham adequately for the loss and damage they may incur as a result of construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development. Many households in Ickenham will be affected by blight from construction sites and construction traffic for up to 10 years and in some cases permanently and will be unable to sell their properties at un-blighted prices. The current zonal compensation scheme means that houses situated together and suffering the same recognised level of blight will receive different treatment.

28. Your petitioner requests your honourable House to amend the Bill to ensure all house holders outside the safeguarded area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value to their properties should be entitled to claim compensation. 6 Conclusion

29. Notwithstanding the issues and measures raised above, the only practicable mitigation for all these impacts is the full tunnel to the M25 as requested.

30. Your petitioner respectfully requests the Select Committee of your Honourable House to direct HS2 Ltd to reconsider these proposals such that they do not have such a devastating impact on Ickenham and its countryside.

31. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your petitioner's rights and interests and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your petitioners.

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

7 To The House of Lords HL: 214 Session 2105-16

PE TITION AGAINST the: H igh -Speed rail (London - Midlands) Bill

The Petition of SYLVIA CATHERINE TEMPLE Declares that:

1.Yo ur petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by shedules 1-10 Compulsory acquisition of land. 11-13 Extinction and exclusion of rights over land. 14-18 Temporary possession of Land. 19-21 Planning and 29 trees, 32 Buildings, 33 Street Works, 34 Lorries. But in defence of common humanity across the borough in which she lives yom petitioner is affected by The Whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner is a resident living and working locally to Euston Station in the district of St Pancras & Somerstown. London Borough of Camden. SpecificaUy at 219 Levita House, Chalton Street N\'<11 1 HN

3. Disruption to the infrastructtue and daily life in the locality caused by the proposed new HS2 line and station development will be long-term and devastating. Seriously undermining the daily wellbeing of both myself, and the local community. Moreover this community faces many deprivations already and there is a powerful sense of dread in having been offered so little input into such a major decision to bring a high speed rail link into E uston from The West Midlands- one that is set to decimate homes and livelihoods both here and borough - wide, as well as fmther impacting upon an already staggeringly poor health record locaUy amongst a population set within a highly polluted inner London district.

I would like in particular to highlight tl1e following concerns.

HS2 Ltd intends that Eversholt street, which forms tl1e west side of the Somers Town district will be decommissioned throughout the period of building the new train link into E uston station- this is likely to last for (at a very minimum) a period of ten years. Eversholt Street is currently an important through road to Camden and the north of London and is set to become more significant once the use of Tottenham Court Road to the West that cmrently feeds the other main through road (H ampstead Road) is altered by TFL's introducing a six day - daylight car and taxi ban. It has already been well documented that losing Eversholt Street inevitably means that lorries and other equipment needed to enable the HS2 scheme will have to use highly residential side roads - and in Somers Town specifically Chalton Street will take the bulk of heavy goods traffic. Together with additionally displaced, regular road traffic and without any commitment to a daily time limitation (the HS2 work is intended to run through the night) the project impacts disproportionately upon this district - the health and safety of the community and affect on local business will be profound and if it cannot be prevented must be compensated for.

Somcrstowo is unusual in Central London in being a predominantly long-standing residential community. It also houses many yom1g students who study at the world - renowned educational facilities, which surround it- UCL and T be University of The Arts most notably. There arc many primary schools and oilier early years facilities. Adding heavy goods traffic into narrow roads within its bom1daries poses a very significant added danger to the health and well being of the children and people of this area. Pollution from the main Euston road that forms the border to the south plays a powerful role already in ill health, shockingly as a for instance the average life span for men in Somerstown is ten years less than across the UK To add so greatly to air pollution within the smaller localised streets - is quite simply criminal.

HS2 ltd appear not to have not engaged with altemative proposals to limit the impact of the new line as developed by local inner London engineers and architects with great experience in the field - These alternatives would enable (if the line must extend to Euston) enormously less local disruption and would allow the debris and working materials to be transported in and away by rail. The schemes are easily available to view and those involved could present them to The Lords - They would also limit the impact of development at E uston Station itself meaning once again significantly less local impact. I gather that HS2 management have made no time to engage with alternatives tl1at address the issues around the Euston area despite efforts by the relevant professional members of Camden Civic Society to open a discussion and that several of the major Mayoral candidates now deem the situation to be one of great concern. I urge The Lords themselves to allow the submission of alternative schemes for tl1e track as it reaches London and make their own rigorous enquiry as to tl1cir viability. Your petitioner does not represent T he Camden Civic Society but has attended meetings held by them and in the presence of local councillors. Moreover HS2 proposes to begin work without any agreement being finalised as to how the issues of setting the new lines at Euston Station itself are to be resolved or any final station design presented. It is frankly in my view a mess but one with potentially far - reaching and devastating consequences. A much wider discussion is needed as to alternatives including simply and preferably halting the project entirely. Political ideology or private commerce has no good part to play in tl1e decision to undermine so fundamentally - so many people and their communities - my own included.

The new rail link will reduce journey times by not much more tl1a11 20 minutes - set beside the enormous disruption, destruction and distress locally, across the borough of Camden and far beyond, shortening journey times is not really a significant argument, and with new technologies constantly emerging and the physical movement of people for business becoming so much less of an issue in future - it is a vanity. I suggest there are otl1er issues also involved in HS2's intransigent position to the problems created by their plans most notably in my locale the prize of an extremely coveted commercial redevelopment of the Euston station complex and a significant area of land surrounding it -With similar potential for private profit as has been seen at both Kings Cross and St Pancras in recent years this is strongly indicated as a reason for their interest in running this new line to Euston, which actually has limited direct connections onwards to the rest of London. After all as one comedian wryly commented "If you want to get to London sooner - take the earlier train." There really is no priority required transportation-wise for tlus proposal and none should be granted.

More broadly Somers town is served by one of the biggest inner London hospitals UCH being nearby. Recent very personal experience has revealed it is struggling with an enormous lack of nursing cover to the point at which neglect and danger are sadly inevitable as I have witnessed on a daily basis. BBC research tells us that 1 billion pounds buys 26,000 nurses for a year or 12,000 additional hospital doctors - London alone has a shortfall of 10,000 nurses. HS2 is set to cost upwards of 50 billion pounds - that buys all of England's population a great deal of additional much needed medical cover. It would solve certairtly the issues at UCH. In a period of austerity whereby government is forcefulJy reducing budgets across the board for good social and health care support and communal well being, creating instead a wealthy ghetto out of central London one cannot but suggest that all logic dictates this project needs to be halted and the monies better distributed -

Without a more through going and rigorous enquiry into its real function and best realisation I very strongly oppose the new high speed rail link bill.

The prayer

The petitioner Sylvia Catherine TemP.le therefore asks the house of Lords that she Sylvia Catherine Temple or someone reP-resenti.ng her in acceptance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill

AND The Petitioner Sylvia Catherine Temple remains, etc.,

Signature

Print name HL: 215

To the House of Lords Session 2015- 16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF

Mr Jeffrey Patrick Addison

Mrs Gillian Addison

Declares that

I . The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner

The Petitioners are long standing residents of Hale Road, Wendover which is in the village conservation area and part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). They will be specially and directly affected by the Bill for the proposed HS2 line both during construction and after completion.

The Petitioners are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

The Petitioners concerns during the construction phase can be summarised as: the adverse impact on the local road network causing delays in travelling to work and accessing emergency services; the reduction in customers and other visitors wanting to come to Wendover businesses causing local unemployment; the reduction in property values for owners seeking to realise investments in their homes; and the noise, dirt, and Public Right of Way disruption that will be generated by the works.

The Petitioners concerns during the operational phase can be summarised as :

the disruption to sleep caused by obtrusive noise generated by passing t rains in late evenings and early mornings; the visual impact of the proposed Small Dean Viaduct and associated embankments together with two proposed 6 metre high noise barriers each of approximately 200 metres in length, the efficiency of which is untried nor tested against trains travelling at the speeds demanded by HS2. These works will scar irreparably the historic village and its surroundings, dramatically reducing the appeal of this part of the AONB with associated impact on property values and local businesses for current and future generations. The petitioners are keen walkers and will be prevented throughout the construction period from using the numerous footpaths from Wendover which currently provide access to Coombe Hill and beyond. Many footpaths will be permanently closed or re directed. On completion of the railway line access will channelled through fewer points all of which will be roads.

Petitioners have additional concerns about the construction of the Green Tunnel, and the associated impact on the Coombe Hill aquifer that feeds the Grand Union Canal and Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI. The key concern relates to currently undefined requirement to add reservoirs, pipelines and a pumping station to mitigate the damage caused by extensive interception of the aquifer; and the associated extension of the construction costs and timescale in the Wendover area which could be avoided by redesign.

The petitioners propose that a fully bored tunnel through the AONB and running underneath the Coombe Hill aquifer would be an effective solution to all the construction and subsequent phase impacts.

4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

SIGNED

Jeffrey Patrick Addison

13th April 2016

Gillian Addison

13th April 2016 )/( _- 2/6.

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF STEPHEN MARTIN and LUCY BRITTON

Declares that:

The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

Your Petitioners I. The petitioners are Stephen Martin and Lucy Britton .

2. We will be specially and directly affected by the Bill.

3. We live with our two children in a three storey maisonette on Mornington Terrace directly overlooking the tracks in the Camden Cutting that lead to Euston. The property is quiet and remarkably tranquil given its central London location. We can listen to to the gibbons call from the Zoo and the robins in the back gardens, and along with this we accept the intermittent daytime noise from the trains. We have lived here since 1998. We like our flat and our neighbourhood, our children are settled at school, and we have no desire to move from our home.

Your Petitioner's Concerns 4. We could throw a coin out of our bedroom window onto the tracks where work will start in 2016 or 2017, yet unlike people in rural areas, who live up to 120 metres from the tracks, we are not eligible for 'Voluntary Purchase Offer' or 'Home Owner Payment' compensation and will have our lives seriously disrupted by HS2 construction for ten or more years.

5. We are not petitioning about the noise of the HS2 trains; we are petitioning about ten or more years of serious construction noise and vibration that will make regular life impossible for our family.

6. Starting in 2016 ten years of heavy civil engineering will take place, in.eluding 24 hour working for long periods.The work is described in the SES & AP3 ES and includes ten continuous years of construction in the Cutting immediately outside our front door 2016 to 2025.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 7. The work that will be happening right outside our front door, as described in the SES & AP3 ES, includes

I. Demolition of 12 metre high Park Village East (PVE) retaining walls 2. Reconstruction of PVE retaining walls at a height of 35 metres high above HS2 track level plus 15 metres below existing track level 3. Deep excavation and construction of new retaining walls within the Cutting 4. Construction of a high speed rail dive under box about 30m deep 5. Demolition and reconstruction of the existing Line X conventional rail cross-over 6. Demolition of the central retaining wall at the Parkway portal 7. Demolition and reconstruction of Mornington Street Bridge 8. Demolition and reconstruction of Granby Terrace Bridge 9. Construction of two concrete portal boxes I 0. Reception of tunnel boring machines 11. Construction of three ventilation/intervention buildings adjacent to the Cutting 12. Works on the classic railway tracks, signalling and other systems 13. Installation of new tracks, gantries, signals etc 14. Construction compound on our street 15. Utility works in our street 16. HGV construction traffic along our street 17. Years of 'significant noise' and months of 'significant vibration'

8. In addition, the work that will be happening in our neighbourhood that concerns us, as described in the SES & AP3 ES, includes:

I. HGV holding area in the Zoo car park 2. HGV construction traffic on local main roads for years 3. Phased demolition and reconstruction over eight years of Hampstead Road Bridge some metres higher and about 220 metres long (about twice the existing length)

9. There is no barrier between our property and all of the works listed above.There are no intervening buildings.We will have a grandstand view of the works complete with sound and vibration.

I 0. We would be happy to provide the Committee with photographs and drawings illustrating the nature of the works and how close they are to our family home.

I 0. HS2 have published a draft Code of Construction Practice which offers no effective definite mitigation for us. Most of the works listed above are exempted from the 'Core Working Hours' and will be allowed to take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I I. During the years 2016-2025 our children will be doing GCSEs and A Levels and we are very concerned about the effect that years of disturbed days and nights will have on them.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 2 12. If life turns out to be untenable during this decade we will not be able to afford to move to a similar home near our children's schools because our property will have lost much of its value, either for sale or to rent out.

13. Our property may recover its value when the construction is complete, but we cannot wait a decade; it will be far too late for our family life.

14. The SES & AP3 ES describes the works listed above and concludes that for dwellings in Mornington Terrace 'The mitigation measures, including noise insulation where necessary in the affected parts of these buildings, will reduce noise inside all dwellings to a level where it should not significantly affect residents ( 14.3.14).' The idea that a bit of secondary glazing is going to make everything okay given the scale and duration of the works is not credible.

15. The Construction Programme in SES2 & AP3 ES 3.2.1.1 Vol 2 Figure 9a and the Construction Phasing Maps in the Vol 2 Map book SES2 & AP3 ES 3.2.2.1 CT-20-005 to OI 0) clearly show ten continuous years of construction 2016 to 2025. Table 19 in the AP3 ES predicts 24 months where the 'significance criteria' will be exceeded in our street. The actual length of time that we consider 'significant' may be longer.

16. HS2 do not recognise that ten years of construction is not a temporary disturbance.

17. Vibration will exceed the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level for periods of up to three months on Mornington Terrace (SES & AP3 ES 14.3.15 & Volume 5 Technical appendices Sound, noise and vibration SV-002-00 I) but no proposals are made for mitigation or temporary rehousing.

The Relief Sought by your Petitioners 18. For the reasons given in this petition, your Petitioner respectfully asks that the proposed scheme be varied in the following respects and that appropriate amendments to the Bill be made accordingly.

19. We would like to stay in our flat during the construction of HS2 if the noise and disruption of construction could be more reasonable than that described in the SES & AP3 ES. If this is not possible we would like to be able to be rehoused during the worst of the works or to sell our property without loss of value due to HS2 construction.

20. There are some aspects of the completed works that concern us and we believe that the design could be improved.

21. Specific issues are described below.

Working Hours 22. As described in the ES Vol 5 Draft Code of Construction Practice CT-003-000 5.2.6 to 5.2. I 0, most of the construction activities taking place in the Camden Cutting will be

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 3 allowed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.The work will be noisy, disruptive and go on over IO years. This is unacceptable in a densely populated neighbourhood.

23. We ask that these exceptions to the Core Working hours are removed from the CoCP and that all exceptions are justified on a case by case basis with LBC following Section 61 procedures.

24. We ask that all work is done during Core Hours except when required for technical, not cost or programme, reasons.

25. We ask that HS2 justify on a case by case basis, all work outside of the normal working hours. Where a justification cannot be made, the work must take place during normal working hours.

Noise thresholds for temporary rehousing 26. We ask that the noise thresholds for rehousing should be lower than the limits in the CoCP. These limits are based on BS5228 and are used for typical construction projects where disturbance is temporary, not ten years. Normal life cannot go on during ten years of excessive noise.

27. Noise levels that exceed the 'significance criteria' for a total of two years in Mornington Terrace are tabulated in Table 19 of the SES2 and ES Vol 2.

28. HS2 have written that between 2017 and 2020 there will be a total of 24 months of Significant Noise Effects in the day, and that between 2018 and 2022 there will 32 months of significant effects at night.

29. That makes a six year period with significant noise! There will also be noise throughout the remainder of the construction period; the construction programme shows three years of work on foundations and track installation from 2023 to 2025 which will make obtrusive noise.

30. We consider that six years of 'significant noise' within a ten year construction period is not temporary, and that noise standards appropriate to permanent conditions should be used.

31. Right now the streets in the Camden Cutting are quiet with only local traffic and limited intermittent train noise during the daytime only; years of potential round the dock heavy civil engineering will alter the environment radically for the worse.

32. We ask that given the exceptional nature and duration of the HS2 construction project (IO to 18 years or more) that acceptable noise limits follow standards for permanent conditions, not those for typical construction works.·

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 4 33. We ask that the limits for rehousing are lower in each category listed in Table I of the ES Vol 5 Draft Code of Construction Practice CT-003-000 and Information Paper E23. We ask that the limits for temporary rehousing are:

• 75 dB during the day 0800-1800 on weekdays (instead of 85 dB) • 70 dB during the day 0700-2200 Sunday (instead of 75 dB) • 65 dB at night 2200-0700 (same as proposed by HS2) • 70 dB at other times (instead of 75-80 dB)

34. For reference: HS2 propose that the daytime limit for rehousing is 85 dB; this is like a very busy road with heavy lorries one metre from your house. The Health and Safety Executive requires ear defenders to be worn in a place of work which has this level of noise.

35. The ES Vol 5 Draft Code of Construction Practice CT-003-000 requires that the trigger levels are applied when the noise levels predicted or measured by the contractor exceeds the limit in for ten days in any fifteen consecutive days or for 40 days in any six month period. This is a potential 800 days over the ten year length of the construction. HS2 workers (who will be wearing ear defenders) can go home at the end of their 8 hour shift; we could experience intolerable noise for ten days continuously and be told that it is within the limits of the construction code of practice.And after a five day break it could start all over again.

36. We ask that these trigger levels are applied when the noise level predicted by the contractors exceeds the limit for five days in any fifteen consecutive days or 20 days in any six month period or 30 days in any 12 month period or 40 days in any two year period.

37. We ask that in addition to the LpAeq dB limits given in the CoCP, LAmax limits are given for the construction phase. These refer to individual noise events (as opposed to averaged noise levels over a period of time) which can be disruptive to sleep even if the average noise is relatively low. We understand that such limits are being used on other major construction projects including the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Construction Noise Study 38. We note that paragraph 333 of the final report from the House of Commons Select Committee states that:

39. "The Promoter has commissioned a study on the effects of construction noise which will report by mid-2016 and will recommend standards. It will be important to follow through on its observations. Depending on the outcome of the study it may be appropriate to revisit aspects of the trigger times and levels."

40. We have subsequently heard nothing from HS2 about this study.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 5 41. We ask that full details of the scope, methodology and authors of the study be provided by HS2.

42. We ask that the author~ of the study be required to conduct some engagement with the community to understand points of concern, and to provide information on their work.

43. We reserve our position on the findings of this study, and may need to address the Select Committee if the findings are of concern.

Noise Insulation Package that may be offered by HS2 44. Information Paper E23 describes the conditions under which secondary glazing, blinds and mechanical ventilation will be offered. Our property is Grade II listed and has ten foot high sash windows with splayed reveals; secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation would be difficult to install and we have no desire to live in a sealed box with mechanical ventilation for ten years. E23 suggests that blinds are fitted behind the secondary glazed windows to reduce heat gain and says that HS2 will not take responsibility for rooms overheating if the blinds are not installed. We quite like living in a house with windows we can see out of and reject the idea that blinds, secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation are acceptable for ten years. We also like being able to open our windows. The noise insulation offered by HS2 is not an appropriate mitigation measure and cannot be considered as a total solution to noise impacts.

Noise Mitigation 45. We ask that given that the works are in a densely populated environment and go on over many years that HS2 commit to using very quiet plant and construction techniques and that HS2 go beyond 'Best Practical Means' in order to minimise impact on residents.

46. We ask that HS2 commit to using local acoustic screens that are built as close as possible to the works within the Cutting in order to limit breakout of noise at source. We have been told by HS2 that such screens would be 'far more effective' than perimeter hoardings yet there is no undertaking that they will be used; the attitude seems to be that they will only be used if it is 'practical' for the contractor to use them. These screens will need to be specially designed and will influence how the work is undertaken and we ask that they are made an essential part of the construction requirements and budget.

47. The SES & AP3 ES states that perimeter screening 2.4m high will generally be used at the perimeter of construction sites and 3.6m high in some cases. The design or performance of this screening is not specified. Screens were erected by Railtrack on Mornington Terrace in 1998/99 during track renewal work but had only a marginal benefit on sound reduction.

48. We ask that acoustic screening is designed by acousticians and built specifically for the Camden Cutting.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 6 49. We ask that the CoCP is modified to include a commitment to brief the work force about local issues including noise.

Vibration 50. We ask that HGVs drive at a maximum of I Omph along Mornington Terrace to improve safety and reduce vibration caused by hitting speed bumps.

51. We ask that vibratory piles are not used for the reconstruction of Mornington Street Bridge or elsewhere.

52. We ask that if vibration is predicted to be above SOAEL thresholds (as is currently predicted in the SES & AP3 ES) we will not be expected to remain in our flat and that we are temporarily rehoused.

Use of rail for construction traffic 53. HS2 construction traffic will be a major source of pollution, noise, vibration and potential accidents.

54. We ask that HS2 makes a clear commitment to use of rail for all construction traffic (including spoil removal and delivery of materials) and minimise the use of roads.

55. We ask that noise produced by rail construction traffic is adequately mitigated.

Construction Traffic 56. We ask that HS2 trains all lorry drivers in safe driving techniques and that the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) and Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety Scheme (CLOCS) is implemented.

57. We ask that the London Zoo car park is not used as a holding area for construction lorries. It would bring years of HGV traffic through Camden Town and be detrimental to Regent's Park, which should be a place of respite. If a holding area is required it should be closer to the main construction sites and accessible by major roads.

Satellite Construction Compounds 58. The proposed satellite construction compound on Mornington Terrace will be 80 to I 00 metres long and will make the whole street feel like a construction site.

59. We ask that the size of the satellite construction compound on Mornington Terrace is substantially reduced.

Compensation: Need To Sell Scheme 60. The only compensation currently available to us is the Need to Sell Scheme (NTSS).

61. The NTSS is inadequate and unreasonable because:

(a) Applicants need to prove a 'compelling reason to sell' that is acceptable to a panel; we can't just move for our own reasons like everyone else. Even if HS2 has made our property uninhabitable and unsaleable we will not get compensation unless we can

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 7 prove personal circumstances that satisfy a tribunal that we have a 'compelling' reason to sell.

(b) Although the latest version of this scheme has changed the word 'hardship' to 'need to sell' there is no change in substance to the working of the scheme. Statistics produced by the HS2 Resident's Commissioner in September 2105 show eight of 58 applications refused only because a 'Compelling Reason to Sell' has not been proven and a further eight refused partly because of this.

(c) In rural areas people living within 120 metres of HS2 automatically qualify for various forms of compensation with no need to prove 'a compelling reason to sell' yet in Camden people living IO metres from incredibly disruptive works must do so.

( d) A reason for wishing to sell might well be that we not want to live in the middle of one of the largest construction sites in Europe for ten years but this is not recognised by the scheme.

(e)We must be free to move home over the next IO years and not be trapped, unable to get on with our life as we would without HS2.

(f) If we have received an offer 14.99% less than 'a realistic unblighted asking price' (Decision Document 2014) we are not eligible to even apply for the NTSS and will suffer a 14.99% financial loss because of HS2.

62. We ask that the Need To Sell scheme is modified to:

• Remove the requirement to show compelling reason to sell

• Drop the 15% rule

Compensation: equivalent schemes to those offered in rural areas 63. We understand from consultation meetings with HS2 that our neighbourhood has been excluded from the compensation proposals offered to rural areas on the basis that we are accustomed to train noise and that the Draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) will protect us from the effects of construction. The first of these arguments is irrelevant: we are not petitioning about the effects of HS2 when it is in operation; it is the ten to eighteen year construction period that is our concern. The second argument is false: we are not protected by the Draft Code of Construction Practice as most of the construction activities in the Camden Cutting are specifically exempted from the prescribed working hours, few mitigation proposals are guaranteed by the CoCP and significant residual impacts are identified in the SES2 & AP3 ES.

64. We have also been told that compensation is not required in urban areas because intervening buildings will shield residents from the noise of the works.A visit to Mornington Terrace will show that there are no intervening buildings and that we will be exposed to the full impact of one of the largest construction sites in Europe.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 8 65. HS2 will impose an unfair burden on residents of Mornington Terrace: they, along with other Camden residents, are being asked to suffer severe disruption for ten years or more without compensation.

66. Rural areas are offered a variety of compensation schemes that urban residents are excluded from:Voluntary Purchase Offer,Alternative Cash Offer and Home Owner Payment. We ask that equivalent schemes should be available in urban areas.

6 7. In 1999 Railtrack made cash payments to residents of the Camden Cutting of between £ 150 and £300 ( depending on location and property) as compensation for one weekend of work on the tracks. The work in question was only on rail systems and did not involve any of the much more disruptive heavy civil engineering that will be required for HS2. Similar compensation could form part of the compensation measures and we ask that it be considered.

68. We ask that the concept of 'Personal Compensation Budgets' as proposed by local authorities including Camden in their 'Fair HS2 Compensation Charter' be considered. This would allow people to make their own arrangements for dealing with times of significant disturbance in addition to any measures proposed by HS2.

LineX 69. The AP3 proposal reinstates Line X for classic trains in what appears to be the same geometry as the existing Line X which produces 'wheel squeal'. We ask that the new Line X is designed to eliminate this.

Hampstead Road Bridge 70. HS2 proposes to raise Hampstead Road Bridge by a number of metres and double its length to 220 metres. The effect on the urban environment is severe. Eye level views between Camden and central London along Hampstead Road will be blocked and the unfriendly nature of the proposed design, along with its great length, will create an isolated and inhuman streetscape. It will cut off Camden visually from central London, discourage pedestrian use and create an inhospitable and unsafe environment in the centre of London.

71. The bridge has been designed to meet the requirements of HS2 but not those of the urban environment.

72. We ask that the bridge is redesigned to be lower and shorter in a manner better suited to its urban location.

Euston Station & Approach and Cross City Connect alternative 73. As proposed by HS2, Euston will be a poor piece of infrastructure with the new HS2 station separated from the existing station by a block of administration accommodation, all on various levels and constructed over a total period exceeding eighteen years. Links to HS I and CrossRail 2 are unresolved.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 9 74. We ask that an integrated design for all of Euston Station is completed before construction of HS2 starts.

75. Old Oak Common could be developed as a temporary London terminus for the high speed section of the line to allow time for a comprehensive and well considered design to be done for Euston and its approach.

76. Bringing HS2 into Euston is destructive to the urban fabric of London and does not provide the best connexions to other transport systems. Various alternatives to Euston have been suggested and we ask that the 'Cross City Connect' proposal by Buro Happold Engineers is considered.

77. Cross City Connect builds on the experience of constructing CrossRail beneath London and proposes a scheme that is largely tunnelled in central London with stations at Old Oak Common and Southbank/Waterloo and links through to Ebbsfleet for interchange with HS I.

78. Cross City Connect would provide better links to other transport systems, better access to London and better access to Europe. The proposed through stations are smaller and more efficient than a terminating station and tunnelling is more cost effective and less disruptive in dense urban areas than construction at ground level. More information is available at http;//www.burohappold.com/cross-city-connect-tm ~.

79. Obviously the Cross City Connect scheme appeals to us as it would eliminate disruption in our neighbourhood but the scheme has merit for other reasons and we ask that it be considered.

Operational Noise 80. We ask that the design of the new infrastructure in the Cutting allows the initial or future installation of acoustic absorbent material on or in the dive-under box, portal, and retaining walls if it proves necessary.

Assurances 81. In the House of Commons Select Committee stage of the Bill, HS2 gave a number of assurances to Camden Council which were suggested as being to the benefit of local residents. These assurances are welcome but do not get anywhere near to appropriately managing, mitigating or compensating for the proposed development. A process whereby HS2 proposes unacceptable environmental conditions in its SES and CoCP (such as the possibility of 800 days of noise above 85dB or 24 hour working), refuses to modify such conditions, but says 'if it all gets too bad Camden Council may intervene' is seriously flawed. HS2 should commit to reasonable proposals in the first instance, not ask for the ability to be unreasonable and leave residents hoping that the Council will be able to reign them in.

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 10 The prayer

82. The petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remains, etc.

Stephen Martin

Lucy Britton

16th April 2016

Martin and Britton Petition April 2016 11 Petition to the House of Lords April 2016 HL: 217

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETIT ION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Margaret Bronia Unwin and Eric Geoffrey Unwin

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners are

Margaret Bronia Unwin age 70 years and Eric Geoffrey Unwin age 73 years (as of April 2016)

The petitioners are the owner, occupiers of 17 Park Village West London NWl 4AE which they acquired in 1989 for use of a family home. The petitioners have a son and daughter whom have both moved out since the property was acquired. The property 'is a detached four bedroom house with fo ur fl oors, which the Bill may "specially and directly affect".

3. Your petitioners' concerns

We live 115 metres from the proposed railway li ne. We shall be affected fo r many years, sometimes both day and night by the following: noise, dust, pollution disruption, road works and large numbers of heavy goods vehicles in the surrounding roads. Park Village West is a small crescent, which can only be accessed from Albany Street. This street will have very heavy traffic for many years which will make access to our road difficult, this will be exacerbated by plans to re-route utilities down Albany Street. The proposed closure of Park Village East for five years will further add to congestion in Albany Street We are concerned that access to our road wi ll be diffic ult especially by motor vehi cles, which will affect tradesmen, deliveries and emergency vehicles as well as personal cars.

We have reached an age when we had planned to move from the house, which is now too big for our needs, as our children have left home. We need to move to an apartment with fewer stairs, as four fl oors w ill become more problematic for us as we get older.

We are anxious, as we strongly believe that we will be trapped in the property with severely restricted access by virtue of the construction, and disruption at unprecedented levels until 2033 at the earliest which has made it impossible to sell our property. We need to sell our home but have not been able to do so as HS2 has proved to be a severe deterrent to potential purchasers.

1 Petition to the House of Lords April 2016

The petitioners do not consider that the promoter has given serious attention towards to the House of Commons formal comments regarding the discretionary compensation schemes, specifically mentioned in the First Special Report of Session 2015-2016, released on 16 December 2015 and the Second Special Report of Session 2015-2016, released on 22 February 2016.

We would ask the Select Committee to require the promoter HS2 to:

Allow fa ir and consistent compensation to those specifically affected by the Bill, to bring the discretionary compensation schemes into the Bill and allow applications to be assessed under the statutory blight procedures in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Implement an appeals procedure to allow aggrieved applicants the opportunity to have their cases assessed before an independent panel, allowing representations by both sides.

4. The Prayer

The petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill. AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Name of Petitioner

MARGARET BRONIA UNWIN

Signature of Petitioner......

Name of Petitioner

ERIC GEOFFREY UNWIN

Signature of Petitioner......

2 \ HL: 218

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ROSEMARY McNAIR AND ARCHIE McNAIR

Declares that 1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the Bill.

2. The petitioners are the freehold owners of Tervetuloa, Brays Close, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire HP6 5RZ. They have lived in this property, in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), for more than 50 years.

3. Your petitioners emphasise that their concerns are consequent upon the high speed railway taking a surface route onwards from South Heath to the edge of the AONB. If the Bill were changed to require the Chilterns Tunnel to be extended through the whole of the AONB your petitioners' concerns would disappear. Failing this, your petitioners will experience adverse impacts and require further mitigations as detailed in the following paragraphs.

4. Your petitioners are concerned that the construction of the line will cause irreparable damage to the narrow lanes that are such a characteristic and attractive feature of the AONB. Because of this they approve of the plan to use temporary haul roads for moving materials to and from the construction areas directly to the A413. However, they are very concerned about the impact of the planned haul road from the north portal of the Chilterns Tunnel which emerges directly on to the A4128/ A413 roundabout. This is predicted to cause major disruption and severe delays not only on the A413 but also on the B485 and on the A4128 Great Missenden Link Road. Under a freedom of information request HS2 Ltd have now admitted that the capacity of these junctions is much Jower than that assumed by them in earlier statements. Tail backs on the B485 at the B485/ A413 junction of up to 97 vehicles are now predicted at peak times during construction. This junction is necessarily used by your petitioners when travelling to Great Missenden, Wendover or Aylesbury and, more importantly, to the Stoke Mandeville Hospital which is the only A & E hospital in the area. Any delay in getting there could be serious for your petitioners. These junctions are also used by many school transport vehicles taking pupils to and from Great Missenden. The ..

designated junior school and non-selective secondary school for the area are situated .in Great Missenden but pupils are also transported from Great Missenden and Prestwood via these junctions to schools in Chesham and Amersham. If the journeys to school were to become protracted and unreliable this would be likely to make your petitioners' village of Hyde Heath less attractive to young families and adversely impact on its character and on property values.

Your petitioners respectfully request

• that the Chilterns Tunnel be extended at least as far as Leather Lane, failing which • that the haul road be re-routed to join the A413 further north (since all excavated material is to be transported northwards), failing which • that construction traffic be banned from using all public roads in the Misbourne va11ey during rush hour and during school transport times.

5. During their long residence in the AONB your petitioners have enjoyed frequent and regular walks throughout the area, but particularly in the hills on both sides of the Misboume valley and on the Chiltern escarpment on either side of Wendover. They are alarmed at the permanent destructive impact that the planned surface route of HS2 will have on the landscape of the AONB by the intrusion of a long linear cutting, catenary towers, noise barriers and security fencing into the rural landscape and by high viaducts on the approaches to Wendover. The general ambiance of the area wrn be seriously diminished too by noise and light pollution both during construction and during operation of the line and by the insensitive diversion of footpaths. Your petitioners' enjoyment of walking in the area will be lost unless adequate mitigation can be provided.

Your petitioners therefore request that

• the Chilterns Tunnel be extended as far as possible beyond South Heath and that any remaining cuttings in the AONB be made deeper to ensure that the catenary structures, the noise barriers, the security fencing and the trains are not visible from more than about lOOm from the cutting. • the power for the contractor to raise the line by up to 3 metres be excluded for the surface section of the line in the AONB. • public footpaths be reinstated on their current alignment and provided with wide green bridges where they cross the line. • all lanes crossed by the line or used during construction be reinstated as closely as practicable to their present state and appearance.

6. Your petitioners will be adversely affected if they are put at a financial disadvantage by expenditure necessarily incurred by the Local Authorities in developing and monitoring compliance with traffic plans, in modifying and maintaining roads used by construction traffic and on any other work required as a consequence of the plan to build part of the high speed railway in Buckinghamshire. It is essential to ensure that these costs do not fall on local taxpayers.

Your petitioners therefore request that

• all costs incurred by Local Authorities as a consequence of works authorized by the Bill be reimbursed in full by HS2 Ltd.

7. The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Rosemary McN air Archie McN air

Dated 14 April 2016 HL: 219 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF SANDRA NICHOLLS and RICHARD BOOTH Declares that

1 The petitioners are specially and directly affected by the whole Bill.

2 Both petitioners are in their seventies; Sandra is studying full-time for an MA degree at the University of London. Your petitioners are the owners of, and live in, a house (No. 4 Mornington Place) very close to the railway cutting where the proposed train will enter London, and approximately one mile from Euston Station, and will be specially and directly affected by the many years of construction involved.

3 Your petitioners' concerns

This is a quiet neighbourhood and the noise of existing rail services is rarely disturbing. The construction of the new tracks into Euston will impact directly and profoundly on our daily life. In the first phase alone, there will be some ten years of construction activity, much of it at night, involving intense construction noise, vibration, heavy traffic and air pollution. We are concerned about plans to bring new tracks into the heart of a densely populated neighbourhood and to undertake works which wi ll diminish the life of our community. These tracks will involve the demolition and/or re-construction of bridges, with major impacts on vehicle and pedestrian movement.

We would like the Bill to be amended so that initially the new train services have a terminus at Old Oak Common. This would enable the plans for the entry into Euston, and the station itself, to be re-thought. If that is not possible we seek improved arrangements for compensation and mitigation, and rigorous enforcement of codes of construction practice.

We have been involved in discussions and community actions over this proposal for nearly five years and we presented a petition to the House of Commons Select Committee. The response made by HS2 Ltd to that petition consisted largely of quotations from HS2 documents, rather than a thoughtful engagement with the specific issues we raised.

We welcome the Assurance we received in relation to construction traffic in Mornington Place and also the Assurances given to London Borough of Camden (LBC). These included a plan to conduct an assessment of the nois.e impacts on some local properties, including our own. However we live in a neighbourhood, not just one street, and the construction of HS2 will impact on that neighbourhood, and its community life, in many ways.

1 The experience of recent years has been frustrating because: (a) engagement with HS2 Ltd has not been fruitful; (b) the assurances given to LBC are often generalised promises, with much work still to be done; there is no assurance that the promises made will be fully enforced; ( c) the House of Commons Select Committee did not take on board some of the concerns raised by local petitioners, and where it did the Promoter largely brushed them off; (d) preliminary work - noisy, and at night - has begun nearby in the Cutting without the noise abatement features that were promised.

4 For these and related reasons we make the following requests of the House of Lords Select Committee. Much of the supporting detail is to be found in the petitions of LBC and the Camden Cutting Group (CCG), which we fully support, and does not need to be repeated here.

(a) Transparency We ask that HS2Ltd be instructed to be fully and promptly transparent with all members of the community about everything it is planning to do, and to conceal nothing.

(b) Enforcement We ask for the appointment of a fully Independent Adjudicator (or similar) whose role includes that of ensuring that Assurances and Undertakings made by HS2 Ltd are enforced.

(c) Euston Station We ask that no construction work should begin in our neighbourhood until a complete plan for Euston Station has been developed, incorporating all phases of HS2, classic station redevelopment and Cross rail 2. Such a plan should respect the needs of all the local community and not only rail users. It would include a re-examination of the proposals for Hampstead Road Bridge. We ask that Old Oak Common be developed as a temporary London terminus for the high-speed section of the line to allow time for a comprehensive and well-considered design to be completed for Euston and the approach through our streets.

(d) Working hours We ask that the control of working hours proposed in the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) be amended to take account of the proximity of residential areas, and to reduce the impact on sleep.

( e) Rail not road We ask that priority be given to the removal of spoil by rail rather than road, through plans of the kind being proposed by LBC and Transport for London (TFL). (f) We ask that local residents (and not only their elected representatives) be involved in the drafting and implementation of the CoCP and Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMPs). We ask that the promoter be instructed to engage with the community not only to ensure that individual concerns are heard, but that they are responded to directly.

(g) We ask that levels of noise and vibration, and air pollution levels, be more closely controlled than as proposed by HS2. We support the proposals from LBC and CCG. We ask that HS2Ltd share fully relevant information with the local authority.

(h) We ask that air pollution levels be strictly monitored. While we value the powers of LBC as an environmental health authority, we remain concerned that higher levels of air pollution will impact on the health of residents, especially in relation to those with respiratory problems.

(i) We ask that there should be a specific Compensation scheme for urban areas that parallels (without necessarily replicating) that put in place for rural areas. Such a scheme should take account of the prolonged nature of the works in our neighbourhood; the extent of night-time disturbance; and the cumulative impacts of noise, vibration and pollution effects. We support the proposals made by CCG in this regard. In particular we ask that the Need to Sell Scheme be reviewed as it involves an undue penalty on home-owners.

The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the_Select Committee which considers this Bill.

Richard Booth Sandra Nicholls To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 HL: 220

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Francis Alfred Peter Partridge

Declares that:

1. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioner

Francis Alfred Peter Partridge is the freehold owner and sole occupier of The Byre, Savay Lane, Denham Green, UB9 SNJ. Your Petitioner's property is part of a Grade 2-listed barn conversion in the grounds of Savay Farm, a Grade 1-listed former manor house which is one of the oldest and most historic properties in Buckinghamshire, dating back to about 900AD. The farm's southern field, which contains an ancient monument (probably Druidic) gives on to the River Colne, which is spanned by an ancient bridge that formerly carried the drover's road from Buckinghamshire into

Middlesex. Immediately beyond th,..i s lie Savay Lake, the Buckinghamshire Golf Club and the Grand Union Canal, all of which are contained within the Colne Valley Country Park, an important local recreational facility.

3. Your Petitioner's concerns

Your Petitioner moved from London to Savay Farm in 1998, attracted by the surprising amount of greenery and wildlife so close to the outskirts of London. The Country Park is used by thousands of local people and visitors all year round, whether for fishing, bird-watching in the nature reserves, canal boating, sailing/kayaking, cycling or other outdoor pursuits. Within the Savay Farm enclave itself, the overriding characteristics are unspoilt beauty and tranquillity. Your Petitioner believes that the Promoter's scheme (HS2) will destroy the unique character of the settlement, affecting most acutely the main house, its annexe and adjoining cottages, the five dwellings that make up the barn conversion, and the gate cottage at the entrance to the private lane.

Considering the planning restrictions placed on the owners of Grade 1 and 2-listed properties, the changes that the Promoter plans to make to the local landscape would violate the efforts we have made to retain the character of the dwellings and their leafy surroundings.

All of these properties are just outside what the Promoter has designated as the zone that will be eligible for compensation is the project goes ahead. The Petitioner believes that allowances should be made for these and other properties which will be adversely affected by the construction and onPrntion of the scheme. over a period of more than ten years. The quality of life at Savay Farm and its surrounds will be severely aimm,snea oy cominua1 no1s~ \omr-,11 11t::u uy u 1t:: wdtt::1 vvc::, vv1111...11 ~1,c sound will travel) and air pollution, and its views will be destroyed permanently. It is almost certain that the value of the properties within sight and earshot of the Promoter's planned construction sites have already been substantially reduced simply because of the threat of the project, let alone the actuality of it. Your Petitioner asks that the Honourable committee considers relaxing the stri ct measurement of the compensation zone, on a case-by-case basis, to allow for special circumstances such as those at Savay Farm and the nearby houses in Savay Lane and Savay Close.

In common with many other householders and Petitioners on both sides of the proposed viaduct and cutting, your Petitioner believes that the alternative construction of a tunnel under the Colne Valley 'lake district' would preserve a unique asset, not only for the families and individuals who live there, but for the wider community who make use of its amenities. The estimated additional cost of £175 million is, in your Petitioner's opinion, a small price to pay for the preservation of an invaluable swathe of Green Belt on the outskirts of London.

In the event of a Colne Valley tunnel alternative being rejected by your honourable House, your Petitioner requests that the speed of the trains crossing the viaduct be limited to a level that substantially reduces the noise emanating from the lakes, and taking into account the fact that on frequent occasions, London-bound and Birmingham-bound trains will pass each other at that point.

Finally, your Petitioner is a regular user of the Caine Valley Country Park, and much of the local footpath network both within and beyond the park, including the towpath of the Grand Union Canal, which he uses for wa lking, cycling and bird-watching. The promoter's scheme will impact greatly on all these amenities, and the country park's reputation is at risk of being permanently damaged, which would inevitably deter potential visitors and reduce the park's income, on which its long-term survival depends. Your Petitioner asks the committee to consider additional compensation to the Caine Valley Park, over and above the extra funding which has already been agreed.

4. The prayer

The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner* remains etc.

Francis Partridge

Dated: 14 April 2016 HL: 221

To the House of Lords Session 20 15-16 PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -W est Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF THE BERKSHIRE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST

Declares that:

I. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust, which was established in 1959, and whose objects are: to undertake and promote the conservation of w il dlife species and their habitats including the restoration and creation of such habitats; to promote public understanding of, and support for, the natural world; and to campaign in support of sustainable principles and practices for the protection of the natural environment.

The petitioner has 52,000 members and 1,450 volunteers, many of whom live and work in the area that will be affected by the construction and operation of the railway authorised by the Bill. The petitioner owns or manages 88 nature reserves, totalling over 2,500 ha, including the Fi nemere Woods and Meadows, and Calvert Jubilee nature reserves, which will be di rectly affected by the construction and operation of the rail way authorised by the Bill, and Weston Turville Reservoir nature reserve, which will be indirectly affected by the construction and operation of the railway authorised by the Bill.

The petitioner works beyond their nature reserves to promote their objects throughout their region, and is recognised by local authorit ies across that region as a consultee on planning applications, highways works, and other matters affecting the area in which those whom it represents live.

The petitioner has met with representatives of the promoters of the Bill on a number of occasions both in bilateral meetings and in community forums. The petitioner is a member of the HS2 Ecology Technical Group established to provide the means for engagement, consultation and information sharing in order to achieve the best possible outcome for ecology from the high speed rail proposals. The group has met occasionally with representatives of the promoters of the Bill.

The petitioner is represented nationally by the Royal Society of W il dlife Trusts, who have been represented at the HS2 Ministerial NGO Roundtable which has met regularly during the preparation of the Bill.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

The petitioner also believes that the Bi ll as drafted will not achieve even the stated aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity. The petitioner believes that the impacts the proposals would have on biodiversity assets are insufficiently mitigated and compensated for, leading to a significant overall reduction in biodiversity value resulting from the proposals.

The petitioner is concerned that the approach taken by the promoter to assessing their achievement of the 'no net loss' for biodiversity target is flawed in, amongst other things, its failure to consider indirect effects, its consideration of habitat connectivity, its approach to irreplaceable habitats such as Ancient Woodlands and its optimistic view of the time required to create and fully establish habitats. The petitioner requests that an independent review is undertaken of the approach taken to assessing the 'no net loss' calculation of the project's impact. In the event that a review high lights that further mitigation or compensation is required to meet the 'no net loss' target, or a revised 'net gain' target, the petitioner asks that provision is made to secure any further ·mitigation or compensation for the fu ll duration of the project. Approaches to securing mitigation or compensation could include the creation of new wildlife habitat or the improvement of existing wi ldlife sites.

The petitioner requests that suitable mitigation and compensation is provided through securing ecological improvements within the existing boundaries of the limits of land to be acquired, by incorporating additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or by establi shing a mechanism co secure wildlife habitats or improvements outside the limits of the land to be acquired.

The petitioner believes that surveys for the presence of protected and priority species and habitats should have been undertaken along the route before decisions are finalised about the form of the development.

The petitioner believes that the current proposals would be detrimental to the maintenance of populations of barn owls within the vicinity of the land potentially required. The petitioner is aware that the promoter has begun to consider what compensation might be appropriate. The petitioner believes that compensatory proposals should include provision of habitat in suitable locations beyond the limits of land to be acquired in the Bill in addition to the provision of suitable nest boxes. The petitioner's view is that such proposals should be developed and agreed before the Bi ll is given Royal Assent.

HS2 Ltd. has not yet published a rationale to demonstrate the basis of the compensation it has proposed. The petitioner would like to see the compensation proposed for each woodland. Compensation as proposed is insufficient. The petitioner requests that the route is modified or tunnels are used to minimise the loss of Ancient Woodland and other ecological interests. The petitioner is grateful to the promoters and the House of Commons High Speed Rail Selec~ Committee for securing fu rther tunnelling in the Chilterns AONB which reduces the impact of the proposals on Ancient Woodland.

The petitioner is concerned about the impact of the proposals outlined by the Bill on the ecological connectivity of the landscape caused by physical barriers, and the impact of this on the abi li ty of species of principal importance and species protected by legislation to move effectively through the landscape.

Ecological connectivity and "the establishing of coherent ecological networks that are ~ore resili ent to current and future pressures" is a key objective of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is essential that connectivity is maintained as much as possible during and after construction of the railway and that in particular satisfactory substitutions for existing animal crossing points are constructed as part of the works. The petitioner requests that species modelling work is carried out as part of a scientifically led scheme using up·to·date accurate data to determine the locations of existing and connected ecological networks that could exist in the futrue. The petitioner further requests that this modelling is used to guide the locations of green bridges, bored tunnels and underpasses instead of, or in addition to, those currently proposed in the Bill.

The petitioner is concerned that proposals to relocate the rail sidings at currently proposed at Calvert may be requested through the petitioning process. It may be proposed that the rail sidings. are relocated further south between Sheephouse Wood and Finemere Woods and Meadows which could cause considerable ecological disruption. The petitioner is aware that the promoter has committed to bringing forward a proposal to accommodate the sidings in this location by a process outside the Bill. The petitioner is concerned that relocation could compromise ecological mitigation and compensation to be secured under the Bill in this same area. Of particular concern to the petitioner is the population of Bechstein's bats in the Bernwood Forest area, which are susceptible to both noise and light disturbance. The petitioner requests, should it be decided to relocate the rail sidings within this area, that they are located so that they do not interfere with ecological mitigation and compensation proposals in that same area, particularly those in relation to protecting the population of Bechstein's bats. The petitioner further requests that any work required under the Bill within the area between Sheephouse Wood and Finemere Woods and Meadows contributes to improved ecological connectivity and does not compromise ecological mitigation and compensation proposals.

The petitioner is concerned that the green tunnel at Wendover will interfere with the water supply to Weston Turville Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a nature reserve managed by the petitioner, which, includes fen meadow habitat reliant on a supply of water fed from the aquifer affected by the proposals. This potential impact was not identified in the Environmental Statement (ES), but came to light subsequently thanks to work commissioned by Wendover and Halton Paris h Councils. The promoter takes the view that, as they will be required not to exceed the impacts envisaged in the ES, no further assurance is necessary. The petitioner is concerned that, without a specific assurance that water supply to the SSSI of the appropriate quantity, varying as necessary throughout the year, and of the appropriate quality, it may not be clear to nominated undertaker, or their contractors, what is required to protect the sensitive habitats of the SSSI. We know this concern is shared by other parties, including Mr Band and Wendover and Halton Parish Councils, who we understand are petitioning against the Bill on this ground. 4. The prayer

T he petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that we, or someone representing us in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House. be given an opportunity to give e vidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND The petitioner remains, etc.

Matthew Jackson Agent 14th April 2016 HL: 222 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF John and Fiona Fausset-Baker

Declares that:

1. Your Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your Petitioner

Your Petitioner is the owner of the freehold property at Cairn Gorm, 14, Lappetts Lane, South Heath, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, HP16 ORA, which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

This property currently enjoys a tranquil and safe location but is located 550 metres from the portal cutting and 750 metres from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Volume 2.1 Replacement sheet 2.25.

Your Petitioner lives in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your Petitioner's concerns

1. Your Petitioner will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioner requests that the presently proposed fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact on the AONB.

2. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/14 to 2120 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

3. In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel throughout the AONB, which is the primary alteration to the Bill your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended to Leather Lane, as it will address, most but not all, of your Petitioner's concerns.

1 4. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adv~rse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitigation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern it and to which it objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if its fully bored tunnel proposals are rejected, below.

5. Traffic Congestion: The disruption over eight years of access to and from Great Missenden for your Petitioner travelling to the shops, medical appointments and to the station arising from the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of construction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. This major adverse effect will continue for your Petitioner who needs to travel along the A413 to and from Wendover and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Aylesbury. Your Petitioner is also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Road Roundabout will lead to rat runs through Great Missenden and the hilltop villages especially along Kings Lane with its associated safety hazard.

6. Construction Haul Road: Your Petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of construction traffic using the haul road from the South Heath portal onto the A413 at the Link Road roundabout, such as damage from HGVs (270 HGVs a day at the peak), noise and dust from vehicle cleaning operations and the high risk to users of the Skate Park, Tennis Courts and children's play area adjacent to the roundabout and children going to the Great Missenden Combined Church of England school nearby.

Remedies: 1. The construction haul road should be relocated further north, distant from the larger settlements of Great Missenden and Prestwood, and beyond the Mobwell junction 1 hence reducing traffic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the 8485 roundabouts. It would also lessen the impact and visual blight of the haul road on residents, visitors and businesses in Great Missenden. Traffic signals can be implemented on the junction with the A413 to control the flow of construction traffic.

2. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the trace.

7. Maintenance Access Road: The permanent maintenance and access road - Work No 2/18C from the South Heath portal joins Frith Hill (SHL) at a bend on a narrow part of the road. This leads to your Petitioner having concerns about road safety especially as the footway and road is used for walking and cycling to Great Missenden. Safety could be further exacerbated by temporary contractors using it to access the portal during construction. Furthermore there is concern for the safety of children at the Great Missenden Church of England Combined School using their Forest School Outdoor Leaming Centre and their playing fields as they are adjacent to the Frith Hill roundabout.

Remedies:

1 HS2 Ltd had given Bucks CC in January 2016 an assurance that it would relocate this haul road but the conditions placed upon the County Council to achieve this were unrealistic 2 1. Construction traffic should not use the maintenance access road off Frith Hill during construction. 2. Any temporary construction contractors should not park their white vans at the South Heath portal but at the main construction compound at Wendover and be bussed onto the site. 3. If the construction haul road is relocated as mentioned above, it could be retained so that access to Frith Hill (SHL) will no longer be required

8. Noise and Dust: Your Petitioner is concerned that there will be construction noise and dust (and operational noise) as a result of the deep, wide cuttings at the South Heath portal and the cuttings beyond towards Wendover. The dust and noise will be at its worst during the eight year construction period but thereafter some mitigation of the dust will be provided when plantings have matured but not the noise.

9. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner within 800 metres from the trains exit/entrance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tunnel and are the finding their house prices blighted. They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dysfunctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current un-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell .... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable un-blighted valuations.

10. Operational Noise: Your Petitioners are close enough to the surface line to suffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60d8max ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

Remedies: 1. Your Petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60d8max should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in Information Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to dissipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond; deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening the porous portal; higher more absorbent noise barriers adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of

3 the line and to the south of the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMl/12 & 13.

12. Business impact: Businesses in the area will be specifically affected by a reduction in tourists and in customers footfall, including 12 small businesses in the hilltop villages and approximately 70 businesses in Great Missenden. In addition, delivery vehicles will be delayed by the congestions caused by construction traffic, for example deliveries, often by articulated lorry with a trailer from Europe, to the South Heath Garden Centre. Tourism plays a significant part in local business, with visitors to the Roald Dahl Museum, local cycling groups using this area as a centre for the Chiltern Cycle way and the Chiltern Hundreds Cycle routes. There are 55 million visits a year to the AONB bringing in £471.6 million of expenditure associated with leisure visits to the Chilterns and sustaining an estimated 12,000 FTE jobs. Remedy: 1. For businesses which are indirectly or only temporarily affected; compensation for loss of profit, loss of trade and the fees of any professional advisor appointed by the business. 2. A substantial reduction in business rates where applicable.

13. Chilterns AONB: The proposed line is above ground from the South Heath portal of the Chiltern tunnel for 9 kms to the edge of the Chilterns AONB just north of Wendover. It is in a cutting for approximately 3 kms and will be visible at the highest point of the line in the vicinity of Liberty Lane, notwithstanding the sight of the security fences and catenary masts above the cuttings which will be a major permanent eyesore along the length of Potter Row. The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Construction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpaths less attractive to all visitors to this area of the AONB whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the countryside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB): 1. The AONB review body must ensure that the viaducts and embankments with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design

4 of the new pennanent buildings erected by HS2 ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 2. The vertical alignment of the track between the South Heath portal and Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the intrusion of the viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and reduce the height above the general ground surface of accommodation footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunnelling or moving the spoil down the trace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoil dump planned for Hunts Green fann and those by the construction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

14. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a draft; it is not specific about timing of works, or monitoring by the Local Authority and is subject to a sub contract with the nominated undertaker. Remedies: 1. Daily movements of HGVs to be restricted to between 09.30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes. 2. Construction activities should be subject to strict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting (there is no street lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are unlikely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage, also for an independent HS2 adjudicator to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims.

16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

17 Secondary Mitigation In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel that your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the haul road from the South Heath portal to the Link Road roundabout be moved along the A413 beyond the Mobwell junction, as it will help to lessen the impact of the construction traffic on the Great Missenden Area.

5 which no adequate provision is made to protect them.

Conclusion 19 Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Chiltern Tunnel that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being petitioned by the local County, District and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. If your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

22 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner's, their rights, interests, property and your Petitioner's area and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.

4. The prayer

The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that the Petitioner, or someone representing the Petitioner in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

Signed

Thomas Michael Johnstone - Agent

Date 11 April 2016

6 HL: 223

To the House of Lords Session 20 I 5-16 PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - W est Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ROYAL SOCIETY OF WILDLIFE TRUSTS

Declares that:

I. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts which was established in 2004, having originally been established in 19 12 as the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, to promote the conservation and study of nature, the promotion of research into such conservation and to educate the public in understanding and appreciating nature, in the awareness of its value and in the need for conservation.

The petitioner operates as an umbrella body for the 47 individual Wildlife Trusts, covering the whole of the UK, the Isle of Man and Alderney. Collectively The Wildlife Trusts manage around 2,300 nature reserves, some of which are directly affected by the construction and operation of the railway authorised by the Bill, and have in the region of 800,000 members, some of whom live or work in the area that will be affected by the construction and operation of the railway authorised by the Bill. The petitioner has responsibilities over the whole of the UK.

The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts is a member of the HS2 Ecology Technical Group established to provide the means for engagement, consultation and information sharing in order to achieve the best possible outcome for ecology from the high speed rail proposals. The group has met occasionally with representatives of the promoters. The Royal Society of W il dlife Trusts has also been represented at the HS2 Ministerial NGO Roundtable which has met regularly during the preparation of the Bill.

The petitioner does not object in principle to the decision to construct a high speed rail line from London to the West Midlands. However, the petitioner's interests, and in some cases the property of our members, are injuriously affected by the Bill.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

The petitioner believes that the aim of the Bill, in relation to ecological impacts, should be to result in a 'net gain' for biodiversity in line with paragraph IO of the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Select Committee in their report on HS2 and the Environment (7th April 2014), rather than the aim of 'no net loss' for biodiversity set out in the promoter's sustainability policy. We request that a clause is added to the Bill requiring a net gain for biodiversity to be secured in perpetuity through the works, mitigation and compensation, including habitat creation or improvement, and that appropriate funding is all ocated. The petitioner also believes that the Bill as drafted will not achieve even the stated aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity. The petitioner believes that the impacts the proposals would have on biodiversity assets are insufficiently mitigated and compensated for, leading to a significant overall reduction in biodiversity value resulting from the proposals.

The petitioner is concerned that the approach taken by the promoter to assessing their achievement of the 'no net loss' for biodiversity target is flawed in, amongst other things. its failure to consider indirect effects, its consideration of habitat connectivity, its approach to irreplaceable habitats such as Ancient Woodlands and its optimistic view of the time required to create and fully establish habitats. The petitioner requests that an independent review is undertaken of the approach taken to assessing the 'no net loss' calculation of the project's impact. In the event that a review highlights that further mitigation or compensation is required to meet the 'no net loss' target, or a revised 'net gain' target, the petitioner asks that provision is made to secure any fu rther mitigation or compensation for the full duration of the project. Approaches to securing mitigation or compensation could include the creation of new wildlife habitat or the improvement of existing wildlife sites.

The petitioner requests that suitable mitigation and compensation is provided through securing ecological improvements within the existing boundaries of the limits of land co be acquired, by incorporating additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or by establishing a mechanism to secure wildlife habitats or improvements outside the limits of the land to be acquired.

The petitioner objects to the level of loss of Ancient Woodland associated with the proposal. Ancient Woodland can support ecological communities of the highest wildlife value and represents, as stated by HS2 Ltd, an irreplaceable resource. There is insufficient evidence to show that translocation of Ancient Woodland is successful. As Ancient Woodland is irreplaceable, losses cannot, by definition be replaced or compensated. However, where it is deemed that there is unavoidable residual damage or loss to ancient woodland, the measures taken to "compensate" for this loss must be of a scale and quality commensurate with loss of irreplaceable habitat. HS2 Ltd. has not yet published a rationale to demonstrate the basis of the compensation it has proposed. The petitioner would like to see the compensation proposed for each woodland. Compensation as proposed is insufficient. The petitioner requests that the route is modified or tunnels are used to minimise the loss of Ancient Woodland and other ecological Interests. The petitioner is grateful to the promoters and the House of Commons High Speed Rail Select Committee for securing further tunnelling in the Chilterns AONB which reduces the impact of the proposals on Ancient Woodland.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that we, or someone representing us in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND The petitioner remains, etc.

Matthew Jackson Agent 14th April 2016 HL: 224

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION of MR RICHARD ANTHONY LLOYD

Declares that

l. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill, particularly Clauses 1- 3 (Works), Clauses 20 - 24 (Planning), Clauses 25 - 36 (Deregulation), and Clauses 60 and 61 (Deposited plans and sections).

Your Petitioner 2. The Petitioner is Richard Anthony Lloyd, who has resided in Balsall Common for 30 years in a property some 750 metres distant from the proposed railway. For many years, your Petitioner has walked the public rights of way in the surrounding area as an adjunct to his interest in mountaineering, and has built-up a database of all the local paths as a basis for encouraging proper maintenance by the local Highway Authorities - Solihull, Coventry, and Warwickshire. In 2006, your Petitioner carried out a comprehensive survey of 100 kilometres of paths around Balsall Common.

Your Petitioner is a current member of the Coventry Mountaineering Club, Ramblers Association, Solihull Photographic Society, and the National Trust, and is registered with the Scottish Mountaineering Club as Munroist number 2832.

As a user of all the public rights of way around Balsall Common for 2 to 4 hours every day, the rights and interests of your Petitioner are injuriously affected by the Bill, either directly or indirectly. Objection is taken to the part of the proposed works and the provisions of the Bill that are injurious, as set out in the following paragraphs.

Your petitioner's concerns 3. The Bill seeks to alter public footpaths and bridleways with insufficient attention paid to the loss of convenience and amenity. Public footpaths and bridleways are valued by many members of the community. In some instances, they can be used for utilitarian purposes, for travelling from A to B, but the majority of use is recreational. Physical exercise and dog-walking are predominant, but nature-watching, casual social activities, and art or photography are all important. Physical exercise includes walking, jogging, cycling, and horse-riding. For all purposes, getting away from motorised traffic and other disturbances is important.

When it becomes necessary to alter a non-motorised route, it is essential that both the convenience and the amenity are preserved. The convenience aspect means that the origin and destination must remain useful and accessible, the path should continue to

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 1 be part of a practical circuit or network, and the surface condition and drainage must be suitable for all seasons and users. The amenity includes factors such as having a purposeful route, keeping the path open on both sides, preserving attractive landscape, minimising noise disturbance, and having points of interest or refreshment along the way.

Rural amenity 4. Whilst your Petitioner asserts that the preservation of rural amenity is important for the recreational use of public rights of way, this would not conflict with or preclude the provision of facilities for those who wish to watch operation of the proposed railway. It is critical to the rural amenity that the structures for the proposed railway are of pleasing design, agricultural activity is re-established around the railway, and that suitable screening plantings and replacement habitats are established. The impact of noise is discussed in paragraph 5. Your Petitioner seeks undertakings from the Promoter that all elements of the proposed scheme will be designed to harmonise with adjacent buildings and scenery, that measures will be taken to prevent loss of Greenbelt land in consequence of the proposed railway, that a fund and management board will be created to encourage the merging of fragmented farmland into viable agricultural holdings, and that woodland and wildlife habitat will be created in line with best practice guidance in suitable locations to naturalise the proposed railway and mitigate its ecological impacts.

Noise disturbance 5. The tranquillity of the countryside is a key element of rural amenity, and special measures are needed to mitigate the intrusive noise level that is generated by railway trains at high speed. A particular problem is the rapid onset of the noise pu lse. For footpaths and cycleways, the peak potential disturbance would occur where the way passes over or under the railway. Exposure to high noise would be relatively brief, but there is good scope for effective noise barriers around bridges and underpasses. Your Petitioner seeks undertakings from the Promoter that acoustic disturbance from the proposed railway will be moderated by the design of the trains, barriers, and regulation of the speed of the trains, and that the maximum noise experienced on a footpath or cycleway from the passage of a single train will not exceed 75 dBA.

The reaction of animals to sudden loud noise levels is understood to vary with species. Horses can be startled by noise, by visual effects, or the combination of the two. In the context of public rights of way, serious danger can be created to horse-riders and those walking with, or leading, horses. Because of the combined effects of acoustic and visual stimuli, your Petitioner believes the safe maximum noise level for a bridleway would need to be determined for each location.

Regulation of highways in the construction phase 6. Temporary closure or diversion of footpaths and bridleways during the construction phase will cause disruption, inconvenience and - in some cases - financial loss. The likely inconvenience that would be caused by a closure or diversion is hard to determine without local knowledge, and the Promoter only proposes to review matters at the Highway Authority level. Your Petitioner seeks amendments to the Code of Construction Practice and an undertaking from the Promoter that the nominated

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 2 undertaker and its contractors will be required to apply for the closure or diversion of bridleways and footpaths through a community engagement process that would give the relevant parish or town council the right of refusal, and that would require a clear procedure to ensure closures, diversions, and restrictions are properly co?rdinated and well signed.

Public Bridleway W164 7. Public Bridleway W164 forms a part of National Cycle Network National Route 52, which links Warwick and Coventry via Kenilworth and Warwick University. The route was upgraded to a cycleway by the Sustrans Connect2Kenilworth project, and is an important route for both commuting by cycle, and leisure. If kept on the present alignment, the way would pass over the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146, at an elevation of 7.52 metres above the rails. Users include horses, cyclists, and disability scooters, the crossing of the railway would need to protect users from the rapid-onset noise from the trains, and shield horses from visual disturbance. The Promoter proposes to divert the way in a loop that would lengthen it by 300 metres and introduce two right-angle-bends and a bridge, Work No. 2/176, over the proposed railway. The bridge would have a 12 metre height change, and a steep gradient, and would encourage cyclists to reach speeds that are a danger to other users. The slope would be hazardous for all users in icy conditions. The Promoter claims the gradients will be limited to 5%, but this is not shown on Replacement Plan Sheet 2-112 and the relevant Section Sheet 5-108. You r Petitioner notes that the preferred maximum gradient in the Design Manual for a shared route is 3%, and there does not appear to be a good reason for not complying. The proposed diversion of the bridleway would resu lt in a serious loss of convenience, safety, and amenity.

It would appear the necessary headroom of 3.4 m could be provided beneath Work No. 2/146 for a diversion of the Bridleway through the canyon of the diverted Canley Brook Work No. 2/175. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that bridleway W164 will be diverted alongside the diverted Canley Brook with a slight increase in elevation of the proposed railway if necessary, that barriers will be provided to protect users from noise from the trains, that the noise barriers will be designed to tone in with the natural environment, and that the Promoter will certify that sound levels and sightlines at all points on the way are safe for the riding and leading of horses.

Public Bridleway W165x 8. Public Bridleway W165x is used primarily by wa lkers, and runs northwards from the outskirts of Kenilworth, across the Keni lworth Greenway, to the outskirts of Coventry through very attractive woodland. It enjoys excellent access and linkage to make recreational circuits of different lengths. The proposed ra ilway, Work No. 2/146, would cross the way in a shallow cutting 3 metres deep, and the Promoter proposes to divert the bridleway onto maintenance tracks required for the scheme, and to share the proposed overbridge for bridleway W164. This would lengthen bridleway W165x by 370 metres, and introduce four significant changes of direction and the steep gradient and hazards discussed in paragraph 7. More than 600 metres of the diverted route would be in close proximity to the proposed high speed railway, with the exposure of

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 3 people and horses to intermittent high noise levels and visual distraction. The proposed diversion would result in a serious loss of amenity, convenience, and safety.

The preferred option would be to put the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146, in a tunnel and run the bridleway over the top. Failing that, a modest diversion would allow the way to cross the proposed railway on a flat bridge, less than 100 metres to the north west of the current line of the way. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposed railway will be constructed in a tunnel so that bridleway W165x can be retained on its current alignment, or, that bridleway W165x will be diverted a short distance to the north-west to cross the proposed railway on a bridge suitable for all users of the way, that barriers will be provided to protect users from noise from the trains, that the noise barriers will be designed to tone in with the natural environment, and that the Promoter will certify that sound levels and sightlines at all points on the way are safe for the riding and leading of horses.

Public Footpath W167 9. Public Footpath W167 is another generally north-south path through scenic woodland and farmland. As with W165x, it is convenient to reach by car, and it links with other paths to make enjoyable walking circuits. The total length of the path is less than 950 metres, which the Promoter intends to extend to 1900 metres with a diversion that would take the user on current permissive paths and new tracks constructed for maintenance of the proposed railway. It would share an underpass beneath the proposed railway with Public Footpath W168. The proposed diversion would be laborious for many users, and would be of low amenity due to its proximity to the Broadwells Wood Embankment. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposed railway will be constructed in a tunnel so that footpath W167 can be retained on its current alignment, or, that a footbridge will be provided to allow footpath W167 to cross the proposed railway close to its current alignment, that barriers will be provided to reduce noise disturbance, and that the noise barriers will be partly transparent to allow a view of the landscape to both sides.

Public Footpath W168 10. Public Footpath W168 forms a long link between Hollis Lane and Burton Green, crossing the Kenilworth Greenway and running through agricultural land and along the edge of Broadwells Wood. It connects with a number of other paths to form leisure circuits of varying length. The Promoter proposes to divert the path onto a loop that would extend it by 60 metres, but 500 metres of the path would be on a maintenance trackway and have its visual amenity degraded by closeness to the Broadwells Wood Embankment. This choice of diversion seems to have been driven by the Promoter's desire to justify a circuitous diversion of W167 and share an underpass with it, as referred to in paragraph 9. The proposed diversions would result in an appreciable loss of amenity for users of the paths.

Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the underpass for W168 will be provided on the current alignment, of the path, that barriers will be provided to reduce noise disturbance, that the noise barriers will be designed to tone in with the natural environment, that trees will be planted in front of the barriers, arranged

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 4 irregularly and in depth to create a natural effect, and that this planting will be done early in the construction phase following best practice guidance.

Public Footpath W168A 11. Public Footpath W168A links Public Footpath W168 to Crackley Lane, a distance of 450 metres. The Promoter proposes to construct a maintenance trackway close alongside the footpath for most of its length, and crossing it. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a proper walking surface will be provided on the verge alongside the maintenance trackway and that the right of way will be way-marked along all its length.

Public Footpath W169 12. Public Footpath W169 runs from Red Lane in Burton Green in a north-easterly direction to cross the Kenilworth Greenway, and link to a number of other paths. The Promoter has lengthened the proposed tunnel taking the railway, Work No. 2/146, through Burton Green, and proposes to divert footpath W169 over the top of the tunnel near the South Portal. However, the diverted section of W169 has not been given a Work No., and no plan and section has been published. It is therefore not possible to make an informed judgement about the suitability of the proposals. The diverted route shown in the Environmental Statement could be made more attractive for the user if it were more direct. The optimum solution would be to put Work No. 2/146 in a tunnel at a lower elevation. You r Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposed rai lway will be constructed in a deep-bored tunnel at Cromwell Lane to eliminate interference with footpath W169, or, that a plan and section of the proposed Work to divert footpath W169 will be published, and that the diversion of footpath W169 will be amended as necessary to minimise the prolongation of the route and to keep the maximum gradient less than 5%.

The Kenilworth Greenway 13. Your Petitioner would draw attention to the great va lue of the Kenilworth Greenway to local people and those from further afield. It is a major recreational resource for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, joggers, naturalists and photographers. Most of the Greenway is part of the Coventry Way encircling Coventry, and it features in many other circular walks promoted by the Coventry Way Association. The Promoter proposes to use the Greenway for heavy vehicles during construction of the proposed railway, and then attempt to reinstate it to its original condition. However, your Petitioner fears that there will be irreparable damage to the structure, drainage system, culverts, embankments, flora, and fauna. The community would experience major inconvenience and loss of amenity. The Promoter has responded by saying a full structural survey will be undertaken, followed by appropriate strengthening (Ora l evidence taken before the High Speed Ra il Committee on 1 December 2014 (evening) paragraph 385). A temporary parallel haul route cou ld be created and used instead. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the Kenilworth Greenway will not be used for construction traffic other than in exceptional circumstances, and that a clear specification for restoration works and replanting will be agreed with the Greenway Trust and local councils and amenity groups.

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 5 14. The Promoter intends to provide a temporary cycle- and bridle-way, Work No. 2/1838, as a substitute for the Kenilworth Greenway during construction of the scheme. This provision is welcomed by your Petitioner, but the Promoter proposes that the route will have a loop that would cause it to run alongside the Cromwell Lane Satellite Compound. Not only would this add further distance to the route, but it would also expose Greenway users to noise, poor visual amenity, and airborne pollutants. Your Petitioner seeks an amendment to the route of Work No. 2/1838 so that it runs across the field south-west of the Cromwell Lane Satellite Compound in a continuous line, rather than making four changes of direction to follow the field boundary.

The route of the t emporary cycle- and bridle-way, Work No. 2/1838, runs along Waste Lane for about 40 metres. Scant details are provided in the Environmental Statement, and your Petitioner is concerned about the safety of users, especially as the Lane is designated as a construction route and the location is immediately adjacent to construction activities for Work No. 2/186. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the temporary route of the temporary cycle- and bridle-way along Waste Lane will be segregated from vehicle traffic to ensure the safety of users.

15. The Promoter proposes to replace the current Kenilworth Greenway near Burton Green with Work No. 2/182. An underpass beneath Cromwell Lane is now to be provided for this Work, as requested by your Petitioner. However, the Promoter does not appear to have given consideration to acoustic treatment of the underpass, to prevent resonance and noise transmission that might startle horses being ridden or led through. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the underpass will be su itable in size and acoustics for horse-riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, and that it will be certified by the Promoter as safe for the riding and leading of horses.

Work No. 2/182 would enter a cutting and pass beneath the reconstructed Cromwell Lane, Work No. 2/183, then climb up onto the top of the cut-and-cover Burton Green Tunnel. The Promoter proposes the new Greenway should climb with a gradient of 5% over a considerable distance, despite the preferred maximum gradient for mixed use being 3% in the Highways Design Manual. Your Petitioner believes this is unnecessary and would be unsafe and unsuitable for users of all ability. There is a probability that cyclists would reach speeds that are unacceptable on a mixed-use recreational route, due to the length of the ramp sections, and in winter, there is the risk of ice formation on the slopes, which would cause accidents. The surface on the steep gradient would experience wear and erosion at a higher rate than the existing surface, and thereby require greater maintenance and repair. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the gradient of the replacement Greenway will be kept to a maximum of 3% except over short distances, and that future operators of the proposed railway will be obliged by contract to pay the owners of the Greenway any costs involved in keeping the inclines in good condition and ice-free.

The proposed substitute for the current Kenilworth Greenway, Work No. 2/182, will extend for more than 1.5 kilometres. Whereas the existing bridle- and cycle-way runs in a cutting, the new route would run on higher ground above the Burton Green Tunnel and the cutting of the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146. This cutting is to be retained by a wall, except for a section with graded earthworks. Adjacent that section, Work No.

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 6 2/182 will be displaced laterally, to keep it at the same distance from the lip of the cutting. It is unclear how the "improved mitigation earthworks" referred to in the Environmental Statement would be accommodated. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that there will be proper screening to ensure horses will not be startled by sudden-onset noise or the sight of fast-moving trains.

About 200 metres south-east of Little Beanit Farm, it is proposed the replacement route would descend some 4 metres into the original cutting on a ramp. The proposed gradient is 5%, but there does not seem to be a sound reason for not adhering to the preferred maximum gradient of 3%. The hazard is less than at the south end of the Work, but your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the transition gradient will be reduced to close to 3%, and that future operators of the proposed railway will be obliged by contract to pay the owners of the Greenway any costs involved in keeping the ramp in good condition and ice-free.

16. Your Petitioner believes that the Promoter has allowed too little space for a noise barrier and the planting of foliage between the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway and the proposed rai lway, Work No. 2/146, in the section near Little Beanit Farm, south-east of Waste Lane. The Promoter proposes that the level of the rai lway would be some 2.5 metres below the level of the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway. No screening foliage is shown on the Promoter's drawings, and some of the Greenway su rface is taken up with a drainage channel. At present, drainage is provided by underground pipework. Public Footpath M184 runs parallel to the Greenway at this point, and a stepped ramp is proposed down to the Greenway, both of which require significant lateral space. Consequently, users of the Greenway will experience a serious loss of amenity. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway will be certified by the Promoter as safe for the riding and leading of horses, and that in the section adjacent to Little Beanit Farm, the Greenway will be displaced to the south-west as far as is necessary to provide adequate space for an effective noise barrier beside the railway and for planted foliage to conceal the noise barrier.

17. The Promoter proposes to create access to the Kenilworth Greenway from Station Road at Berkswell Station with a permissive bridleway some 500 metres long. This would meet a long-standing need for proper access to the Greenway from the Berkswell end . It is proposed to divert Public Footpath M196 laterally by a small distance onto this new way, and this will resolve the unauthorised obstruction of the lawful alignment of this path, which was drawn to the attention of the Highway Authority in January 2009. However, no plan or section has been made available of the proposed Work. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the diversion of Public Footpath M196 will be specified as Works in the Bill, that a plan and section of each will be published, that the maximum gradient for the Greenway extension will not exceed 3%, that the section of M196 on the embankment of the Greenway extension will be a ramp with a maximum gradient of 5%, and that the Greenway extension will be designated as a Public Bridleway.

Public Footpath M187 18. Public Footpath M187 provides an east-west link between Hodgetts Lane at Burton Green and Public Footpath M186, thus making up a recreational circuit around the built-

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 7 up area. It is also a permissive bridleway and one of the few cycle and equestrian access routes to the Kenilworth Greenway. Despite the issue being raised several times, your Petitioner would respectfully point out that the route of the path on the Promoter's maps and plans is incorrect, and that the path actually runs in the spinney around the edge of the field in which the Promoter proposes to construct an Auto transformer Station. This error has given the Promoter a false view of the most suitable diversion of the path. The proposed diversion of the footpath would result in it joining Hodgetts Lane just 60 metres from the entry to Public Footpath M182, and as such would be largely without purpose. Users making the walking circuit around the west of Burton Green would need to walk a further 130 metres along Hodgetts Lane, which is used by large vehicles and has no footway. They would therefore experience inconvenience, loss of amenity, and risk.

At the point where the current alignment of Public Footpath M 187 crosses the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146, the railway would be contained in the northern porous portal of the Burton Green Tunnel. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M187 east of the Greenway will be upgraded to a statutory Public Bridleway, that the path will be diverted along Work No. 2/182 and join Hodgetts Lane on its current alignment, that the crossing of the proposed railway will be made substantially on the current alignment, that barriers will be provided to protect users of path M187 from noise from the trains, and that the Promoter will certify that sound levels and sightlines at all points on the path are safe for the riding and leading of horses.

Public Footpath M186 19. The Promoter proposes to construct an overbridge, Work No. 2/184, across the railway and the Kenilworth Greenway to provide both agricultural access and to carry Public Footpath M186. The bridge is about 75 metres further north-west than the current bridge in order to separate farm traffic from users of the realigned Kenilworth Greenway, Work No. 2/182. To the north-east of the Greenway, the proposed diverted route of the path makes two unnecessary right-angle turns. In the Promoter's drawings, the bridge is shown as flat, and it is likely to be surfaced with concrete in order to be durable when used by cattle. However, your Petitioner is concerned that the surface may become inconvenient for walkers unless the bridge has an arched or cambered profile to promote drainage. No public right of access is proposed between the Kenilworth Greenway and footpath M186 where they cross.

Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the zig-zags will be removed from the proposed diverted route of M186 north-east of the Greenway, that a level connection between M186 and Work No. 2/182 will be provided where they are closest to each other on the south-west side of the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway, that a short direct stepped connection will be provided between M186 and Work No. 2/182 immediately adjacent to the bridge Work No. 2/184, that Work No. 2/184 will be constructed to ensure a convenient well-drained surface is kept available for walkers, and that noise barriers will be provided to protect the public and the livestock.

The Promoter has given no details about the appearance of the proposed overbridge, Work No. 2/184. The span across the Greenway would replace two existing structures

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 8 constructed of Victorian brick and cast iron. These structures are characteristic of the Kenilworth Greenway as a whole, and it is essential for the amenity of the route that any replacement structure is harmonious. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Work No. 2/184 will be designed to match the current structural style and will be constructed from, or clad with, original bricks salvaged from· the demolition of the existing bridges.

Public Footpath M184 20. At present, Public Footpath M184 starts at Waste Lane with a flight of steps down from the bridge that takes the Lane over the Kenilworth Greenway. It was repeatedly pointed out to the Promoter that the path would require diversion because of the intention to provide a new bridge, Work No. 2/186, somewhat further to the north-west than the current bridge. The solution proposed by the Promoter is a diversion of 50 metres with a descent to the Kenilworth Greenway and a re-ascent via the diverted Footpath M198, to the new Waste Lane bridge. All that is required is a ramp up from the existing path, curving around on the embankment to join the new bridge with a difference in level of about 2 metres. The existing flight of steps does not provide satisfactory access for all path users, so your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a ramp, with a gradient of no more than 5%, will be provided up the embankment of Work No. 2/186 to link Footpath M184 to the realigned Waste Lane.

As noted in paragraph 16, the Promoter appears to have allowed too little space for the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway to run between the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146, and Public Footpath M184. At Little Beanit Farm, the path runs on the south-western crest of the cutting accommodating the former railway, now the Greenway. At present, there is a line of trees on the crest of the old cutting, and it is unclear why any extra planting is required. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the trees, currently separating Public Footpath M184 near Waste Lane from the Kenilworth Greenway, will be replaced as required, that no other screening foliage will be planted, and that the footpath will be displaced to the south-west by the minimum necessary to accommodate the reinstated Greenway.

The proposed connection between Public Footpath M184 and the Kenilworth Greenway with a stepped ramp to overcome the height difference of about 2 metres is welcome, but no details are provided. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposed access ramp between the Keni lworth Greenway and Footpath M184 at Waste Lane will be suitable for all footpath users.

Waste Lane 21. The Promoter proposes to replace the existing bridge carrying Waste Lane over the Kenilworth Greenway with an overbridge, Work No. 2/186, spanning both the Greenway and the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146. Because the new bridge will be more than 2 metres higher than the existing one, and because it will have a more gentle profile, pedestrians will be less visible and more exposed to faster vehicles. Your Petitioner is concerned that, without a footway, pedestrians will have an increased risk of injury or death, and that users of Public Footpath M184 joining the carriageway from the south-east will be at special risk. Therefore, your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a footway to current design standards will be provided along

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 9 Waste Lane over Work No. 2/186, and that the boundary structure at the commencement of Footpath M184 will be set back at least 2 metres from the edge of the carriageway.

Public Footpath M198 22. Public Footpath M198 runs north-easterly from Old Waste Lane, near Catchems Corner, to reach Hodgetts Lane at Beechwood after 1175 metres. A linking footpath leads back north-westerly to Carol Green. Footpath M198 forms part of the Millennium Way and Coventry Way, and links to a multiplicity of recreational circuits at each end. The Promoter declines to provide a means of crossing the proposed railway, Work No. 2/146, and proposes to divert the south-west section of Footpath M198 to Waste Lane, reaching the road again after 680 metres, but only some 400 metres from the start of the path. The Promoter then proposes that users of the path should walk along the carriageway of the 84101 for 160 metres over the humped bridge, Work No. 2/186, before taking the second proposed diverted section of Footpath M198 to reach Beachwood after a further 910 metres.

This diversion of the path would result in its prolongation by 575 metres (nearly 50%), a major loss of visual amenity and walking pleasure, and exposure to traffic hazards. Your Petitioner would point out that the Promoter intends to provide an accommodation underpass beneath the proposed railway at Beechwood Farm, some 360 metres north west along the Kenilworth Greenway, and that a public right of way could be created from there north-eastwards to rejoin the current line of Footpath M198. Th is diversion would increase the path length by 330 metres, none of it on a road. Use of the Beechwood Farm Accommodation Underpass would actually shorten the path for users coming from the Berkswell Station direction, and it would be possible to make the diversion using 300 metres of farm track, or to take a shorter route outside the working area of the farm. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M198 will be diverted through the Beechwood Farm Accommodation Underpass, that access ramps will be provided from both directions of the Kenilworth Greenway with gradients not exceeding 5%, and that a right of way will be created around the working area of Beechwood Farm.

Public Footpath M191, Truggist Hill 23. The Promoter proposes to provide an underpass for Public Footpath M191 beneath the proposed railway, Work No. 3/1. However, the underpass would run square across beneath the railway, rather than following the current alignment of the path. This would introduce extra changes of direction in the path, cause inconvenience and loss of amenity for path users, and result in unnecessary changes to the embankment of the Kenilworth Greenway. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M191 will be reinstated on its existing alignment after construction of the proposed railway, and that noise barriers will be provided to protect path users.

Public Footpath M197 24. The Promoter proposes to introduce a zig-zag into the route of Public Footpath M197, which would result in a further loss of amenity for users of the path. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the underpass beneath Work No. 3/1 for

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 10 Public Footpath M197 will be made on an angle so that the original line of the route is retained, and that noise barriers will be provided to protect path users.

Part of the reinstated route for Public Footpath M197 is proposed to cross a replacement floodpla in storage area that would be susceptible to flooding. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the reinstated surface of Footpath M197 will be raised and consolidated above the level of the proposed floodplain storage area throughout its length.

Public Footpath M191, Lavender Hall 25. The Promoter has ha lved the length of the proposed Balsa II Common Viaduct to 250 metres, and made a corresponding extension to the Lavender Hall Embankment. As a result, the line of Public Footpath M191, running west toward Lavender Hall, would be closed, and walkers would have to detour onto footpaths M197 and M196. Footpath M191 supports a number of important recreational circuits around Balsall Common through arable land and the grazing lands of Ram Hall, and the amenity and enjoyment of these routes would be damaged. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that an underpass will be provided on the current alignment of Public Footpath M191 beneath Work No. 3/1, that the path surface will be raised and consolidated above the level of the proposed replacement floodplain storage area, and that noise barriers will be provided to protect path users.

Public Footpath M196 26. The Promoter proposes to make a small diversion of Public Footpath M196 in the work yard adjacent to Lavender Hall Lane, but this would introduce an unnecessary zig-zag into the path. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposed diversion of Footpath M196 will be made in a smooth continuous style to preserve the amenity of the path.

27 . The Promoter proposes to combine the traffic from Park Lane and Lavender Hall Lane to cross the proposed railway on new overbridge, Work No. 3/5. However, the Promoter has made no provision for a pedestrian footway on the proposed overbridge, despite the dangers created by the humped profile of the road and the increase in traffic. As this is the main pedestrian route between Berkswell and Balsall Common, it is essential that the overbridge be constructed to the highest standards of safety for all users. In addition, at present Public Footpath M196 descends a flight of steps to join Lavender Hall Lane, which is a constricted hollow way at the junction. The Promoter recognises that this would have to be rearranged due to the construction of the overbridge. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a footway of adequate standard and width will be provided on the proposed overbridge, that Footpath M196 will have a junction with Lavender Hall Lane on Work No. 3/5 that is convenient and safe for all path users, and that the requirements of British Standard 5709 will be satisfied in full.

Park Lane 28. The Promoter intends that Park Lane will be severed by the proposed railway, Work No. 3/1. It is proposed Public Footpath M214, the Heart of England Way, would join Park Lane on the west side of the railway. As a result, walkers travelling south-west

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 11 on the path would be unable to return to Berkswell village using the existing eastern part of the Lane, which makes a pleasant circular excursion from Berkswell. The severance of the Lane would require walkers to join Lavender Hall Lane and cross the railway for a second time on the new overbridge, Work No. 3/SC. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a short additional length of Public Right of Way will be created to link Public Footpath M214 to Park Lane on the Berkswell side of the proposed railway.

The Promoter proposes to construct a roundabout between the A452 and Park Lane, to facilitate construction traffic. Originally, this was intended to be temporary, but it is now planned to be retained. The Promoter concedes this will increase vehicle traffic on Park Lane, and have a new moderate adverse significant effect due to traffic-related severance for non-motorised users. Principally, this will affect walkers on the Heart of England Way, Public Footpath M214. However, there is a concern that the traffic impact is under-estimated, in that the route will become attractive, in both directions, to longer-distance commuters going toward Coventry. The Promoter does not identify any beneficial effects from the retention. There will be a considerable loss of visual amenity due to the roundabout itself, a balancing pond and maintenance access, lighting columns and light pollution, and signage. There will have an adverse effect on air pollution and road safety, since the great majority of vehicles will have to negotiate the roundabout with no benefit. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the temporary roundabout will be removed after construction, and that the landscape will be fully reinstated.

Public Footpath M214 29. Pubic Footpath M214 is an important part of the Heart of England Way, running south west from Berkswell village. The Promoter proposes to carry Footpath M214 across the proposed railway on an overbridge, Work No. 3/SC. Originally a width of 20 metres was proposed, but this has been reduced to 2 metres with a vegetated surface. As requested by your Petitioner, the bridge is shown as following the current alignment of the path. However, the railway would be in a deep cutting 80 metres wide. Some path users, particularly lone females, would feel insecure in a confined space of this length. Also, path users would be exposed to noise and air-blast from the trains below. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Work No. 3/SC will be constructed with a clear width of at least 5 metres, that noise barriers will be provided on the overbridge to attenuate noise to an acceptable level, and that the design, colouring, and finish of the overbridge will be chosen to harmonise with its rural setting.

Public Footpath M215 30. The Promoter proposes to provide an overbridge, Work No. 3/7A, with a width of 21.6 metres to carry Public Footpath M215 across the proposed railway, and to provide access for agricultural traffic. The Promoter proposes to use the land on the north-east side of the bridge for mitigation planting of broadleaved semi-natural woodland rather than a hedgerow, reducing its use for agricultural traffic. The railway would be in a cutting, with the su rface of the bridge about 2 metres above the ground level. However, the proposed right of way would run square across the railway, rather than follow the current alignment of the footpath, which is 30 degrees different, and is not centred on the current alignment of path M215.

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 12 Your Petitioner believes that the unnecessary zig-zags, introduced into the route by the misalignment of the right of way, bring artificiality to the footpath, and detract from its amenity, and seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Work No. 3/7A will be relocated 15 metres north-west to allow Public Footpath M215 to run diagonally across the bridge close to its current straight route, that barriers will be provided on the overbridge to protect path users from the noise of the trains, and that the noise barriers will be designed to harmonise with the rural environment.

Public Footpath M216 31. Public footpath M216 is the ancient pack-way between Berkswell and Hampton-in Arden, and a part of the Millennium Way. The proposed railway, Work No. 3/1, would sever the path in Sixteen-Acre Wood, which is one of the more delightful features of the route. The Promoter proposes to overcome this severance by providing parallel public footpaths on the two sides of the railway. On the south-west side, between the Footpath M215 Overbridge and Sixteen-Acre Wood, a new footpath would be created, which would join to the north section of Footpath M216 to preserve the pedestrian route between Berkswell and the area around Marsh Farm. On the north-east side of the proposed railway, the south section of Footpath M216 would join to a new path in Sixteen-Acre Wood, which would continue to a junction with Public Footpath M217 to preserve the pedestrian route between Berkswell and the area around Mercote Mill Farm. Unfortunately, both the proposed new sections of path would have reduced convenience and amenity for path users. The new path on the south-west side of the proposed railway would be sandwiched between the railway and the A452 dual carriageway, with none of the visual attraction of the current path. The new path on the north-east side of the proposed railway would run through very wet terrain for the northern 300 metres of its length. Consolidation of the path would have a harmful affect on the hydrology of the Berkswell Marsh.

Your Petitioner argues that resolution of these difficulties should be considered in conjunction with those affecting Footpath M217, as discussed in paragraph 34. Your Petitioner is aware that the Promoter now intends to construct Work No. 3/1 somewhat higher than originally proposed, and that the nominal elevation of the rails above the ground immediately north of Sixteen-Acre Wood would be 4 metres. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the section of Public Footpath M216 running west-north-west in Sixteen-Acre Wood will be diverted as proposed to run for some 300 metres alongside the railway, but only to the north edge of the Wood, that the path will then be diverted generally westwards across Bayleys Brook and beneath the proposed railway in an underpass tunnel at the north edge of the Wood, that the path will then resume a west-north-west heading to cross the open field for some 100 metres to rejoin its existing alignment, and that attention will be given to the levels and surfaces to ensure adequate drainage and convenient walking conditions.

Your Petitioner is concerned about the amenity of Public Footpath M216 and its proposed diversion, from its commencement at its junction with Public Footpath M215, north-westerly through Sixteen-Acre Wood, and beyond. The path would run close to the proposed railway for some 500 metres, and be exposed to high noise levels. Its ambience will be impaired by removal of the trees and the intrusion of the railway works. The Promoter is proposing to provide a screening embankment and to plant

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 13 trees, but your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that barriers will be provided to attenuate the noise experienced on Public Footpath M216, that best endeavours will be used to reduce the noise levels below that requested in paragraph 5, that the noise barriers will be designed to tone in with the natural environment, that trees will be planted in front of the barriers, arranged irregularly and in depth to create a natural effect, that this planting will be done early in the construction phase following best practice guidance, and that the Promoter will make enduring agreements to provide on-going care and maintenance.

32 . Public Footpath M216 follows the section of Marsh Lane to the east of the A452, which is affected by a proposed roundabout on the A452. The Bill would provide powers for a temporary stopping up of the path, but no other changes. Your Petitioner believes the intention is now to elevate the Lane as it approaches the A452, which will inconvenience users of the Lane, and impair the property Marsh Cottage. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a Plan and Section of the planned Work will be published and that your Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity to make further requests for relief from any injurious affects.

Bradnocks Marsh Auto-transformer Station access track 33. The Promoter proposes that a new access track to the Bradnocks Marsh Auto transformer Station should run around to the north of Marsh Farm, crossing the proposed diverted route of Public Footpaths M216 and M217. The western section of the access track would be natural continuation of the proposed footpath diversion from beneath the viaduct across Bayleys Brook to Bridleway M218 and a crossing of the A452. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that a pedestrian right of way will be created along the realigned access route to the Bradnocks Marsh Auto-transformer Station from Marsh Farm to its junction with the main road or diverted Bridleway M218.

Public Footpath M217 34. The Promoter proposes to divert Public Footpath M217 east of Marsh Farm in a loop to the north so it can pass under the Marsh Farm Viaduct where the proposed railway, Work No. 3/1, would cross Bayleys Brook. Your Petitioner contends that the diversion would be inconvenient and destroy the amenity of the route. The diversion would add 300 metres to the route, all of it in close proximity to the proposed railway, and would take the path user in the opposite direction from where the path is heading. Once on the west side of the proposed railway, the diverted path would go right against the buildings of Marsh Farm. Because the area is low-lying and perpetually water-logged, a board-walk would be needed, or the surface would have to be consolidated with stone to the detriment of the hydrology and the amenity. Your Petitioner proposes an alternative diversion, and seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M217 will be diverted in a south-easterly direction from a point about 120 metres south of its crossing of Public Bridleway M218, following the edge of Coronation Spinney, and that M217 will then be diverted in a south-south-westerly direction for some 200 metres to join the diverted Public Footpath M216 and cross Bayleys Brook and Work No. 3/1 as proposed in paragraph 31, and that the part of this latter section that traverses marshy ground will be constructed as a board-walk that connects to the bridge over the Brook.

Petition of Richa rd Anthony Lloyd, page 14 Your Petitioner believes that the part of Public Footpath M217 on the west side of the proposed railway heading toward the A452 road and Bradnocks Marsh should do so as directly as possible to lessen exposure to the sight and sounds of the proposed railway on one side, and the A452 dual-carriageway on the other. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M217, on the west side of the proposed railway, will separate from Public Footpath M216 and be diverted one field width to the south-east of its current route, to run in a south-westerly direction along the field edges, to join the A452 road about 80 metres north of the Bradnocks Marsh Lane roundabout, near where there is a vehicle lay-by.

35. The Promoter proposes that the Bradnocks Marsh Auto-transformer Station be accessed from Marsh Lane rather than from the Bradnocks Marsh roundabout using a track constructed alongside the proposed railway. This means that the Auto transformer could be positioned nearer Marsh Farm, where the landscape impact would be much less. The change in access arrangements for the Auto-transformer Station and its potential movement away from Sixteen-acre Wood creates the opportunity for a full re-evaluation of the diversions proposed in the area of Sixteen acre Wood to take proper account of amenity, convenience, topography and ground conditions. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that there will be a full re-examination of the proposed diverted routes of Public Footpaths M216 and M217, giving priority to public amenity and convenience.

Public Bridleway M218 36. At present, there is natural continuity between Bridleway M218 on one side of the A452, and Marsh Lane and Public Footpath M230A on the other. Private vehicular users of the accommodation track are able to cross the central reservation at this point. The Promoter proposes to construct a roundabout at the junction of the A452 with Marsh Lane and the Mercote Hall Lane trackway (which is also Public Bridleway M218}. These proposals will result in changes to Works No. 3/9, 3/9A, 3/98, and 3/9C, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and the deposited Plans and Sections. However, no relevant revisions have been made to Schedule 1, Plan Sheet 3-004, or Section Sheets 6-007 and 6-008. Consequently your Petitioner has no dimensional information upon which to make an informed assessment of the affects of constructing a roundabout which is portrayed in the Environmental Statement map books as some 80 metres in diameter and constructed on a dual-carriageway having a 4% gradient. Your Petitioner does not believe the revised Works can be constructed within the Limits of Deviation permitted in Schedule 1 sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), and seek an undertaking from the Promoter that revised Plans and Sections of the relevant Works will be published and that your Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity to make further requests for relief from any injurious affects.

37. Your Petitioner requested previously that an underpass be provided at this junction to provide safe ingress and egress for Heavy Goods Vehicles using the adjacent Lincoln Farm cafe, and safe and convenient access for agricultural, cycle, and equestrian traffic to Public Bridleway M218. In contrast, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council asked for a roundabout in conjunction with a Pegasus crossing for equestrians, but the Promoter does not propose to provide such a crossing. Your Petitioner believes that the lack of safe provision for horse-riders and cyclists to cross the dual-carriageway is

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 15 unacceptable, given the known hazards they experience at roundabouts. Path users on foot will also find it more difficult to cross the road than at present, with vehicles queuing and changing speed and direction. A roundabout part way up the ramp of the Work No. 3/9 bridge will be visually intrusive and perturb the traffic flow, causing noise, pollution, and inconvenience to the great majority of users. There is little traffic entering or leaving the A452 at this point and your Petitioner believes an underpass with slip-roads for all-movements would be superior in most respects, and that a single carriageway underpass, with signal control, would probably suffice. The signals could be arranged to give priority to cyclists and equestrians. Your Petitioner notes also that the roundabout construction would lengthen the duration of works by 6 months, and will extend the impacts of the scheme to more properties. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a full evidence-based evaluation will be made of the junction options, and that an underpass will be provided for bridleway users and vehicles crossing the A452.

38. Your Petitioner is disappointed that there is no reference in the documentation to a change to Work No. 3/9A that is visible on the map in the Environmental Statement. This Work is an overbridge proposed to carry Mercote Hall Lane (Bridleway M218) over the proposed railway, Work No. 3/1. It appears that the Promoter now proposes to widen the bridge to make two segregated lanes, one of which would carry the Public Bridleway. Given the little traffic that uses this trackway, your Petitioner doubts there is a good justification for widening the bridge by 3 metr~s and more, with the additional land-take, visual impact, and cost. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Work 3/9A will be constructed to the current width of the trackway.

39. Your Petitioner is further disappointed that previous representations about errors made by the Promoter in the depiction and diversion of Public Rights of Way in the Bill and Environmental Statements have been ignored. The alignment of Public Bridleway M218 is not as shown by the Promoter, and it has not continued to Point Pl, referred to in the Bill and Plans, since well-before the boundary changes of 1974. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that the Promoter will check the claimed alignments of all Public Rights of Way in our area against the relevant Definitive Map, and will correct the Bill documents accordingly.

40. The noise of the trains could be a hazard for people riding or leading horses across the proposed overbridge on Public Bridleway M218, due to the high sound level and its rapid onset. Barriers will need to be fitted to protect equestrians from noise and air blast. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the bridleway overbridge will be furnished with barriers to reduce noise to a safe level, and will certify that sound levels and sightlines are safe for the riding or leading of horses.

Public Footpath M230A 41. The Promoter proposes to divert Public Footpath M230A to avoid the need for it to cross the proposed railway, Work No. 3/1. This diversion, made by Work No. 3/10, might be advantageous for path users heading toward Hampton-in-Arden, but the details are somewhat unsatisfactory. The Promoter's maps show fiddly changes of direction where the diversion passes a balancing pond and descends off the current wide tarmac surface. The section of the Work indicates the nominal level of the

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 16 diversion would drop into the River Blythe floodplain at about 84 metres above the Newlyn datum. Creating the diversion in this way will be inconvenient to users, and compromise the amenity of the route. The Promoter proposes in AP2 to realign the diversion and put it on an embankment. However, the plan and section in the Bill have not been changed, and the two right-angle turns in the right of way remain by the balancing pond. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the right angle turns will be removed from Work No. 3/10, that Work No. 3/10 will be created in a smooth continuous style to preserve the character of the existing way, that the position of its junction with the existing route will be exchanged with that of the proposed maintenance turning point for the balancing pond, that its width and surface will match that of the current way, and that the plan and section of Work No. 3/10 will be revised to show the new alignment and a level at least 1 metre above the adjacent floodplain ..

42. Your Petitioner notes that the proposed junction of the diverted section of Public Footpath M230A with the Meriden Road 84102 would be at a point where there is no footway on the south side of the road, and where there are frequent traffic accidents because of the road profile and restricted view. This will be inconvenient for users of the path, and expose them to unnecessary haz ards. The adjacent bridge over the River Blythe has a segregated footway on the north side of the carriageway, but crossing the road at this point would be dangerous for pedestrians. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that an additional footway will be created on the south side of the current bridge over the River Blythe, and that the footway will be continued at the side of the carriageway for some 60 metres to the junction with Public Footpath M118.

Diddington Lane 43. Local people were pleased that the Promoter intended to close Diddington Lane for through-traffic and preserve it for non-motorised users, but the current proposal is to create a new by-pass road for vehicular traffic. Keeping the original Lane as a Bridleway appears attractive, but the proposed route through the gap in the embankment is circuitous and inconvenient. It would be more than 100 metres longer than the original roadway, requires three separate bridges across ditches and the Shadow Brook, and appears susceptible to water-logging in wet weather, even if the path is above the flood level. The Promoter's proposed new road, Work No. 3/lSC, is contrary to the wishes of local resid ents and is likely to make Diddington Lane a busy short-cut to the station at Middle Bickenhill. The inconvenience and poor amenity of the "old" Lane is likely to discourage use, and non-motorised users might prefer Work No. 3/lSC, if it were constructed, as it is only one kilometre long.

Given the potential for the Diddington Lane Emban kment to impede the flow of ground water and surface floodwater, it would seem many problems could be solved by reverting the scheme to the open viaduct that was proposed originally. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the embankment will be changed back to an open viaduct construction, that the former road surface and bridge will be retained as a direct route for walkers, cyclists, and equestrians, that the opening beneath the viaduct will be closed to normal vehicle traffic, and that the maintenance access track

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 17 onto the railway from the north will be realigned to accommodate the non-vehicular access route.

Public Footpath M114 44. The Promoter proposes to divert the south-eastern part of Public Footpath M114 along Diddington Lane and the private access track to Pasture Farm. Whilst this would be acceptable to maintain access during the construction phase, the diversion would cause a significant loss of utility and amenity afterwards. In particular, if the new road, Work No. 3/lSC were to be built, the diversion would impose an unnecessary detour. There seems no particular difficulty in providing a graded approach for the path to pass over the embankment of Work No. 3/lSC. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M114 will be restored to its current alignment after the construction phase, and that the temporary diversion will be available for use at all times when the lawful route of M114 is closed by the proposed construction works.

45. The Promoter proposes to relocate the Bickenhill Waste Recycling Centre from its location generally west of the proposed railway, to a new larger site in the Green Belt, to the east of the railway. The proposal has been assessed in relation to just one environmental topic, Cultural Heritage. Access to the site would be provided by Work No. 3/168. The north-western section of Public Footpath M114 would be affected by the scheme. There seems no reason why the path should be closed during construction. After construction, the path would run alongside plantings adjacent to the Waste Centre and emerge onto the service road just where vehicles would be turning into the Centre. Pedestrians heading westwards would have to walk across both the entrance and the exit to the new Waste Centre. Given the loss of amenity associated with this change, it would be preferable for path users for the footpath to be diverted onto the access track to Pasture Farm. The junction with the service road would be a safer location for pedestrians to join the carriageway, and would remove the need to cross the Waste Centre entry and exit slip-roads. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Public Footpath M114 will be kept open during construction of the proposed Waste Recycling Centre, and that the footpath will be diverted to run along the access track to Pasture Farm with a safe junction onto the footway along the A45 Service Road .

Public Footpath M107 46. Public Footpath M107 runs through the grounds of the National Motorcycle Museum and terminates at a junction with the A45, but does not facilitate safe pedestrian access across the A45. The Promoter proposes to offset the temporary loss of 30 car parking spaces at the National Motorcycle Museum during the construction phase by providing an additional area of parking. Public Footpath M107 runs along the edge of the proposed area, which is in the Green Belt. There is no description of what works are proposed, and whether it is intended to extend the area of hard standing, to upgrade the existing surfacing, or to change the access roadways. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that there will be no encroachment on Public Footpath M107, and that the amenity of the area will be assured both during the period of temporary use, and afterwards, and that Footpath M107 will be extended by some 100 metres on its generally east-north-easterly alignment, to join the loop road and underpass to the Eastway, and that the path surface will be properly made and graded.

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 18 Public Footpath M96 47. Your Petitioner is concerned about Public Footpath M96 which is in the parish of Great Packington, Warwickshire, but joins the existing A452 on the boundary of Solihull Borough to the north of the Stonebridge roundabout. The proposed realignment of the A452, Work No. 3/19, would mean that users of the footpath approaching the A452 from the Packington direction would have to negotiate a new drainage ditch and a modified embankment, which cou ld be particularly difficult for persons of reduced mobility. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the path will be graded and surfaced conveniently, that the bridge across the new ditch will be safe for all users, and that any boundary structure will conform to the accessibility requirements of British Standard 5709.

Middle Bickenhill Lane 48. Your Petitioner would assert that the proposed closure of Middle Bickenhill Lane to all traffic would have a serious impact on non=motorised users, as well as being an inconvenience to residents. There is a paucity of walking, cycling, and horse-riding routes in this area. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a non motorised route will be provided onto and through the Bickenhill station curtilage from Middle Bickenhill Lane, which would pass under the proposed elevated People Mover {Work No. 3/20 and Work No. 3/20A), and that during construction, temporary closure of the Lane will not take place unless the alternative routes are available and are free from congestion caused by the works.

Public Footpath M105 49. Public Footpath M105 would be affected by the realigned access road to the Quartz Point Business Park {Work No. 3/22F). Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that warning signs and pedestrian markings will be provided on the new carriageway where the Public Right of Way crosses, and that dropped kerbs with tactile paviors will be provided on the footway.

Brickfield Farm 50. The Promoter proposes to create replacement public space in part of Brickfield Farm, and to provide a pedestrian crossing on Coleshill Heath Road. Your Petitioner considers that the improved access will increase the informal recreational use of the field margins of the rest of Brickfield Farm by the residents of Chelmsley Wood and other areas. Given the shortage of green amenity space in the area, this is a valuable resource that would be seriously diminished by construction of the proposed Pool Wood Embankment. Until construction of the M42 motorway, there was a public right of way across t he farm on Footpath M83. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that public access to the area will be assured, with the creation of new public rights of way, and that access beneath Work No. 3/25 will be provided to the area east of the railway.

Alleviation of injuries by a tunnel and realignment north-west of Burton Green 51. Your Petitioner has already drawn attention to the benefits of extending the tunnel proposed by the Promoter at Burton Green toward the south-east. Where the railway is placed in a tunnel, injurious affects on users of public footpaths and bridleways are

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 19 avoided completely, except where the tunnel requires some surface infrastructure. If the Burton Green Tunnel were extended to the north-west, similar benefits would ensue for all the harms set out from paragraph 13 onwards, as far as the north-west portal of the tunnel.

The Promoter has considered a deep-bored tunnel extending to beyond Public Footpath M215, paragraph 30. Your Petitioner is aware of, and supports, proposals for a longer tunnel, in conjunction with a small shift of the alignment of the proposed rai lway to the east. Potentially, nearly all the other injurious affects on public rights of way, described herein, could be avoided. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the railway, comprising Work Nos. 2/146, 3/1, and 3/25, will be placed in tunnel as far northwards as practicable, that the railway will be realigned to the east between Burton Green and Coleshill to minimise the environmental impact, that corresponding changes will be made to all the subsidiary Works, and that the relevant Plans and Sections will be amended accordingly.

Further general concerns 52. Your Petitioner regrets that the Promoter intends to stop or reduce public non motorised access, for travel or open-air recreation, permanently or temporarily, to other highways not mentioned herein. Your Petitioner would draw attention to the concerns on such matters expressed by the Highway Authorities and others in their responses to various consultations about the proposed rai lway, and your Petitioner will support any petitions by the Highway Authorities and others that seek mitigation of the affects of the proposed railway on non-motorised access for travel and open-air recreation.

53. Whilst appreciating the complexity of the proposed scheme, your Petitioner is concerned about errors and omissions in the information provided by the Promoter. Your Petitioner has drawn attention to the failure to request the necessary diversion of Public Footpath M184, and to errors relating to Public Footpath M187 and Bridleway M218. Your Petitioner has drawn attention herein to the failure of the Promoter to keep the various plans and sections up to date. Because of the risk that your Petitioner may be disadvantaged by other errors and omissions that are not yet recognised, your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that the Promoter will inform promptly all relevant organisations and persons of any further errors or omissions that come to light, and that the Promoter will allow them to petition for the relief of any injuries arising therefrom at no further cost.

54. For the foregoing and connected reasons, your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless the Bill is amended and undertakings given as proposed above, the provisions of the Bill, so far affecting your Petitioner, should not be allowed to pass into law.

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 20 55. There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner and his rights, (including his human rights) interests and property and for which no provision is made to protect your Petitioner and other clauses and provisions necessary for his protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

The Prayer The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Richard Anthony Lloyd

14 April 2016

Petition of Richard Anthony Lloyd, page 21 HL: 225

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail {London - West Midlands} Bill

THE PETITION OF LINDA HAPGOOD

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

Your petitioner is owner of a property in Albert Street North, where she lives with her two daughters and a lodger. It is an early Victorian house which she has been carefully maintaining for over thirty years.

The whole house is listed grade 2 as are the overwhelming majority of the houses, a well preserved Victorian pub (The Spread Eagle) and approximately 30 self contained flats in this section of the street. They are all within a conservation area. The buildings have no proper foundations and are mostly constructed from bricks and weak lime mortar meaning that damage can easily be caused by vibrations from HGVs. It is a quiet residential street with approximately only 10-20 vehicles passing every hour. It is approximately 100 meters from the proposed tunnelling works. The street is one of the very few intact streets representing Camden Town's Victorian heritage.

2. Your petitioner and her interests are injuriously affected by the bill as passed by the House of Commons for reasons outlined below. If the bill were to be passed by the House of Lords in its present form, her property and her enjoyment of life and of those living with her would be significantly blighted for many years to come.

3. Following representations made to HS2 Ltd and to the Houses of Commons Hybrid Bill Select Committee, your petitioner has received formal assurances from the Secretary of State that:

(i) The cellars belonging to her house will not be required for the utilities works planned for Albert Street North, thus overriding Compulsory Purchase Order Notices which had previously been wrongly served by HS2 Ltd;

(ii) Albert Street North will be required as a Construction Route for the project only until 2018 and only insofar as is needed for the utilities works planned for the street, thus overriding the maps in the AP3 Environmental Statement which indicated that Albert Street North would be a Construction Route for the duration of the wider construction works.

4. Your petitioner welcomes these assurances but remains extremely concerned about the impacts the planned construction works for the Camden and Euston areas will have on the street and the immediate neighbourhood, which will have a seriously detrimental effect on our well-being as residents. These impacts are described in the AP3 Environmental Statement and will last for many years. They include:

(i) Hundreds of heavy goods vehicles a day on adjacent streets - creating noise, air pollution, accident risk and additional vehicle congestion in an already congested area;

(ii) Noise and air pollution from construction activity in the Camden Cutting, bearing in mind that the pollution in Camden is already above EEC permitted levels;

(iii) Heavy construction work and construction traffic for up to two years on the street due to rerouting of utilities; and the possibility that, in spite of the assurance given on construction traffic (see para 3 (ii) above), our street may be used for construction traffic for many more years if Camden Council were so to decide in order to reduce pressure of HGV traffic on adjoining streets;

For all these reasons, reduced ability to sell her property should she wish to do so, and reduced property value.

5. Various mitigation measures and assurances have been offered to her (see para 3 above) and to other local residents by HS2 Ltd, and a number of assurances have been provided to Camden Council. These are welcome as far as they go, but taken together they do not address the fundamental problem - that the route into Euston as currently designed, and the plans for Euston station as provided for in Additional Provision 3, will create intolerable impacts in terms of magnitude and duration for residents on our street and in the adjoining neighbourhood.

6. Accordingly, your petitioner ASKS the committee to recommend a fundamental rethink of the design of the route into Euston and of the redevelopment of Euston station with a view to radically reducing the negative impacts of the current plans as noted above. There are several alternative design options in existence for both the station and for the route into Euston. Lack of transparency on the part of HS2 Ltd and the government has meant that we do not know to what extent these options have been seriously considered. The government has previously refused Freedom of Information requests for such information. Our strong impression is that serious consideration of alternative options has not taken place. HS2 Ltd and the government should now make public such analyses they have done on alternative options. HS2 Ltd's current plan for Euston station and the approach route into it, along with potential alternative options, should be subject to a comprehensive comparative technical, economic, financial and socio/environmental evaluation. In this evaluation, proper weight should be given to the interests and well-being of the residents and businesses of Camden, bearing in mind the House of Commons HS2 Select Committee's conclusion that "Camden is exceptional and needs special treatment".

7. Furthermore, she ASKS the committee to recommend that until this comparative evaluation has been undertaken and considered by the government and by Parliament, there should be no construction work started between Old Oak Common and Euston.

8. Whether or not the committee is willing to recommend the ASKS in paras 6 and 7 above, she strongly urges it to recommend a range of additional mitigation measures, covering in particular:

(i) Volume of HGV traffic to and from the construction site. She attaches high importance to reducing the amounts of spoil from the site and materials into the site being transported by HGVs, with the great majority being carried by rail. She will be watching closely for the revised spoil and materials transport plan promised by the Secretary of State by the end of May.

(ii) A stronger monitoring and adjudication regime to cover HGVs, and noise and air pollution from the construction site.

(iii) Improved compensation arrangements, especially in the Need to Sell scheme such that properties on Albert Street North would be more explicitly eligible to benefit from the scheme and that potential vendors would not have to show "compelling reason" if they wished to take advantage of it.

9. The residents of Albert Street North have been advised by HS2 Ltd that the published maps cannot be changed to reflect the assurance we have been given regarding our street as a Construction Route (see para 3 (ii) above). We are told this is unnecessary since the assurance overrides the maps. However, we find that the maps HAVE been changed in a number of respects in the past few months and these changes include changes to the route designation for Albert Street North which do NOT reflect the assurance we were given. Your petitioner ASKS for the maps to be correctly revised in regard to our street.

10. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Name: Linda Hapgood Signature.. . HL: 226

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETIT ION against the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF The P arochial Church Council of St Mary's, Wendover.

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill by virtue of the fact that the chosen route is elevated on the surface 280m from St Mary's Church with the result that the noise inside and o utside the building is at an unacceptable level.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Mary the Virgin, Wendover, Buckinghamshire. Your petitioner is the governing body for St Mary's, the Church of England parish church located within the town of Wendover. There has been a church o n the site since the twelfth century and the present Grade II* building dates from the early and later parts of the fourteenth century. It has recently been extensively renovated to create a very flexible space (at a cost of approximately £900,000) and is a much -loved place of worship and community facility, widely used throughout the week. The PCC body currently comprises seventeen individuals, being both members of the clergy and laity within the church. T he PCC is responsible for the overall spiritual and practical wellbeing of the church, its congregation and its buildings, as well as having a duty to promote the mission o f the church within the wider community most especially by encouraging the use of the building to all suitable community activities such as concerts and educational activities.

3. Your Petitioners concerns

Due to the fact that the proposed route of the train is 280m from the church with "line of sight" between the tracks and building, the church and its surroundings is adversely affected by the noise generated up to 36 times per hour which will seriously impact on the activities of the church which is used by the whole community for a wide variety of religious and secular activities and most importantly as the local concert venue for a range of high quality concerts by top international artists as well as many local artists and groups.

The inevitable consequence of the noise caused by the railway without necessary mitigation will be the cessation of many of the activities with the resultant loss of essential income which the PCC rely on to maintain the building for the use of the whole community for both religious and secular purposes. The current vibrant community space will be fatally diminished and lost to the commurury It now serves.

The train noise will be clearly audible during the silences and quiet passages of a performance or service and importantly with greater frequency and volume than the current ambient/ background noise. 4. Proposed mitigation- your petitioners "ask"

The importance of the church as a concert venue was identified in the ES but the mitigation provided for in the original Hybrid Bill was woefully inadequate. The additional mitigation set out in AP5 is still not sufficient to protect the internal acoustic of the building without either fully enclosing/tunnelling the train, which would benefit both inside and outside the church and avoid the need for 6m high acoustic barrier, or sound attenuation of the fabric of the building which would at least solve the problem for all activities inside the building. The need for sound attenuation to the building for mitigate the noise internally is the conclusion of a report prepared by Steve Summers MSc CEng MIOr\ of ACCON UK which will be presented to the Committee in evidence.

The scope of sound attenuation works that is acceptable to you petitioner both technically and from a heritage view and is supported by the Oxford Diocese, will cost £670,000 including irrecoverable VAT at today's prices based o n a professionally prepared cost estimate. While HS2 have agreed in principle the elements of the building that need attenuation in principle they has only offered a contribution of £250,000. Therefore as a minimum the Petitioner asks that the House of Lords instruct HS2 to increase their contribution to £670,000 with the amount adjusted following the application o f the BCIS All-in TPI once the timing of the works can be established.

Once the sound attenuation is completed your petitioner will continue to benefit from the much needed inco me from the users of the building and most importantly, the whole community will continue to benefit from the wide range of activities that will be able to continue because the acoustics will not be disturbed by the noise from the trains.

The petitioner also asks that adequate funds are provided to Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) to enable them to construct and maintain for the long term the sound barriers proposed along the A413 and London Road which will be of particular benefit to users of the churchyard. Currently it is understood by the petitioner that I-IS2 are only offering the initial capital cost of these barriers leaving the BCC with the ongoing cost of maintenance and graffiti removal.

5. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the I-l ouse of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the H ouse, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Signed

William N A very

Agent on behalf of St Mary's Parochial Church Council

12'h April 2016 HL: 227

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

Hl&h Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Biii

THE PETITION OF Di'ane Blackwell

Declares that

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is a retired Teacher and the Freehold owner of West Barn Savay Farm a property which will be directly and specially affected by construction vehicles using the proposed satellite construction sites in Moorhall and Morefield Roads.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

I moved to Savay Farm 9 years ago when I was forced to take early retirement due to an inherited protein deficiency which result In me suffering from COPD. West Barn was the perfect location, flat areas for walking (exercise being vital for my well-being) away from busy roads. I now find that I will be living in close proximity to the B roads that construction vehicles, belching out diesel fumes, will be using to construct the 4 kilometre viaduct. I need to regularly access Harefield Hospital and Northwood Health Centre and I fear this will be greatly hindered by the huge increase in traffic. I would like to request that construction vehicles be closely monitored in terms of volume of traffic and environmental pollution by an Independent Ombudsman and where possible the Nominated Undertaker uses an alternative route such as the A412 North Orbital Road.

4. The prayer

[ 1-& ...:f- . 5),_ol1o 1

- 1 - HL: 228

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Mary Sketch

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. The petitioner is resident at 44 Hale Road, Wendover, in the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where she has lived for over 18 years. She will be specially and directly affected by the whole Bill, both during construction and after completion of the project.

She has been the recipients of letters and information in the post from HS2 Ltd, which indicates that it considers that she is affected by the Bill.

3. The petitioner objects to the construction and operation of certain of the scheduled works proposed to be undertaken in or near Wendover between Little Missenden and Stoke Mandeville. These works consist mainly of Wendover Dean viaduct, a cutting from the northern end of the Wendover Dean viaduct to Hartley Farm, an embankment between Hartley Farm and Road Barn Farm, Small Dean viaduct, and an embankment between the northern end of the Small Dean viaduct and the southern end of the Wendover green tunnel, and include ancillary works such as satellite compounds, auto transformer stations, balancing ponds and portal buildings.

The only possible alternative is a fully-bored tunnel right through the Chilterns AONB to the north of Wendover.

4. During construction the petitioner will be affected by: a) Disruption of traffic and substantial delays on local roads. b) Dust which might cause health problems. c) Damage to the Chilterns AONB with its exceptional beauty and legally protected landscape. d) Damage to local heritage and facilities, including St Mary's Church, which she frequently visits and where her husband is buried, and many listed ancient buildings. e) Closing of footpaths.

WHS2LordsPtngAppA416 doc t) Noise. g) Light pollution at night. h) Reduction in the value of her property, which has already suffered blight for over six years. i) Damage to the local aquifer, with a serious effect on local water supplies.

5. Following completion of the proposed works the petitioner will be affected by: a) Noise when the high speed trains operate at such frequent intervals. d) Reduction in value of her property. e) Damage to local heritage and facilities t) Continuing damage to the aquifer.

6. The petitioner proposes that a fully-bored tunnel be built throughout the length of the AONB, thus reducing most of her concerns in paragraph 4 above and all of her concerns in paragraph 5 above. It is accepted by all parties that such a tunnel is feasible. In her view the benefits of such a tunnel have not been fully evaluated and the costs have been exaggerated. The petitioner would accept the opinion of a fully independent costing. In the absence of one she considers the case for a fully-bored tunnel to be overwhelming.

7. The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Mary Sketch

Name of Agent ANTONY CHAPMAN

WHS2LordsPtCIIIAPPA4 I6 doc HL: 229 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF_JONATHAN MARK CUTLER

Declares that:

1. Your petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitl'oner is the joint owner, with his wife, of the freehold interest in a residential property at 7 Lappetts Lane, South Heath, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire HP16 ORA.

This property currently enjoys a tranquil and safe location and is located 500 metres from the portal cutting and 800 metres from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Vol 2.1 Replacement sheet 2.25.

Your petitioner resides in a part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

1. Your Petitioner will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioner requests that the presently proposed fully bored Chi Item Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the Di proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact on the AONB.

2. Your Petitioner further requests that in assessing the alternatives of adopting the full tunnel proposals instead of the Promoter's current proposals for the AONB section of the line, the Promoter is instructed to commission and publish a fully independent cost analysis of such alternatives and to undertake and publish a full cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts for such AONB section.

3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses l and 2 and Schedules l and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/14 to 2/20 in Schedule l and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2- 24 to 2-28 to the Frith Hill roundabout.

10. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner is 800 metres from the trains exit/entrance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tunnel and are the finding their house prices blighted. They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dysfunctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un-blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current un-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell.... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable un-blighted valuations.

11. Operational Noise: Your petitioners are close enough to the surface line to suffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60dBmax ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

Remedies: I. Your petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60dBmax should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in Information Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to dissipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond; deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening the porous portal; higher more absorbent noise barriers adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of the line and to the south of

3 the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMI/12 & 13.

12. Health and Wellbeing: Your Petitioner is concerned that his Health & Wellbeing has been adversely affected, and continue to be, since the announcement of HS2 in 2010. The undeniable result of HS2 is worry, anxiety and stress. A further worry is that emergency response times will deteriorate further during construction when ailments such as respiratory disorders will be at their maximum. Your Petitioner suffers from a chronic illness, full details of which will be provided upon request.

Remedies: I. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern over high levels of dust and pollution, with independent monitoring and powers to halt construction until preventative measures are implemented and verified. 2. The provision of an air ambulance service is requested to complement emergency medical services which are already struggling.

13. Business impact: Businesses in the area will be specifically affected by a reduction in tourists and in customers footfall, including 12 small businesses in the hilltop villages and approximately 70 businesses in Great Missenden. In addition, delivery vehicles will be delayed by the congestions caused by construction traffic, for example deliveries, often by articulated lorry with a trailer from Europe, to the South Heath Garden Centre. Tourism plays a significant part in local business, with visitors to the Roald Dahl Museum, local cycling groups using this area as a centre for the Chiltern Cycle way and the Chiltern Hundreds Cycle routes. There are 55 million visitors a year to the AONB bringing in £471.6 million of expenditure associated with leisure visits to the Chilterns and sustaining an estimated 12,000 FIE jobs. Remedy: 1. For businesses which are indirectly or only temporarily affected; compensation for loss of profit, loss of trade and the fees of any professional advisor appointed by the business. 2. A substantial reduction in business rates where applicable.

14. Chilterns AONB: The proposed line is above ground from the South Heath portal of the Chiltern tunnel for 9 krns to the edge of the Chilterns AONB just north of Wendover. It is in a cutting for approximately 3 krns and will be visible at the highest point of the line in the vicinity of Liberty Lane, notwithstanding the sight of the security fences and catenary masts above the cuttings which will be a major permanent eyesore along the length of Potter Row. The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Construction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpaths less attractive to all visitors to this area of the AONB whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the countryside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB): I. The AONB review body must ensure that the viaducts and embankments with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design of the new permanent buildings erected by HS2 Ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 2. The vertical alignment of the track between the South Heath portal and Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the intrusion of the

4 viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and reduce the height above the general ground surface of accommodation footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunnelling or moving the spoil down the trace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoil dump planned for Hunts Green farm and those by the construction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

15. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a draft; it is not specific about timing of works, or monitoring by the Local Authority and is subject to a sub contract with the nominated undertaker. Remedies: 1. Daily movements of HGVs to be restricted to between 09.30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes. 2. Construction activities should be subject to strict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting (there is no street lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are unlikely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage, also for an independent HS2 adjudicator to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims.

16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

5 provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that the petitioner, or someone representing the petitioner in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

JONATHAN M..AR.K CUTLER

I Ith April 2016

6 HL: 230 To the House of Lords Session 2015 - 16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN BERCOW MP

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill but specifically Clause 1 which authorises the nominated undertaker to construct and maintain the works specified in Schedule 1 ("The Scheduled Works") in so far as they affect the Buckingham constituency.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is the Member of Parliament for the Buckingham constituency and has been since May 1997. Your petitioner holds regular advice surgeries which draw individuals from across the constituency to access the assistance of their elected Member of Parliament.

Your petitioner is significantly affected by the scheduled works as the traffic congestion and road closures resulting from the construction ofHS2 in the Buckingham constituency and surrounding areas will cause problems in carrying out his job within his constituency as access will be difficult when crossing the constituency, with delays as a result of diversions and closures.

A number of your petitioner's constituents are persons who live in properties which will be compulsorily acquired, or if not being compulsorily acquired, are located withi n close proximity of the high speed railway and associated construction sites and will therefore be severely affected by the works authorised by the Bill to which your petitioner objects for the reasons set out below.

Your petitioner represents the views of the residents and businesses that are affected by the Bill and in particular those residents who are not able to petition themselves. High Speed 2 is the single biggest issue your petitioner has dealt with in his seventeen years as an elected representative, having been approached by many hundreds of concerned constituents since March 2010 when proposals were first put forward. As a Member of Parliament, your petitioner represents the views and conveys the concerns of residents and businesses in his constituency, not least those who find themselves unable to petition.

Your petitioner respectfully requests that he be called before the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, elected to serve the will of the people of the Buckingham constituency and represent their views on an issue of such great importance.

3. Your petitioner 's concerns

On behalf of his constituents, your petitioner objects to all Clauses of this Bill as far as they adversely affect the Buckingham constituency.

Your petitioner is concerned that insufficient mitigation is proposed in order to protect residents living in the Parish of Ellesborough from the impact of nearby maintenance loops.

Your petitioner has concerns that the proposed realignment of the A4 l 8 in the vicinity of Bishopstone, Stone, Hartwell and Sedrup will have a detrimental impact on residents living nearby - particularly on the Bugle Horn Estate.

Your petitioner remains alarmed that the promoter of the scheme is yet to commit to a satisfactory resolution for the Aylesbury Park Golf Course which will be forced to close if the project proceeds as planned. The business is already suffering because of this scheme and your petitioner seeks a direction from the Committee to the promoter to ensure that this matter is resolved as expeditiously as possible.

Your petitioner is concerned about the proposed alignment of Station Road in Quainton which does not, in his opinion, represent the best possible option. Your petitioner believes that alternative plans merit further investigation in order that the impact on your petitioner's constituents in this area is mitigated as far as possible.

Your petitioner is anxious that protection for residents in Steeple Claydon and the surrounding areas remains woefully inadequate and that an improved scheme of noise and light mitigation is required. Furthermore, given the umque position in which Steeple Claydon finds itself, conventional mitigation - as suggested above - would not, in the opinion of your petitioner, be adequate. A compensation package above and beyond anything currently proposed is required to appropriately reflect the damage that this scheme will have in this area.

Your petitioner remains concerned about the proximity of the proposed line to the village of Twyford. If there is no scope to move the line further away from the village, your petitioner is determined to ensure that either the line is lowered in the area or that the noise bund height is increased to above the level of the pantograph.

Your petitioner is committed to ensuring that Chetwode benefits from the best possible mitigation and this is only possible through a tunnel. Your petitioner is aware that vaiious options for a tunnel have been considered by the promoter but were rejected on grounds of cost. Your petitioner utterly rejects the idea that meaningful mitigation should be refused on cost grounds and urges the Select Committee to re-examine this option.

Your petitioner has summarised the key issues affecting his constituency in this petition and looks forward to expanding on these matters in oral evidence before the Select Committee.

4. The Prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

The Right Honourable John Bercow MP 15 April 2016 HL: 231 To the House of Lords Session 20 15-16

PETITION against the

H igh Speed Rail (Lon don - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF_VANESSA DAW N MARTIN

Declares that:

I. Your petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is an owner and resident of a property in Great Missenden at Ladymede, Grimms Hill, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire HP 16 9BG, which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

This property currently enjoys a tranquil and safe location and is located less than a mile from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Vol 2. 1 Replacement sheet 2.25.

Your petitioner lives in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

1. Your Petitioner will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioner requests that the presently proposed fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as d eveloped by HS2 Limited. The extended tumtel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact on the AONB.

2. You r Petitioner further requests that in assessing the alternatives of adopting the full tunnel proposals instead of the Promoter's current proposals fo r the AONB section of the line, the Promoter is insh·ucted to commission and publish a fully independent cost analysis of such alternatives and to undertake and publish a full cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts for such AONB section.

3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory p urchase). These include works 2/ 14 to 2/ 20 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plan s, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

4. In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel th roughout the AONB, which is the primary alteration to the Bill your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended to Leather Lane, as it will address, most but not alJ, of your Petitioner's concerns.

5. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adverse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitig ation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern it and to which it objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if its fully bored tuiu1el proposals are rejected, below.

Summary

During the consh·uction phase I am directly affected as I visit the Great Missenden daily for shopping, attending Parish meetings, recreational activities, using the station and h·avelling by car to my elderly parents in Little Chalfont and attending local hospitals, as and when required, for my parents, etc. Therefore, the location of the "haul road" is of particular concern fo r me in respect of continuing with these activities in a timely manner. Also I am very concerned that the emergency vehicles will be seriously delayed y the HS2 construction h·affic. lf is very important that this is fully considered and rnitigated in any transport plaruung.

After the consh·uction phase I am concerned with the effect on my local environment, such as air and noise pollution, especially as these matters have not yet been ascertained and the in.formation released to the public.

I am concerned that properties in the area are suffering blight, as both residents and local agents' report that it is difficult to sell properties at reasonable market valu es. This is because potential p urchasers are put off by concerns about the major disruption, particularly during the construction phase. Issues such as, difficulty to access local shopping facilities, going to local schools, and the inconvenience that the overcrowding will bring to our local railway station.

6. Traffic Congestion: The d isruption over eight years of access to and from Great Missenden for your petitioner h·avelling to the shops, medical appoinhnents and to the station arising from the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of consh·uction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. This major adverse effect will continue for your petitioner who needs to h·avel along the A413 to and from Wendover and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Aylesbury. Your Petitioner is also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Roa d Roundabout will lead to ra t-runs tlu-ough Great Missenden and the hilltop villages especially along Kings Lane with its associated safety hazard.

Remedies: 1. An effective Traffic Management Plan to be approved by Bucks County Council with all costs of monitoring and enforcement to be borne by HS2 Ltd. 2 2. Reduce the amount of spoil that requires to be transported through the use of retained cuttings or a bored tunnel ex tension or reduce the road transportation of spoil by taking it all along the trace. 3. HS2 to work with Bucks County Council to facilitate b·affic flow at the congestion points and consider slip roads, road widening etc

7. Construction Haul Road: Your Petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of consh·uction traffic using the haul road from the South Heath portal onto the A413 at the Link Road roundabout, such as damage from HGVs (270 HGVs a day at the peak), noise and dust from vehicle cleaning operations and the high risk to users of the Skate Park, Tennis Courts and children's play area adjacent to the roundabout and children going to the Great Missenden Combined Church of England school nearby.

Remedies: 1. The consh·uction haul road should be relocated further north beyond the Mobwell junction1 hence reducing b·affic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the B485 roundabouts and lessening the impact and visual blight of the haul road on residents and businesses in Great Missenden. Traffic signals can be implemented on the junction with the A413 to conh·ol the flow of construction h·affic. 2. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the h·ace.

8. Maintenance Access Road: The permanent maintenance and access road - Work No 2/18C from the South Heath portal joins Frith Hill (SHL) at a bend on a narrow part of the road. This leads to your petitioner having concerns about road safety especially as the footway and road is used for walking and cycling to Great Missenden. Safety could be further exacerbated by temporary conh·actors using it to access the portal during construction. Furthermore there is concern for the safety of children at the Great Missenden Church of England Combined School using their Forest School Outdoor Learning Cenh·e and their playing fields as they are adjacent to the Frith Hill roundabout.

Remedies: 1. Construction h·affic should not use the maintenance access road off Frith Hill during construction. 2. Any temporary consh·uction conh·actors should not park their white vans at the South Heath portal but at the main construction compound at Wendover and be bussed onto the site. 3. If the consh·uction haul road is relocated as mentioned above, it could be retained so that access to Frith Hill (SHL) will no longer be required

9. Noise and Dust: Your petitioner is concerned that there will be construction noise and dust (and operational noise) as a result of the deep, wide cuttings at the South Heath portal and the cuttings beyond towards Wendover. The dust and noise will be at its worst during the eight year cons truction period but thereafter some mitigation of the dust will be provided when plantings have matured but not the noise.

Remedies:

1 HS2 Ltd had given Bucks CC in January 2016 an assurance that it would relocate this haul road but the conditions placed upon the County Council to achieve this were unrealistic 3 1. Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMP) to be monitored and enforced by Bucks County Council with all costs to be borne by HS2 Ltd 2. A tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns AONB, or at min imum to Leather Lane will obviate the need fo r deep, wide cuttings in the South Heath and Potter Row area. 3. Other remedies would be retained sides for the cutting and higher h·ackside noise barriers with barriers on the east side (as well as west) of the line towards Leather Lane.

10. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner is less than a mile from the h·ains exit/ enh·ance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tunnel and are the finding their house prices blighted. They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dyshmctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current un-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell .... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable un-blighted valuations.

11. Operational Noise: Your petitioners are close enough to the surface line to su ffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60dBmax ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

Remedies: 1. Your petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60dBmax should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in In.formation Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to d issipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond; deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening th e porous portal; higher more absorbent noise barriers adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of the line and to the south of the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMI/ 12 & 13.

12. Health and Wellbeing: Your Petitioner is concerned that their Health & Wellbeing has been adversely affected, and continue to be, since the a1mouncement of HS2 in 2010. The undeniable result of HS2 is worry, anxiety and stress and, in some cases, clinical depression requiring medical h·eatrnent. A further worry is that emergency response times will deteriorate further during consh·uction when ailments such as respiratory d isorders will be at their maximu m.

Remedies:

4 1. During the consh·uction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern over high levels of dust and pollution, with independent monitoring and powers to halt consh·uclion until preventative measures are implemented and verified. 2. The provision of an air ambulance service is requested to complement emergency medical services which are already sh1.1ggling.

13. Business impact: Businesses in the area will be specifically affected by a reduction in tourists and in customers footfall, including 12 small businesses in the hilltop villages and approximately 70 businesses in Great Missenden. In addition, delivery vehicles will be delayed by the congestions caused by construction h·affic, for example deliveries, often by articulated lorry with a trailer from Europe, to the South Heath Garden Cenh·e. Tourism plays a significant part in local business, with visitors to the Roald Dahl Museum, local cycling groups using this area as a cenh·e for the Chiltern Cycle way and the Chiltern Hundreds Cycle routes. There are 55 million visitors a year to the AONB bringing in £471.6 milJion of expenditure associated with leisure visits to the Chilterns and sustaining an estimated 12,000 FTE jobs. Remedy: 1. For businesses which are indirectly or only temporarily affected; compensation for loss of profit, loss of trade and the fees of any professional advisor appointed by the business. 2. A substantial reduction in business rates where applicable.

14. Chilterns AONB: The proposed line is above ground from the South Heath portal of the Chiltern tunnel for 9 kms to the edge of the Chilterns AONB just north of Wendover. It is in a cutting for approximately 3 kms and will be visible at the highest point of the line in the vicinity of Liberty Lane, notvvithstanding the sight of the security fences and catenary masts above the cuttings which will be a major permanent eyesore along the length of Potter Row. The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Consh.. 1ction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpaths less ath·active to all visitors to this area of the AONB whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the counh·yside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored turmel throughout the AONB): 1. The AONB review body mus t ensure that the viaducts and embankments with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design of the n ew permanent buildings erected by HS2 Ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 2. The vertical alignment of the h·ack between the South Heath portal and Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the inh·usion of the viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and reduce the height above the general grow1d surface of accommodation

5 footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunnelling or moving the spoil down the h·ace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoil dump planned for Hunts Green farm and those by the consh·uction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

15. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a drnft; it is not specific about timing of works, or monitoring by the l ocal Authority and is subject to a sub conh·act with the nominated w1dertaker. Remedies: 1. Daily movements of HGVs to be resh·icted to between 09.30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes. 2. Construction activities should be subject to slTict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting (there is no sh·eet lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are unlikely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the consh·uction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage, also for an independent HS2 adjudicator to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims.

16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/ or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fu lly bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to leather Lane.

17 Secondary Mitigation In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chiltern Trnmel that your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the haul road from the South Heath portal to the Link Road roundabout be moved along the A413 beyond the Mobwell junction, as it will help to lessen the impact of the consh·uction traffic on the Great Missenden Area.

Conclusion 6 19 Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Chiltern Tunnel that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being pelitioned by the local County, Dish·ict and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. 1£ your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary struchires and to the present proposals fo r compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tu1mel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

22 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner's parishioners, their rights, interests, property and your petitioner's area and for w hich no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.

4. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Signed

Name Vanessa Dawn Marcin

Dated ... 14 April 2016 ......

Name and address of petitioner Vanessa Dawn Marcin Ladymede Grimms Hill Great Missenden Buckinghamshire HPl6 9BG

7 HL: 232 To the House of Lords Session 20 15-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION Peter Ernest Charles Martin

Declares that

I . Your petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is a resident of Gt Missenden and lives in a freehold property Ladymede, Grimms Hill Gt Missenden Bucks .HPI 6 9BG which the bill may specially and directly affect.

This property currently enjoys a tranquil and safe location and is located less than one mile from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Vol 2.1 Replacement sheet 2.25.

Your petitioner lives in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

1. Extended tunnel T3i. Your Petitioner will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioner requests that the presently proposed fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact on the AONB.

3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/ 14 to 2/20 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

5. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adverse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitigation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern him and to which he objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if its fully bored tunnel proposals are rejected, below. •

6. Your petitioner petitioned the House of Commons against AP4 but was denied Locus on the basis that his concerns would be more effectively dealt with by Buckinghamshire County Council and HS2 ltd. Amongst other matters your petitioner asked for the haul road at the Link Road roundabout to be moved north to Leather Lane. Unfortunately discussions between the two parties have so far not been very effective and have still not reached a satisfactory conclusion. I understand the County Council will comment on the situation in their petition.

Traffic Congestion: Your petitioner is a District Councillor and in the course of his duties needs to travel extensively across the County . The Traffic congestion in this area is currently problematic at peak times and the further disruption over the eight years of construction will affect access to and from Great Missenden for your petitioner. Travelling to the shops, medical appointrnents,social events and to the station and Council meetings will be disrupted by the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of construction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. This major adverse effect will continue for your petitioner who needs to travel along the A413 to and from Amersham Council offices ,Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Wendover. Your Petitioner is also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Road and Frith Hill Roundabouts will lead to rat-runs through Great Missenden. Prestwood and the hilltop villages especially along Kings Lane with its associated safety hazard. The Petitioners road exits exclusively onto the A 4128 running between Gt Missenden and Prestwood and any disruption on that road will create problems. As an example the traffic assessment conducted by HS2 for AP4 indicated that there would be a tailback of 87 vehicles on Gt Missendens Link road. Unfortunately this short road will struggle to cope with more than 30 vehicles. HS2 Ltd do not seem to appreciate that it also accommodates traffic for the Abbeyfield old peoples home,the village hall and Parish Council,the library, the police station, a school entrance,local playing field , a skate park and public tennis courts ,two public car parks and at the end of the road a post office and Royal Mail sorting office. There has been a serious lack of public engagement on this and other key issues creating much suspicion and distrust of HS2 Ltd..

Walking: As an enthusiastic local walker you petitioner is concerned that local walking routes will be disrupted and potentially spoilt for ever.

2 Contractors and construction workers travelling to site: Local residents are worried about the potential impact of construction workers adding to congestion when they travel to site at peak traffic times.

Remedies: 1. A long tunnel T3i would mitigate most of local concerns as well as better protecting the A.0.N.B. 2. Without a long tunnel an extension to the existing tunnel to Leather Lane would ease the traffic congestion and alleviate the issues for Gt Missenden and Prestwood. 3. Without a longer tunnel to Leather Lane an effective Traffic Management Plan to be approved by Bucks County Council with all costs of monitoring and enforcement to be borne by HS2 Ltd. 4. Reduce the amount of spoil that requires to be transported through the use of retained cuttings or a bored tunnel extension or reduce the road transportation of spoil by taking it all along the trace. 5. HS2 to work with Bucks County Council to facilitate traffic flow at the congestion points and develop and consult with local residents on realistic proposals that will mitigate the local impacts.

Remedies: 1. The construction haul road should be relocated further north as a minimum beyond the Mobwell junction1 hence reducing traffic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the B485 roundabouts and lessening the impact and visual blight of the haul road on residents and businesses in Great Missenden. Part of the problem is that these two roundabouts are very close together and both are predicted to have major tailbacks so the combined effect on an already severely congested road will be serious. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the trace rather than using the A413.

Remedies:

1 HS2 Ltd had given Bucks CC in January 2016 an assurance that it would relocate this haul road but the conditions placed upon the County Council to achieve this were unrealistic 3 1. Construction traffic should not use the maintenance access road off Frith Hill during construction. 2. Any temporary construction contractors should not park their white vans at the South Heath portal but at the main construction compound at Wendover and be bussed onto the site. 3. If the construction haul road is relocated as mentioned above, it could be retained so that access to Frith Hill (SHL) will no longer be required

10. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner is less than a mile from the trains exit/ entrance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tunnel and are the finding their house prices blighted.(Access to schools is a key factor for parents.)They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dysfunctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un-blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current un-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell .... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable un-blighted valuations.

11. Operational Noise: Your petitioners are close enough to the surface line to suffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60dBrnax ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

Remedies: 1. Your petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60dBmax should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in Information Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently

4 verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to dissipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond; deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening the porous portal; higher more absorbent noise barriers adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of the line and to the south of the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMI/12 & 13.

12. Health and Wellbeing: Your Petitioner is concerned that their Health & Wellbeing has been adversely affected, and continue to be, since the announcement of HS2 in 2010. The undeniable result of HS2 is worry, anxiety and stress and, in some cases, clinical depression requiring medical treatment. A further worry is that emergency response times will deteriorate further during construction when ailments such as respiratory disorders will be at their maximum.You petitioners in -laws are elderly and in poor health. They have had to make several emergency journeys to Stoke Mandeville in the last 12 months . The access for emergency services along the A413 will be adversely impacted .

13. Business impact: As a member of a Council that endeavours to encourage local enterprise he is concerned at the impacts on local shops and businesses in the area. Businesses in the area will be specifically affected by a reduction in tourists and in customers footfall, including 12 small businesses in the hilltop villages and approximately 70 businesses in Great Missenden. In addition, delivery vehicles will be delayed by the congestions caused by construction traffic, for example deliveries, often by articulated lorry with a trailer from Europe, to the South Heath Garden Centre which your petitioner regularly uses. Tourism plays a significant part in local business, with visitors to the Roald Dahl Museum, local cycling groups using this area as a centre for the Chiltern Cycle way and the Chiltern Hundreds Cycle routes. There are 55 million visitors a year to the AONB bringing in £471.6 million of expenditure associated with leisure visits to the Chilterns and sustaining an estimated 12,000 FTE jobs. Remedy: 1. For businesses which are indirectly or only temporarily affected; compensation for loss of profit, loss of trade and the fees of any professional advisor appointed by the business. 2. A substantial reduction in business rates where applicable.

5 The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Construction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpaths less attractive to all visitors to this area of the AONB whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the countryside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB): 1. The AONB review body must ensure that the viaducts and embankments with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design of the new permanent buildings erected by HS2 Ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 2. The vertical alignment of the track between the South Heath portal and Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the intrusion of the viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and reduce the height above the general ground surface of accommodation footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunnelling or moving the spoil down the trace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoil dump planned for Hunts Green farm and those by the construction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

15. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a draft; it is not specific about timing of works, or monitoring by the Local Authority and is subject to a sub contract with the nominated undertaker. Remedies: 1. Daily movements of HGVs to be restricted to between 09.30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes and this monitored and controlled at HS2 Ltd's expense. 2. Construction activities should be subject to strict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting (there is no street lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are unlikely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage, also for an adjudicator independent of HS2 ltd to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims. 6 16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/ or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

Conclusion 19 Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Chiltern Tunnel that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being petitioned by the local County, District and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. If your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

4. The prayer

7 AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Signed ...... Name : PETER ERNEST CHARLES MARTIN

Dated 13.04.16 ...... Name and address of Petitioner; Peter Ernest Charles Martin Ladymede Grimms Hill Gt Missenden Buckinghamshire HPl6 9BG

8 To the House of Lords HL: 233 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Grimms Dyke (Liberty) Estates Ltd {G.D.L.E}

Declares that:

I . Your Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your Petitioner

The Petitioner is a limited company that administers the private residential estate in Great Missenden for the benefit of members of the Company. The Company members are freeholders and residents of the Grimms Hill estate, namely; the 30 properties fronting Grimms Hill roadway and the 8 properties backing onto Grimms Hill from Martinsend Lane.

These properties currently enjoy a tranquil and safe location and are located less than a mile from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Vol 2.1 Replacement sheet 2.25.

The Estate is located in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill may specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is specifically and injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Your Petitioner's membership is available by writing to the Chair at your Petitioner's address.

3. Your Petitioners concerns

2. Your Petitioner further requests that in assessing the alternatives of adopting the full tunnel proposals instead of the Promoter's curtent proposals for the AONB section of the line, the Promoter is instructed to commission and publish a fully independent cost 1 analysis of such alternatives and to undertake and publish a full cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts for such AONB section.

3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Petitioner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/14 to 2/20 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans, Vol.2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

5. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adverse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitigation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern it and to which it objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if it's fully bored tunnel proposals are rejected, below.

6. The fall back alternative to these solutions is numerous individual mitigations of the adverse impacts, all of which will cost time and money (over and above the mitigation presently proposed by the Promoter). Your Petitioner expands on the individual adverse impacts that concern it and to which it objects, and the (additional) mitigation that would be required for each, if it's fully bored tunnel proposals are rejected, below.

Traffic Congestion: The disruption for over eight years of their access to and from Great Missenden for your petitioners travelling to the shops, medical appointments, school trips for the 28 school age children living on the Estate, commuting including to the station will be considerable. It will arise from the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of construction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. G.D.L.E. residents have to use the A4128 to access the rest of Buckinghamshire and beyond as this is their only exit from the road.This major adverse effect to their only route will continue for your petitioners who need to travel along the A413 to and from many locations including; Wendover, Amersham, Chesham and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Aylesbury. Your Petitioners are also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Road Roundabout will lead to rat-runs through Great Missenden and towards Prestwood on the A4128. The issue of traffic tailbacks highlighted in AP4 traffic assessments has still not been resolved despite assurances.

2 7. Construction Haul Road: Your Petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of construction traffic using the haul road from the South Heath portal onto the A413 at the Link Road roundabout, such as damage from HGVs (270 HGVs a day at the peak), noise and dust from vehicle cleaning operations and the high risk to users of the Skate Park, Tennis Courts and children's play area and picnic area adjacent to the roundabout and children going to the Great Missenden Combined Church of England school nearby. Ap4 predicted a tailback of 87 vehicles on the Link Road. The Link Road is only a short road and can barely accommodate 30 vehicles. Residents are concerned where the other 57 vehicles will go. The Link Road contains, besides the facilities above, also a public playing field the Village hall the Parish Council office the police station the public Library and an old peoples Abbeyfield care home a school entrance and two public car parks. At the end of the Link road is a mini roundabout onto which exits The Royal Mail sorting office with frequent post vehicle movements and the Local Post office as well as our High Street. It is already heavily congested at peak times.

Remedies: 1. The construction haul road should be relocated furth~r north to Leather Lane or beyond the Mobwell junction1 hence reducing traffic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the B485 roundabouts which are so close together ,and lessening the impact and visual blight of the haul road on residents and businesses in Great Missenden. 2. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the trace.

8. Maintenance Access Road: The permanent maintenance and access road - Work No 2/18C - from the South Heath portal joins Frith Hill (SHL) at a bend on a narrow part of the road. This leads to your petitioner having concerns about road safety especially as the footway and road is used for walking and cycling to Great Missenden. Safety could be further exacerbated by temporary contractors using it to access the portal during construction. Furthermore there is concern for the safety of children at the Great Missenden Church of England Combined School using their Forest School Outdoor Learning Centre and their playing fields as they are adjacent to the Frith Hill roundabout. Parking is a major problem locally and our residents are concerned at the possibility of contractor's unauthorized parking on Grimms Hill and other local roads.

Remedies: 1. Construction traffic should not use the maintenance access road off Frith Hill during construction. 2. Any temporary consh·uction contractors and staff should not park their vehicles at the South Heath portal or on the local roads but at the main construction compound at Wendover and be bussed onto the site. 3. If the construction haul road is relocated as mentioned above, it could be retained so that access to Frith Hill (SHL) will no longer be required

1 HS2 Ltd had given Bucks CC in January 2016 an assurance that it would relocate this haul road but the conditions placed upon the County Council to achieve this were unrealistic 3 at its worst during the eight yeru.· construction period but thereafter some mitigation of the dust will be provided when plantings have matured but not the noise.

Remedies: 1. Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMP) to be monitored and enforced by Bucks County Council with all costs to be borne by HS2 Ltd 2. A tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns AONB or at minimum to Leather Lane will obviate the need for deep, wide cuttings in the South Heath and Potter Row area. 3. Other remedies would be retained sides for the cutting and higher trackside noise barriers with barriers on the east side (as well as west) of the line towards Leather Lane.

10. Dysfunctional Housing market: Your Petitioner's members are less than a mile from the trains exit/ entrance at the South Heath portal of the Chiltern Tmmel and are the finding their house prices blighted. They are concerned that they are unable to sell in what has become a dysfunctional housing market. They feel that they are trapped for 10 or more years and find the 'Need to Sell scheme' (NTS) complex, slow and does not ensure un-blighted house prices.

Remedies: 1. A further Chiltern tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns to the edge of the AONB or at least as far as Leather Lane would largely stabilize the dysfunctional market. 2. A compensation scheme that provides full current un-blighted house value to all residents when they wish to sell .... A Right to Sell Scheme. The scheme is to be administered by a body independent of HS2 ltd, with a right to appeal. The NTS scheme needs to be made less complex, faster, more accessible, and less onerous to prove qualification, friendly to the elderly and with more stringent rules to ensure reasonable un-blighted valuations.

11. Operational Noise: Your petitioners are close enough to the surface line to suffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60dBmax ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

Remedies: 1. Your Petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60dBmax should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in Information Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to dissipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond; deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening the porous portal; higher more absorbent noise barrie1·s adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of the line and to the south of the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMI/12 & 13.

13. Business impact: Our residents use the local shops and community facilities which are so close and Businesses in the area will be specifically affected by a reduction in tourists and in customer's footfall, including 12 small businesses in the hilltop villages and approximately 70 businesses in Great Missenden. In addition, delivery vehicles will be delayed by the congestions caused by construction traffic, for example deliveries, often by articulated lorry with a trailer from Europe, to the South Heath Garden Centre. Tourism plays a significant part in local business, with visitors to the Roald Dahl Museum, local cycling groups using this area as a centre for the Chiltern Cycle way and the Chiltern Hundreds Cycle routes. There are 55 million visitors a year to the AONB bringing in £471.6 million of expenditure associated with leisure visits to the Chilterns and sustaining an estimated 12,000 FTE jobs. Remedy: 1. For businesses which are indirectly or only temporarily affected; compensation for loss of profit, loss of trade and the fees of any professional advisor appointed by the business. 2. A substantial reduction in business rates where applicable.

14. Chilterns AONB: The proposed line is above ground from the South Heath portal of the Chiltern tunnel for 9km to the edge of the Chilterns AONB just north of Wendover. It is in a cutting for approximately 3km and will be visible at the highest point of the line in the vicinity of Liberty Lane, notwithstanding the sight of the security fences and catenary masts above the cuttings which will be a major permanent eyesore along the length of Potter Row. The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Many of our residents are keen walkers and or cyclists and construction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpaths less attractive to all visitors to this area of the AONB whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the countryside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB): 1. The AONB review body must ensure that the viaducts and embankments with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design of the new permanent buildings erected by HS2 Ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 5 2. The vertical alignment of the track between the South Heath portal and , Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the intrusion of the viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and reduce the height above the general ground surface of accommodation footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunnelling or moving the spoil down the trace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoil dump planned for Hunts Green farm and those by the construction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

15. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a draft; it is not specific about timing of works or monitoring by the Local Authority and is subject to a sub contract with the nominated undertaker. Remedies: 1. Daily movements of HGVs to be restricted to between 09.30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes. 2. Construction activities should be subject to strict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting {there is no street lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are unlikely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage, also for an independent HS2 adjudicator to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims.

16 Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill, and/ or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects, primarily through a fully bored tunnel T3i throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

18 Other Matters

6 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners, their rights, interests and property, and for which no adequate provision is made to protect them.

7 Conclusion 19 Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Chiltern Tum1el that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being petitioned by the local County, District and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. If your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

20 In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

4. The prayer

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

Signatory Mr Peter Ernest Charles Martin Director of Grimms Dyke (Liberty) Estates Limited and Role B agent

Date 14.04.2016

8 HL: 234 To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

P E T I T I O N against the

High Speed Rail (London- West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF DAVID REILLY of 4 School Lane, Lea Marston, Sutton Coldfield, B760BW.

1. Declares that:

1 .1 The Petitioner is David Reilly. Your Petitioner alleges that their own and their family's property, rights and interest in the area that they reside will be specifically and directly adversely affected by the provisions of the whole Bill and its published Additional Provisions if passed into law for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

1 .2 Objection is taken to the construction and engineering works proposed to be undertaken in the North Warwickshire area of Lea Marston, Marston, Curdworth, Kingsbury Water Orton, Wishaw, Coleshill, Neither Whitacre, and Middleton. These works are specified in the Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Community Forum Area Reports 19 and 20, and consist mainly of: • Railhead proposed for Kingsbury Road (A4097); • Hams Lane Birmingham to Derby rail sidings; • Faraday Avenue Link - East & West road head; underbridge; over bridge at Newlands Farm, Satellite Compound and Package sub-station Satellite Compound (Rail Systems). • Faraday Avenue island bridge, over track, rail loop and road rerouting . • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the A446 Litchfield Road. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the A4097 Kingsbury Road. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the M42 Motorway and Junction 9 Dunton Hall M42. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along Seeney Lane. • Kingsbury Road Main Compound (Rail Systems). • Kingsbury Road Railhead Approach Tracks. • M42 Marston Box Structure. • Leeds Spur and Leeds Spur dive-under. • Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Viaduct Central, North & South Satellite Compounds. • Water Orton Viaducts & Satellite Compounds. • Coleshill I Birmingham Delta Junction. • Curdworth Viaduct - Central, North & South Satellite Compounds. • 'Y Route Junction' for Phase 2 - Leeds Spur. • Cuttle Mill Mid Point Auto-transformer Station.

1.3.1 Your Petitioner believes that he and his family will suffer unacceptable adverse temporary and permanent effects from: Agriculture loss; forestry and soils disturbance; air quality disturbance; isolation through loss of community; loss of connectivity; cultural heritage and ecology disturbance and loss; landscape and visual disturbances; sound; noise; light and vibration disturbances; traffic and railway transport disturbances; and, utilities disturbances and nuisance, such that each of these factors add to a reduced quality of life and property blight for the Petitioner and his family.

2. Your Petitioner.

2.1 David Reilly is a resident of Lea Marston, North Warwickshire. Lea Marston hamlet sits within the Parish of Lea Marston. While your Petitioner has also petitioned this House both in his capacity as chair of Lea Marston Parish Council and in his capacity as North Warwickshire Borough Council's Lead Member for HS2, this petition is submitted in a personal capacity.

2.2 The community in which your petitioner lives is the most affected community along the entire HS2 route in terms of the amount of HS2 infrastructure that will be built within our parish and the length of time that our community will be specially and directly affected by the construction of HS2. It is the chosen site for the construction and operation of a Railhead that will service both HS2 Phase 1 and HS2 Phase 2. HS2 construction work is currently scheduled to run from 2017 to 2033, sixteen years. In addition, it will have both Phase 1 and Phase 2 rail lines within its boundary and will be site of the "Y" junction and the Birmingham Delta Junction.

2.3 No other community across the entire HS2 project will accommodate this same amount of permeant infrastructure or have the sustained level of impact caused by the planned sixteen-year planning, construction and commissioning processes that HS2 will undertake.

2.4 Your Petitioner does not oppose the construction and operation of HS2. He merely seeks the best mitigation, design and compensation for his local community.

2.5 To date your Petitioner feels that HS2 have not meaningfully engaged or consulted with him, his family or local communities.

2.6 The House of Commons Select Committee have stated that the community in which your petitioner resides is a "Special Case".

2 3. Your Petitioner's Concerns.

3.1 Insignificant Joined Up Offset Environmental and Ecological Mitigation within the Tame Valley. Your Petitioner is deeply concerned that despite the significance of the impact of HS2 construction and operation across North Warwickshire, no mutually significant offset project is proposed by HS2 to mitigate the environmental and ecological disruption and damage that the construction and operation of HS2 Phase 1 will cause.

3.2 The North Warwickshire communities that your petitioner is concerned about are the parish and town council communities of Lea Marston, Water Orton, Curdworth, Wishaw, Middleton, Kingsbury, Neither Whitacre, and Coleshill. Together, these communities sit within a nationally important ecology known as the Tame Valley. The Tame Valley is a national migratory route for birds; it is a floodplain that receives run-off water from Birmingham and the Black Country, Solihull and Staffordshire; it is a nationally important drinking water transit route; and it is geographically the nearest rural community that provides countryside health and leisure benefits for the residents of East Birmingham.

3.2 Current HS2 offset proposals within CFA19 and CFA20 are disjointed and insignificant in size and number. They are pockets of location specific interventions that are not in any way joined up, despite the fact that all follow the route of the line that runs between Birmingham, Solihull and Staffordshire and are therefore wholly capable of being joined up into a whole.

3.3 The proposed HS2 built structures and operations such as the Delta and Y junctions and the Interchange Station will dominate the Tame Valley for the next century and beyond. The Tame Valley community and landscape will in future be defined by them.

3.4 Your Petitioner believes that HS2 must take a joined up 'whole community' approach to offsetting within the Tame Valley, and therefore be directed to create a new offset project that in environmental and ecological terms balances the joined up and whole community impact of HS2 across North Warwickshire.

3.5 While your Petitioner fully understands that this Select Committee is only concerned with HS2 Phase 1, he respectfully and humbly asks the House of Lords Select Committee to also consider the possible future impact of HS2 Phase 2 on him, his community and the Tame Valley. Your Petitioner is aware that significant infrastructure for Phase 2 such as the Y Junction and Kingsbury Railhead will be constructed and operate as a consequence of the passage of this Phase 1 Bill. 3.6 Your Petitioner is concerned that a number of unforeseen and indeed unintended consequences will arise from the construction and operation of HS2 within the Tame Valley. An example of this is that

3 HS2 have now purchased a significant number of dwellings within the hamlet of Gilson. Many of these properties are unrented and as a result there has been a loss of community guardianship for the locality. This has resulted in regular instances of fly tipping within the community. Without doubt this is an unintended consequence of HS2, but is one that must be rectified. Your Petitioner is very concerned that other unforeseen and unintended consequences will arise from the sixteen-year construction of HS2 within the Tame Valley which will need to be addressed to maintain a quality of life for residents, visitors and wildlife within the Tame Valley. Your petitioner does not believe that the HS2 proposed Special Management Zone will have the financial, procedural or political capability to address matters likes these.

3.7 Request: Your Respectful Petitioner requests the House of Lords Select Committee to direct HS2 to:

(i) Undertake a joined up 'whole community' approach to enhanced environmental and ecological offsetting mitigation across the Tame Valley in North Warwickshire.

(ii) Work with Tame Valley Wetlands Partnership and local communities to develop this intervention.

(iii) Create this offset intervention at the same time as the construction works to build HS2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 within the Tame Valley.

(iv) Directs HS2 to fund an environmental trust for the Tame Valley that will be used to rectify the unforeseen environmental and ecological consequences that the sixteen-year Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction programme for HS2 will create.

4. THE PRAYER.

THE PETITIONER, David Reilly, therefore asks the House of Lords that he, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given the opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc

"'-_ Dsrvid Reilly. 1 ---0-ate: Friday 16 h April 2016.

4 HL: 235 To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

P E T I T I O N against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF LEA MARSTON PARISH COUNCIL.

1. Declares that:

1.1 The Petitioners are Lea Marston Parish Council. Your Petitioners allege that the property, rights and interests of residents and businesses within the Parish , and within our neighbouring communities, will be specifically and directly adversely affected by the provisions of the whole Bill and its published Additional Provisions if passed into law for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

1.2 Objection is taken to the construction and engineering works proposed to be undertaken in the North Warwickshire area of Lea Marston, Marston, Curdworth, and Kingsbury. These works are specified in the Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Community Forum Area Reports 19 and 20 and consist mainly of: • Railhead proposed for Kingsbury Road (A4097); • Hams Lane Birmingham to Derby rail sidings; • Faraday Avenue Link - East & West road head; underbridge; over bridge at Newlands Farm, Satellite Compound and Package sub-station Satellite Compound (Rail Systems). • Faraday Avenue island bridge, over track, rail loop and road rerouting. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the A446 Litchfield Road . • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the A4097 Kingsbury Road. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along the M42 Motorway and Junction 9 Dunton Hall M42. • Various engineering works, over bridges and satellite compounds along Seeney Lane. • Kingsbury Road Main Compound (Rail Systems). • Kingsbury Road Railhead Approach Tracks. • M42 Marston Box Structure. • Leeds Spur and Leeds Spur dive-under. • Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Viaduct Central, North & South Satellite Compounds. • Water Orton Viaducts & Satellite Compounds. • Coleshill I Birmingham Delta Junction. • Curdworth Viaduct - Central, North & South Satellite Compounds. • 'Y Route Junction' for Phase 2 - Leeds Spur. • Cuttle Mill Mid Point Auto-transformer Station.

2. Your Petitioner.

2.1 Lea Marston Parish Council represents the residents of the hamlets of Lea Marston and Marston, North Warwickshire.

2.2 The parish of Lea Marston is the most affected community along the entire HS2 route in terms of the amount of HS2 infrastructure that will be built within our parish and the length of time that our community will be specially and directly affected by the construction of HS2.

2.3 The parish is the chosen site for the construction and operation of a Railhead that will service both HS2 Phase 1 and HS2 Phase 2. HS2 construction work is currently scheduled to run from 2017 to 2033, sixteen years. In addition, the parish will have both Phase 1 and Phase 2 rail lines within its boundary and is situated immediately adjacent to the "Y" junction and the Birmingham Delta Junction.

2.4 No other community across the entire HS2 project will accommodate this same amount of infrastructure or have the level of impact by the planning, construction and operation of HS2 for such a prolonged period of time.

2.5 Lea Marston Parish Council does not oppose the construction and operation of HS2. We seek the best mitigation, design and compensation for our community.

2.6 To date Lea Marston Parish Council feel that HS2 have not meaningfully engaged or consulted with us.

2.7 The House of Commons Select Committee have recognised Lea Marston Parish and our neighbouring communities' situation to be a 'Special Case', but have unfortunately not defined what 'Special Case' means or what they consider the consequences of being a "Special Case' should be.

2.8 After petitioning the House of Commons on two occasions your Petitioners remain concerned that the following matters have not been satisfactorily resolved by HS2 Ltd. While the House of Commons Select Committee were sympathetic to our plight, no action has yet been taken to adequately resolve the matters we have petitioned on.

2 3. Your Petitioner's Concerns.

3.1 Kingsbury Road Railhead Site.

3 .1 .1 Mitigation. Your Petitioners are very concerned that despite the passage of this Bill we still await confirmation of the nature of the operational activity that will take place on the Railhead site and its likely impact on our residential and business community.

3.1.2 We also await confirmation of the Railhead site's proposed lifespan in terms of its construction, operation and restoration .

3.1.3 Without this confirmation we are not able to understand and agree the sufficiency of the mitigation that HS2 Ltd intends to implement to address the sites: visual appearance; noise; dust; vibration; night time light pollution; or, the impacts of its proposed temporary resident community or operational traffic flow.

3.1.4 Request: Your Petitioners humbly request that the House of Lords Select Committee support our request to be properly informed.

3.1.5 Railhead Site Restoration. Your Petitioners are unhappy with proposals to restore the Railhead site after completion of the construction of the Railhead.

3.1 .6 In the Promoter's Response to your Petitioners AP2 petition 107, HS2 state:

"As stated in HS2 Information Paper 81, Main Provisions of the Planning Regime: 'where a site is used for construction purposes, the site must be restored in accordance with a scheme submitted to the local planning authority within four months of the discontinuation of works at the site. Where no such scheme is agreed, the site must be restored in accordance with a scheme determined by the appropriate Ministers. '

3.1.7 In correspondence of 15 January 2016 HS2 in response to a request that a covenant be placed on the after -use of the Railhead site HS2 stated this was not possible and cited the Crichel Down Rules. Your Petitioners contest that the Railhead site will not be subject to the Crichel Down Rules as the construction and operation of the Railhead complex will have "materially changed in character since acquisition".

3.1.8 Request: Your Petitioners request that the House of Lords Select Committee direct that: (a) The site be returned to its current agricultural ecological state; (b) That all temporary mitigation bund earthworks be removed. (c) That the proposed 3-meter recession of the site floor be restored to its current topography so as to be in keeping with the surrounding landscape. (d) That once restored that HS2 place a covenant on the afteruse of the land or gift it to Lea Marston Parish Council.

3 3.1 .9 The non-removal of the temporary railway track cutting that joins the Birmingham to Derby rail line with the HS2 Railhead site. In the Promoter's Response to your Petitioners AP2 petition 107, HS2 state that while the cutting that will be engineered to accommodate the temporary railway connecting the Birmingham and Derby main line to the Kingsbury Road railhead will remain and the area would be planted with grassland, with hedgerow habitat created along the edge of the cutting.

3.1.10 Request: Your Petitions request that temporary engineered cutting be in filled and the area be returned to its current topographical and rural state.

3.1 .11 Seeney Lane Classification and Use. Seeney Lane is currently a dirt track bridleway that is accessed from the centre of Marston hamlet. Its entrance faces onto residential homes and it gives access to three dwellings in Marston and the Birmingham to Fazeley Canal. Your Petitioners were concerned that a proposed change of designation and road surface to tarmac would make Seeney Lane attractive to people rat-running to enter the Railhead site to avoid traffic congestion on the A4097. In the Promoters Response to our petition, AP2:107 - December 2015, HS2 agreed an amendment that:

"The road will remain as a bridleway and private access to the houses located along the lane."

This amendment was followed up in an Assurance to North Warwickshire Borough Council of 2 December 2015 that:

" .... No part of Seeney Lane .... Shall be used either: (i) by any large goods vehicle associated with the HS2 works entering or exiting the Kingsbury Road railhead site; or (ii) for the purpose of parking any large goods vehicles associated with HS2 works."

Your petitioners are grateful for this assurance but are concerned that it makes no mention of 'small goods vehicles' or cars associated with HS2 works or the private commuter vehicles driven by workers on the Railhead site.

3.1.12 Request: Your Petitioners request that the House of Lords Select Committee direct that: (a) No HS2 works or HS2 commuter vehicles are to use Seeney Lane; (b) That the bridleway does not have any form of access onto or off any part of the Railhead site but purely serves as private access to houses and land as it does now; (c) Requires HS2 to offer an assurance that Seeney Lane bridleway surface will not be made of tarmac or other type of highway standard road surface.

4 3.2 Compensation.

3.2.1 Your Petitioners humbly request that the Select Committee consider the need to direct HS2 to include the Kingsbury Road Railhead site within the HS2 Property Compensation Scheme.

3.2.2 Under current arrangements the HS2 compensation scheme includes property up to 300 meters from the centre of the line. This means that despite being significantly impacted upon by the construction and operation of the Kingsbury Railhead no resident or business in Marston or Lea Marston hamlets is eligible for compensation.

3.2.3 Your Petitioners consider this arrangement grossly unfair in view of the prolonged construction and operational use of the Railhead site for both HS2 Phase 1and its probable use for HS2 Phase 2.

3.2.4 Your Petitioners believe that HS2 acting with the Department for Transport have subjected them to heavy planning blight as recognised under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in that: (i) The residential and commercial properties located within our Parish and our neighbouring communities of Bodymoor Heath and Curdworth Parish are an area which has been most heavily earmarked for construction and overdevelopment in relation to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Scheme. (ii) These aforementioned properties will experience significant adverse effects from: Agriculture loss; forestry and soils disturbance; air quality disturbance; isolation; loss of community; loss of connectivity; cultural heritage and ecology disturbances; landscape and visual disturbances; sound; noise; light and vibration disturbances; traffic and railway transport disturbances; and, utilities disturbances and nuisance, such that each of these factors add to the property blight for the Petitioners. (iii) These aforementioned properties will as a direct result of the massive construction works planned for the area continue to suffer unacceptable adverse effects from planning blight, during the prolonged construction and operational stages and the completed stages of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Railhead site, the Y Route stub interface between Phases 1 and 2.

3.2.5 Your Petitioners believe that they will suffer unacceptable adverse effects of both temporary and permanent isolation, dislocation and loss of community during both the construction and operation of Phase 1 as a result of: (i) Demolition of properties to make way for construction sites and structures of the Proposed Scheme. (ii) Destruction of community and business operations of properties in the neighbourhood that are not being required for the build exists in that long standing owners have considered their properties are no longer fit for purpose and have removed themselves from the neighbourhood under alternative schemes such as exceptional hardship and their properties lie empty or are let on short term rentals. HS2 is becoming a major property owner in our Parish. (iii) Dislocation of community caused by

5 the road closures, disruption to access and increased traffic flows caused during the construction stages.

3.2.6 Request: Your Petitioners humbly request that the House of Lords Select Committee direct HS2 to meaningfully compensate residents and businesses who will be impacted upon by the construction, operation and restoration of the Railhead and its ancillary infrastructure.

3.3. Special Case.

3.3.1 In the Select Committee Minutes of Oral Evidence of 12 January 2015, page 3 paragraph 2, The House of Commons Honourable Members stated:

"Kingsbury we believe to be a special case because of the size of the railhead and its potential use in phase two."

3.3.2 Your Petitioners are finding it difficult to ascertain what AP4 changes support the view that the said Parishes, namely Lea Marston, Water Orton, Curdworth, Wishaw, Middleton and Kingsbury, are a 'Special Case'. 3.3.3 Your Petitioners consider that neither the AP2 or AP4 changes afforded by the Promoter demonstrate a level of a 'Special Case' consideration or response. 3.3.4 Your Petitioners believe that the Parish of Lea Marston is the most affected community along the entire HS2 route in terms of the amount of HS2 infrastructure that will be built within our parish and the length of time that our community will be specially and directly affected by the construction of HS2. The parish is the chosen site for the construction and operation of a Railhead that will service both HS2 Phase 1 and HS2 Phase 2. HS2 construction work is currently scheduled to run from 2017 to 2033, sixteen years. In addition, the parish will have both Phase 1 and Phase 2 rail lines within its boundary and is situated immediately adjacent to the "Y" junction and the Birmingham Delta Junction. No other community across the entire HS2 project will accommodate this same amount of infrastructure or at first hand experience the level of impact by the planning, construction and operation of HS2 for such a prolonged period of time.

3.3.5 As far as your Petitioners understand, despite the significance of the impact of HS2 construction and operation on the parishes of Lea Marston, Water Orton, Curdworth, Wishaw, Middleton and Kingsbury, no significant off-set project is currently proposed by HS2 locally to mitigate the environmental and ecological damage that the construction and operation of the line will do to the natural wildlife and vegetation, and rural landscape within our communities. A number of localised wetland and tree planting projects are proposed but these pale into

6 insignificance when compared to the HS2 built structures and operations that will dominate our community for the next century and beyond.

3.3.6 Request: Your Respectful Petitioners request the House of Lords Select Committee considers the grounds for the House of Commons Select Committee to state that our communities are a 'Special Case'. Having done so, we humbly ask the House of Lords Select Committee to: (a) Agree that we are a 'Special Case' and, (b) Define what this designation means in terms of any specific entitlement to: (i) Consultation. (ii) Enhanced environmental and ecological off-setting mitigation, and, (iii) any community based financial or like compensation to be used to rectify the intended and unintended consequences of prolonged HS2 construction and operation locally.

3.4. Community Liaison - Going The Extra Mile. 3.4.1 Paragraph 45 of the Select Committee Interim Report of 26 March 2015 states:

"We expect HS2 to go the extra mile on community liaison and support in this area to compensate for the evident failings in the past. " 3.4.2 Since publication of the interim report your Petitioners have not been invited to engage with HS2 outside two 'procedural' meetings that were held with all other affected petitioners: The first on the day before the Interim Report was published, when, on 25th March 2015, draft AP2 plans were shared with surrounding local communities; and secondly on 30th September 2015 when draft AP4 plans were shared with surrounding local communities.

3.4.3 At the personal request of Mr Peter Miller, HS2 Director of Environment, in February 2015 your Petitioners submitted a paper to HS2 outlining proposals for meaningful community engagement. 3.4.4 Your Petitioners have not received any feedback or invitation to further discuss their proposals. To date the only comment received is a statement contained within the 'Promoters Response to the Select Committee's First Special Report of Session 2014 - 15', of June 2015, which stated in paragraph 18:

"We have received a Community Engagement paper from the residents group and the ideas set out in the paper are being considered as part of the community engagement element of the draft Code of Construction Practice". 3.4.5 In the Promoter's Response to our AP2 Petition of December 2015 HS2 state that they complied with Cabinet Office guidance on Consultation of July 2012, the Aarhus Convention (1998) The Cabinet

7 Office Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) and the Gunning Principles. Your Petitioners contest this statement is untrue. HS2 have not fully complied with the guidance and legislation outlined in these sources.

3.4.6 Your Petitioners are alarmed that HS2 Ltd are treating commercial interests within the parish differently to residents. In an Assurance to North Warwickshire Borough Council of 2 December 2015 HS2 offer to establish a 'Hams Hall Working Group' with a remit to: "... consult and liaise with one another on a regular basis to: .. .. Protect the interest of the businesses based at Hams Hall distribution park generally during the construction of the Relevant Works."

3.4.7 Despite your Petitioners petitioning on three separate occasions for the right to be 'consulted' HS2 have never offer to consult or indeed protect the interests of either the parish council or its residents. 3.4.8 Special Management Zone. In Assurance letters of 4 November 2014, 271fi October 2014 and 7 November 2014 HS2 have made reference to the creation of a Special Management Zone. Your Petitioners welcome this proposal but remain concerned that the current proposed function and authority of the Special Management Zone does not include the right to be consulted nor does it include any mechanism where the interest of residents or local businesses can be protected during the construction, operation and restoration of the Railhead site. 3.4.9 Continued Significant Failure to Engage. Your Petitioners understand that HS2 have appointed to two community engagement and interface roles for Area North: Chris Elmore, Senior Interface Manager Area North HS2 Ltd and Jonathan Lord, Area North Engagement Manager HS2 Ltd. We are aware that these officers were in role and active in February 2016. However, neither your Petitioners or indeed any of the the other petitioning bodies from North Warwickshire including the Borough Council have been informed of these appointments by HS2, nor have we been contact by either officer. Your Petitioners consider that this situation further demonstrates the total lack of regard by HS2 to to the concerns and status of local petitioners, and it appears to the direction of the House of Commons Select Committee. 3.4.10 Request: Your Petitioners humbly request that the House of Lords Select Committee direct HS2 to: (a) Meaningfully consult with Lea Marston Parish and our neighbouring communities and "... go the extra mile on community liaison and support in this area to compensate for the evident failings in the past." (b) Direct HS2 to include the function of 'consultation' in the role of the Special Management Zone arrangements to ensure that local residents and business are informed and consulted about the

8 construction and operation of the Railhead during the sixteen year lifetime of construction, operation and restoration.

3.5. The Loss of Pre-existing Mitigation for Hams Hall Distribution Park.

3.5.1 Your petitioners object to the following Additional Provisions as contained within the Community Forum - CFA20 I Curdworth to Middleton- AP4 - ES 3.2.2.20 I Map Reference: CT - 05 -112b & CT- 06 -112b & CT-05-112-R1 & CT-06-112-R1.

3.5.2 The construction of the HS2 main line, Railhead, and Railhead Hams Lane Railhead Reception Sidings from the Birmingham to Derby mainline rail line, will necessitate the removal of pre-existing mitigation planting for Hams Hall Distribution Park. This mature planting and habitat was planted as offset mitigation following the construction of Hams Hall Distribution Park. It will almost entirely be destroyed by the construction of HS2 Hams Lane sidings, Railhead loop and the Railhead site.

3.5.3 Your Petitioners welcome the Promoter's Response of December 2015 in which HS2 outline their intent to to replace the Hams Hall mitigation along Faraday Avenue but state that lost Hams Lane mitigation planting will be offset at: (i) Seeney Lane, a location some two miles away, and (ii) Walkers Wood, a location that we do not know of locally. The Hams Lane offset mitigation also provides the dual function of visual and noise mitigation to the community of Lea Marston from Hams Hall Distribution Park. Under current plans this mitigation will be lost.

3.5.4 HS2 have proposed off-set mitigation planting on the Railhead site to both compensate for the loss of Hams Hall mitigation at this location and to compensate for the environmental and ecological impact that the construction and operation of the Railhead will have. However, a significant amount the offset mitigation planting will be onto earth bunds that surround the A4097 boundary of the Railhead. Your petitioners consider these bunds to be temporary structures that will be removed when the Railhead is decommissioned and the land returned to current agricultural state.

3.5.5 We understand that HS2 do not intend to remove the Railhead site bunds when the Railhead site is decommissioned and currently argue that to do so will destroy the offset mitigation that is planted on the bunds. Your Petitioners consider any tree planting on these bunds to be part of the light, sound and dirt mitigation for our communities and therefore temporary and only for the life of the Railhead. We do not consider this bund planting to be offset mitigation for either HS2 or the replacement of existing Hams Hall offset mitigation that is planted on this site.

9 3.5.6 Request: Your respectful Petitioners request that the House of Lords Select Committee: (a) Direct HS2 to replace the offset Hams Hall mitigation at Hams Lane. (b) Direct HS2 not to include tree planting on the temporary Railhead mitigation bunds as offset mitigation but to consider it a noise and light mitigation, and therefore direct HS2 to undertake additional 'offset' tree planting at a permeant location locally elsewhere.

3.6 House of Commons Select Committee Special Report of Session 2015 -16.

3.6.1 Your Petitioners are concerned that on page 23, paragraph 59 of their Special Report the House of Commons Select Committee seek to make provision for a local landowner to extract minerals from his land.

3.6.2 The land in question does not feature in the current Warwickshire County Council Minerals Strategy and while it is proposed as one of a numbers of sites to be included in the revised 2017 - 2032 County Council Minerals Strategy, public consultation has not yet been completed on which sites will be included in the revised strategy. Your Petitioners are amongst a group of local interests objecting on ecological, environmental and HS2 grounds to the inclusion of this site in the 2017 - 2032 strategy. Your Petitioners are therefore concerned that the House of Commons Select Committee is both pre-judging and prejudicing the outcome of Warwickshire County Council public consultation and decision making about the 2017 - 2032 Minerals Strategy sites.

3.6.3 Request: Your Petitioners request that HS2 disregard the statement about future mineral extraction interests as set out in paragraph 59 of the House of Commons Select Committee Special Report of Session 2015 - 16.

3.7 Road and Rail Transport Disturbance.

3.7.1 Your Petitioners are concerned that we will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from traffic and transport disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and operation of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: (i) Huge scale construction activity, built structures, and large-scale infrastructure changes will cause unacceptable adverse effects such as disturbance, nuisance, carbon monoxide pollution, noise and light pollution from increased transport flows, increased road traffic, arrival and departure of workers from construction and work sites, heavy goods and materials deliveries to work sites, physical changes to existing road and rail networks, movement of road structures, and construction of rail structures.

3.7.2 Adverse effects of road traffic congestion and general delays; delays in commercial, public, commuter and leisure transport; diversions, and

10 volumetric changes in traffic flows; accident and safety risks; and in particular on the A446, the A4097, the A4091 and Faraday Avenue with no alternative routes available. Local roads within our Parish and neighbouring Parishes of Water Orton, Curdworth, Kingsbury, Nether Whitacre, Wishaw and Middleton will suffer the consequences of displaced traffic seeking to avoid congestion and road works.

3.7.3 Your Petitioners will experience an increase in the railway movement of trains coming into and out of the Railhead site and into and out of the Hams Hall sidings that HS2 will build to afford rail access to the Railhead from the Network Rail Birmingham to Derby main line. HS2 have previously stated that increased train movements to the HS2 Railhead do not fall within their responsibility. Your Petitioners are concerned that the residents of Lea Marston hamlet will suffer unacceptable adverse effects of 24-hour noise and light pollution and vibration from the increased train movements specifically for HS2 purposes.

3.7.4 Your Petitioners believe that HS2 has failed to properly assess and plan for the impact of its works on the road and rail infrastructure within our community.

3.7.5 Request: Your Petitioners request that the House of Lords Select Committee direct HS2 to: (a) Provide alternative access to the construction sites of the Railhead to reduce congestion on the A4097 Kingsbury Road. (b) Provide and implement an effective plan to manage the traffic during construction to include if appropriate the widening of single carriageway roads. (c) Provide undertakings that work shall be carried out on all roads in the area at separate times only. (d) Provide an undertaking to introduce and enforce traffic calming measures in the areas to include in particular Hams Lane, Haunch Lane, Coton Road and Bodymoor Heath Lane. (e) Review HS2s previously stated that position that increased 24 hour HS2 specific train movements on Network Rail lines and Hams Lane sidings to and from and HS2 Railhead do not fall within their responsibility. (f) Provide financial and practical compensation to the residents for the sound, noise and vibration impacts of road and rail disruption to their quality of home and family life, and travel to and from their homes that they will endure for the sixteen-year period of construction.

11 4. THE PRAYER.

THE PETITIONERS, Lea Marston Parish Council, therefore asks the House of Lords that they, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given the opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

SIGNED: by Chairman of Lea Marston Parish Council on behalf of all group memb~~

David Reilly. Chair Lea Marston Parish Council

Date: Friday 16th April 2016.

12 HL: 236 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

Declare that

1. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the Additional Provision 4 of the Bill.

2. The Petitioner is 63 years old and has owned the land known as land and buildings on the northwest side of Canterbury Road, Kilburn ("Canterbury Works"), since 2002. The Property is rented out and forms the Petitioner's sole income. It is presently used as a car repair centre and yard.

3. Your Petitioner's Concerns

4. A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced and is now pending in your honourable House entitled "A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes"

5. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary Mcloughlin, supported by the Prime Minister.

6. Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill 's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway mentioned in paragraph 1 above. They include provision for the construction of works, highway and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land planning permission, heritage issues trees and noise. They include clauses which would disapply and modify various enactments relating to special categories of land including bu ria l grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulation and party wall, street work and the use of lorries.

7. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill deal with the regulatory regulatory regime for the railway.

8. Clauses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provision. including provision for the appointment of nominated undertaker ("the Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under the Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision about the compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement work and provision about further high speed railway works. Provision is also made about the application of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

9. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and other works, which are described in clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill. 10. The Prem ises, other than safeguarding a small area of the subsoil nearest to the railway line - to which no objection was taken - did not form any part of the HS2 proposals until AP4 was laid before Parliament.

11. The High Speed Rail Link proposals envisage the railway line going sub-surface at Euston and reappearing at Old Oak Common. The Proposers, for engineering reasons, therefore require a ventilation shaft for the tunnel in the vicinity of your Petitioner's land. Ove Arup were engaged by HS2 with regards to the siting of this ventilation shaft and prepared a Report dated December 2010. At 11.4 of that Report it says as follows:

"It should be noted that even though the site at Coventry Close (Royal Mail sorting office) which was identified during the Final engineering Route Study is on line and sufficient in terms of size, the spacing does not work with other preferred locations. This is also the case for the site at Canterbury Road at Chainage 5+300, shown on drawing HS2-ARP-04-DR-CX-00001. This site is currently occupied by a car scrap yard and even though the site is sufficient to accommodate a ventilation/intervention shaft and head-house, the spacing does not work with other preferred locations. London Underground has also confirmed that this site is located within close proximity to the Bakerloo Line. For this reason the Canterbury Road has not been considered further in this study, although for completeness it is described in Section 11.4.1.4 below."

12. At some point after the publication of the Bill its Proposers issued a Safeguarding Notice over property known as Salusbury Road owned by the London Borough of Brent. The proposers identified this site for the construction of a ventilation shaft for the tunnel for the HS2 line.

13. Thereafter the London Borough of Brent applied for and was granted planning permission in accordance with the South Kilburn Regeneration Scheme and its Master Plan. The Canterbury Road site was also part of the South Kilburn Regeneration Scheme Plan and Master Plan. At the same time the London Borough of Brent petitioned against the Bill under Petition Reference Number 495.

14. In light of the London Borough of Brent's Petition and Representations, the Proposers re-examined the issue of where the ventilation shaft was to be sited.

15. By a letter dated 30 August 2013, the Proposers stated:

"HS2 Ltd carried out an engineering feasibility study to look into this further and although this study has shown that it is technically feasible to move the shaft, we do not think that the Canterbury Works location is appropriate.

"The close proximity of St Mary's Primary School and nearby residential properties means that although the Canterbury Works site is large enough for the construction of a shaft, the impacts on the local community would be greater than those for the Salusbury Road site, which is situated on a main road and further away from residential dwellings. "One of the most significant concerns that we have about the use of the Canterbury Works site would be the additional traffic impacts to the local area, including the school. A significant number of lorries would be servicing the site, potentially at the same time as children are arriving and leaving school. This is an issue we do not face at the Salusbury Road site. Sa lusbury Road is also a main road where the traffic impacts would be much less significant that the use of local roads around the Canterbury Works site.

"In addition to the traffic impacts and the impacts on local stakeholders, the tunnel alignment would need to be moved further south from the existing alignment. This would mean that the tunnel would have to go under additional properties.

"Fu rther to our recent conversation I can confirm that HS2 Ltd will not be ta king the option of moving the site from the Salusbu ry Road location to the Canterbury works site through to the Hybrid Bill."

16. Your Petitioner in light of the contents of the letter of 9 September 2013 believes, therefore, that her land was not going to be used as a site for the ventilation shaft. However, it became apparent to her that the London Borough of Brent were not satisfied and were continuing their representations in this matter. Your Petitioner wrote a letter to HS2 dated 29 August 2015 which states:

"Our concern is that you are considering an additional prov1s1on because Brent Council have obtained planning permission to build a block of flats on the Queen's Park site and their interests are commercially orientated.

"As you will have seen from those that presented themselves on Thursday, 27 August 2015, we are not big corporations and have little or no financial powers or clout; unlike Brent.

"For my own part I asked a series of questions, which I repeat here, as to why, potentially, HS2 now consider that the Canterbury Road site is more appropriate given that it had previously (before any site was chosen) been investigated along with other potential sites and then not chosen."

Your Petitioner has received no meaningful reply to her letter dated 29 August 2015 and believes therefore, as stated in the letter, that AP4 merely seeks to accede to the London Borough of Brent for commercial reasons and the position still remains that the best siting for the ventilation shaft would be on Brent's land at Salusbury Road. It is suggested by your Petitioner that it is inappropriate to amend the HS2 proposals simply to accommodate Brent Council's commercial desires. Both the Salusbury Road site and the Canterbury Works site are part of The South Kilburn Regeneration Scheme.

17. On 12 October 2015 the Proposers published AP4. AP4 now seeks to build the ventilation shaft at Canterbury Works. The reason put forward for this change of heart is "to accommodate the wishes of the London Borough of Brent Council".

18. The Proposers had not put forward , in AP4 or in correspondence etc. , any engineering or technical reason why, now, the Canterbury Road site is to be preferred. Your Petitioner reserves the right to put forward, at the Hearing of th is matter, technical and engineering evidence if so advised.

19. Although your Peti tioner, at this stage, feels that any engineering evidence for the proposed re-location should be provided by HS2 it appears to the Petitioner that for merely political reasons the Proposer of the Bill has changed its mind as to whose land it shall seek to compulsorily purchase for no proper reason other than to appease the London Borough of Brent. This is to the substantial disadvantage of your Petitioner is having land she has held for 13 years taken from her because, it would appear, that a political deal has been done. Your Petitioner's rights to hold property and to do so peaceably and without interference of the State have been prejudiced.

20. The above on the grounds presented, by way of Petition, to the House of Commons Select Committee. Your Petitioner represents a further Petition to the House of Lords on the basis that notwithstanding the Hearing afforded to the Petitioner in respect of her grounds of objection on the morning of Tuesday, 26 January 2016 the Promoter has failed to adopt the recommendations of the HS2 Select Committee as detailed in paragraph of 21 2 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Second Special Report of Session 2015/20 16.

21. Further the Promoter has fa iled to act on the recommendations of the Right Honourable Sir Peter Bottomley MP (HS2 Select Committee) Paragraph 500 on the evidence given by the Petitioner on the morning of 26 January 2016 insomuch as the Promoter has not sought to engage with the Petitioner in any way whatsoever with a view to the Promoter buying the Petitioner's premises and renting them back to her by way of a Tenancy or Licence.

22. Further, the Petitioner has been denied the opportunity to sell her land to a private developer which would have given her the financial stability since 30 January 2015, i.e. 10% being offered to be paid and released as agent to the Petitioner with two years' notice to determine her rights in the land thus enabling the Petitioner to effect an orderly clearance of the site which is tenanted.

23. The Promoter has failed to engage with the Petitioner or her Tenant with regards to arrangements and payments for the orderly vacation of the site by way of disturbance payments, the same being proposed in argument by the Select Committee when it heard evidence from Tulip Siddiq MP, see transcripts of Tulip Siddiq MP's evidence on the afternoon of 26 January 2016.

24. Your Petitioner and her rights, interests and her property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

25. Your Petitioner recognises the scheme serves a greater public good but considers that her circumstances violate the principle of fair treatment for those adversely affected.

26. For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above so far affecting your Petitioner, should not be allowed to pass into law. 27. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudiciall y affect your Petitioner and her rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.

The Prayer

The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which consider this Bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

Signed

Bridget Ann Cleary

14 April 2016 HL: 237 To the House of Lords

Session 2015-2016

PETITION aga inst the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Robert and Sally Drummond-Hay

Declares that

The petitioners are specifically and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

The Petitioners

The Petitioners are Robert and Sally Drummond-Hay. They gave evidence to the House of Commons Se lect Committee and feel their concerns have not been addressed. They now ask your Lordships to consider their complaints.

The Petitioners are owners of a property in Mixbury, within the conservation area. The Petitioners bought their cottage as a temporary measure having been driven out of their isolated farmhouse on Otmoor by the construction of the M40 200 yards behind the house. They proposed an alternative route at the publi c enquiry which was upheld by the inspector but were over-ruled by the Minister of Transport. The Petitioners have stayed in Mixbury mainly because of the tracks and bridleways which they use on a regu lar basis for dog walking and pony carting. The Petitioners frequently t ravel by pony cart between Mixbury and Even ley. The Petitioners frequent ly use Featherbed Lane to travel between Mixbury to Fu lwell and on to Stowe where they are regu lar worshippers in the Parish Church. Sally Drummond-Hay is a member of the Stowe Parochial Church Council. Robert Drummond-Hay is a member of Parochial Church Council. Mixbury does not have a Parish Council, only a Parish Meeting. The Petitioners allege that they and their property, rights and interests in the Mixbury area would be seriously affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in its present form.

The Petitioners concerns:

The Petitioners concerns are set out below under the following headings.

Noise and visual intrusion Safety for horses and pony cart drivers Access to A421 Barley Mow and Evenley roundabouts on A43 Detrimental effect on their family Compensation

Noise and visual intrusion

HS2 will destroy the peace and t ranquillity of an area frequently used by the Petitioners and many others for dog-wa lking, riding and pony carting. The noise from the trains will be frightening for horses and ponies and be a danger. The present tranquillity and beauty of the countryside will be destroyed not only by noise but the very intrusive gantries and fences thus downgrading and devaluing the whole area.

Safety for horses and pony cart drivers

Clause 86 of House of Commons Select Committee report. The construction of the bridge across the line of the bridleway 303/4 is not specified beyond 'The Promoter should seek a 1:1 matched funding arrangement with local interested bodies for provision of greater barrier protection in the vicinity of the bridleway crossing'.

Extract from Select Commitee Hearing Feb. 2015 Following discussion on screening for horse riders. Sir Peter Bottomley- Can I add before you close this part Chairman? And say that it would be interesting to hear that the promoters will go on talking with the British Horse Society and the local horse interests about some of the points ..... which have come up. I think this does sound like an area where that kind of consideration could make a difference. Extract from e-mail from Sebastian Jew to Ray Brunton, Chai rm an of Mixbury Vi llage Meeting, 31st July 2015. The solid parapet height of 1.8 m for a bridleway bridge is the right height for equestrian use in accorda nce with t he Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and co nsistent w it h BHS guidance, as such we cannot agree to a 2.5 m parapet.

The Petitioners submit that l.8m is not sufficient on this particu lar bridleway which is so hea vily used by ch ildren on ponies, racehorses and dressage horses, as well as others and by them when pony carting. Without higher barriers lives will be put at risk.

The Petitioners request your Lordships to specify safe and enforceable mitigation, w it h 2.5 m parapets, to ensure the safety of all the horse riders and drivers in t he Mlxbury area, if necessary t he extra cost being borne by t he £150 million Community Fund.

No mention is made of a waiting area, requested at the House of Commons Se lect Committee hearing, for horses either side of the proposed route. The Petitioners request that land is acquired by HS2 for waiting areas which should be screened off to protect riders as a train approaches. It would also protect the farmers crop as a frightened horse wit h nowhere to go, or pony and cart would cause considerable damage to crops.

Pony ca rting is a haza rdous sport. If the pony takes fright and the cart t urns over the passengers end up underneath, often badly injured. The Petitioners appreciate that construction traffic is meant to be kept off the lanes, but the lanes will inevitably be used as a rat run by non local traffic due to the increase of traffic flow on the A421 and t he A43.

The Petitioners frequently use the lane between Mixbury and Evenley to take both their own and their friends grandchildren, in the pony cart, to the village shop to buy ice creams. While their pony is very reliable 'and very good in traffic, it is not possible to reverse in a pony cart, or get off the road. To mount a bank risks turning the cart over. It remains to be seen if it will be safe to continue doing this.

There are no predicted traffic flow figures for this road. Detrimental effect on family

The petitioners youngest daughter lives on a farm in South Africa. She feels it is essential that their two smal l boys, who have british passports, know this country and their relations here. South Africa's future is uncertain and they might have to leave at any time. They come over for 3 or 4 weeks every summer to make sure the boys get to know this country and their English family.

While most people know the plight of white farmers in Zimbabwe, it less well known that white farmers are also being killed in South Africa. Internet figures vary between 1,200 and 4,000 white farmers killed since 1994.

Moodys has already down graded the South African rand and there is risk of further downgrading to Junk Status. Our family could face an uncertain future.

Staying with grandparents can be boring for children. Pony carting and riding are very important to this family. The Petitioners request that all the safety measures above are put in place to ensure these activities can continue.

Access to A421

Under clause 186 no mention has been made of the traffic island and double white lines requested on t he A421 to allow for safe entry and access to the village during the construction phase.

Predicted construction traffic on A421 past Mixbury turn: From Tibbetts Farm transformer, Featherbed Lane, A421 and A4421 overbridge co nstruction max. 140 HGV and 780 lighter vehicles per day. From West Street Overbridge, Calvert and IMD reception sidings max 2566 HGV and 2680 other vehicles. Combined total - increased traffic flow due to construction - 396 HGVs and 3460 lighter vehicles per day.

The Petitioners request that a traffic island is built for the Mixbury turn and for double white lines on that section on the A421.

Barley Mow and Evenley roundabouts No mention in clause 186 has been made of traffic lights requested on the A43 at Barley Mow roundabout and the roundabout at Evenley to allow traffic from the A421 and Evenley Vi llage to access the A43. At certain times of day there can be long queues to get onto both these roundabouts with the present traffic flow. All junctions between Brackley and M40 Junction 10 are predicted to suffer 'Major Adverse Effects' for at least 3 years.

The Petit ioners fea r t hey w ill be effectively trapped unless measures are taken to allow access to the A43 on the roundabouts.

The Petitioners request t hat traffic lights are installed on bot h these roundabout s.

Compensation

The Petitioners know from their experience w ith the M40 that the construction phase of a major infrastructure project is the most difficult and leads to a loss of property va lue. Clause 259 details where compensation can be claimed. It is exclusively for loss of value to property within a limited distance of the route, or business. Nowhere is loss of amenity, or disruption during construction, addressed. Consequently the Petitioners are not in a position to move house and urge your Lordships to look favourably on these submissions.

The Prayer

The Petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues ra ised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill

AND the Petitioners remain, etc.

Robert Drummond-Hay Sally Drummond-Hay

Date: HL: 238 To the House of Lords Session 2015- 16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF_ NEIL TAYLOR FOR THE LORD CARRINGTON'S 1963 SETTLEMENT ( 1&2 FUNDS).

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is Neil Taylor on behalf of the Lord Carrington's 1963 Settlement (1 & 2 Funds) (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner). The Bill would authorise the construction and operation of the railway system and its associated development through Standall's Farm, Bishopstone, Aylesbury, which is owned by the petitioner which the Bill may directly and specially affect, and your petitioner objects to the part of the works outlined below.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

i. Your Petitioner had thought that an agreement had been negotiated with HS2 Ltd covering the various issues set out below (which generate savings in the cost of the railway amounting to many millions of pounds), as reported by Mr T Mould QC to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on 18th November 2015. However, that agreement has not been finalized which has led your Petitioner to submit this further Petition to the House of Lords.

ii. Noise and disturbance

a. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker for the use of the footpath SBH/28/2 for works access during construction works which will include lorry movements, the creation of dust and noise, poor air quality and 24 hour working which goes through the farm yard. Footpath SBH/28/2 goes through the farm yard of Standalls Farm and objection is taken as the use of such a route will cause considerable and unnecessary disruption to the operation of the farm.

1 b. Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submits that the Bill should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Ltd , the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works, and in particular the use of the footpath SBH/28/2 for works access during construction works, by considering their cumulative impacts on Standalls Farm and consider the creation of a temporary route to the east of the farm yard. iii. Diversion of overhead power line

a. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker to use a substantial area of Standall's Farm's fields for the realignment of the overhead power lines which cross the property. Objection is taken to the excessive land blighted during the construction phase.

b. Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submits that the Bill should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works by considering their cumulative impacts on Standalls Farm related to the diversion of the overhead power line, consider a significant red uction in the area of land required for the diversion of the overhead power line and also provide that access to these works is achieved from the Satellite Compound for the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury Rail Overbridge works area in order to minimise land take. In addition, your Petitioner respectfully submits that HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker review the construction strategy for the project regarding this overhead power line as ideally it should be totally diverted and buried underground as, to the north of Standalls Farm, they pass directly over the houses in Tolman Court which could be a danger to health iv. Acquisition of surplus land.

a. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker to acquire a substantial area of your Petitioner's land to the east of the cutting in which the proposed railway line is to be located which is not required for the construction of the railway. Objection is taken to the acquisition of land additional to that actually required for the construction and maintenance of the railway.

2 b. Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submits that the Bil l should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works and only acquire land actually required to construct the railway. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that there is absolutely no need for HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker to acquire Standalls Farm's field between the railway and the eastern boundary of the farm. v. Maintenance of operational farmland.

a. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker to create a high embankment to the east of the cutting in which the proposed railway line is to be located. Objection is taken to the acquisition of the area of land required to create this embankment rather than erection of a suitable fence adjacent to the railway that would require much less land being acquired.

b. Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submits that the Bi ll should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works by considering the construction of a suitably designed noise fence and associated planting immediately adjacent to the fence, rather than the construction of a very large embankment to the east of the railway which will require a the acquisition of a considerable additional area of land. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that this would enable that part of the farm which is to the east of the railway to continue as operational farmland. vi. More logical access routes to operational land.

a. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker for the use of Footpath SMA/ 16 as a long term access route for the maintenance and repair of the pumping station and flood pond to the east of the proposed ra ilway and to the north of the diverted Princes Risborough to Aylesbury ra ilway line. Objection is taken to the use of the route of Footpath SMA/16 as the construction and maintenance works which will include lorry movements, the creation of dust and noise and, poor air quality through the farm will disrupt the operation of the Standalls Farm and is in 3 excess of 1,300 metres from the public highway.

b. Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submits that the Bill should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Ltd, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works, and in particular the use of the footpath SMA/16 for works access during construction works and as a long term access route for the maintenance and repair of the pumping station and flood pond to the east of the proposed railway and to the north of the diverted Princes Risborough to Aylesbury railway line. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that a logical and more efficient route for the access to this pumping station and flood pond would be from the A4010 Stoke Mandeville by-pass at, say, the point at which it crosses Footpath SMA/16 and westwards, under the realigned Princes Risborough railway line. This route would be less than half the distance being approximately 560 metres in length.

vii. In light of the above, your Petitioner reserves the right to raise the above matters and any further matters of concern relating to the substance of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and this Petition that may arise from continuing discussions, the preparation and publication of reports, any possible revisions that may be made to current work site proposals or any other matters relevant to its expressed concerns that may occur in due course and prior to its representation before the Select Committee.

viii. For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless clause 14 and the relevant sections of parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 15; clause 30 and the relevant section of part 4 of schedule 15; clause 47 and the relevant section of Schedule 5 relating to the Parish of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, of the Bill are amended or removed so far as affecting your Petitioner, as proposed above, then the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law.

ix. There are other clauses and prov,srons of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner and its rights, (including its human rights) interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to

4 protect your Petitioner and other clauses and prov1s1ons necessary for its protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Neil Taylor on behalf of Lord Carrington's 1963 Settlement ( 1&2 Funds)

14th April 2016

5 HL: 239 To The House of Lords Session 2015-16

Petition against the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF WATER ORTON HS2 ACTION GROUP

Declares that:

The Water Orton HS2 Action Group is directly adversely affected by "The Whole Bill"

2/ Your Petitioner

Water Orton HS2 Action Group represents the residents of Water Orton. The building of the HS2 railway so close to the properties of the village along with the noise and pollution during construction and when completed the noise and visual; aspect of the line is of great concern to the council and most of the residents and badly affects the whole village. Apart from the Euston Area in London, the village of Water Orton is the most affected area along the entire HS2 route, as we not only have the Main Line (4 Tracks) passing close by, but also the Delta Junction spurs passing very close to the properties in the village. Additionally we have the " Y'' junction close by, which means that construction will stretch into phase 2 meaning we will have disruption to our area up to 2033. Water Orton, once a peaceful Warwickshire Village has already endured the construction of the M6, M42, M6-M42 Link and M6 Toll Motorways and the village is entirely encircled by these roads. To now have the HS2 lines built INSIDE the Motorway ring is entirely unreasonable and in our opinion the line should have been built on the Eastern side of Coleshill where there are few houses and plenty of open farm land. Previous plans drawn up by the Water Orton Action Group to move part of the Delta Spur to the North of the Village over the old sewage beds were rejected by HS2 Ltd.

31 Your Petitioners concerns:

After petitioning the House of Commons your petitioner's still have the following concerns that have not been satisfactorily resolved by HS2 Ltd. Although the House of Commons Select Committee were sympathetic to our concerns no action has been taken so far to work out solutions to these issues. Part 1/ CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC PASSING THROUGH THE CENTRE OF WATER ORTON

Failure of the design of the Haul Road from the Watton Lane/ M42 under bridge feeding the supply depot on the Birmingham Road, on the North side of Water Orton, means that construction traffic, including heavy 32tonne trucks, will travel right through the heart of the village along New Road, past the shopping area and then along the busy Birmingham Road to the depot. We have very serious safety concerns about heavy goods vehicles using this route through the village. The main road through the village has a large number of children, some unattended by adults, who are forced to cross the road in order to catch school transport to places outside the village. The area around the shops is very busy with pedestrians (both adults and children) crossing and re-crossing the road. The traffic is already very busy and the extra vehicle activity and size of these trucks would pose a safety threat to all pedestrians along the route. Also the road is not designed to take such large vehicles and the vibration and dust will cause harm to property and the public along the route. A re-design of the Haul Road around the South of Water Orton or alternative arrangements would solve this problem. Your petitioners are grateful that in the House of Commons Select Committee's 'First Special Report of Session 2014-15' of 26 March 2015 Water Orton was recognised as being "a significantly affected community". The Select Committee stated: "We have requested additional data on traffic movements. The Promoter has provided assurances on restricting construction traffic movements through the village but these assurances do not solve the problem. Your Petitioners request that the House of Lords Select Committee instruct HS2 Ltd to find an alternative solution to supplying the Birmingham Road Depot and other depots further along the line into Birmingham.

Part 2/ TREE PLANTINGS

Referring to the latest Envoironmental Maps - Supplement ES statement 3 (AP4) drawing number CT-06-134A. The diagram shows tree plantings between Vicarage Lane, Water Orton and the North Chord of the Delta Junction ofHS2.

We have three concerns regarding these tree plantings and associated land:

1/ The area of tree plantings shown is, according to HS2 Ltd required for ecological reasons due to the existence of great crested newts. Your petitioners welcome this concern for ecology and also welcome the tree plantings, but further down the line behind the houses in Vicarage Lane, where human beings live, there are no tree plantings shown. The area of land is already safeguarded for construction and the houses mentioned are very close to the railway line. Your petitioners are asking the Select Committee to instruct HS2 Ltd to continue the tree plantings behind the houses in Vicarage Lane as this would help to mitigate the final visual aspect of the HS2 line and help to reduce noise. Although HS2 Ltd have agreed to build a bund to hide the line residents will still have to look out on a high embankment and planting of trees would improve the environment enormously, at very little further cost to HS2 Ltd.

2 2/ Your petitioners have been told by HS2 Ltd that the land earmarked for tree plantings, shown in the diagram, would eventually be returned to the original land owners. This land is currently classed as green belt land. Your Petitioners are concerned that the land would not be returned as green belt and therefore we would like an assurance from HS2 ltd that a covenant be placed on the land retaining it as woodland habitat to protect the delicate wildlife that resides there and that the habitat would be suitably maintained. If necessary the land could be gifted to Water Orton Parish Council who would then be responsible for its future as a woodland habitat. c/ HS2 Ltd are in consultation with The Old Saltonian's Rugby Club, which is due to be demolished by the line, to move this club to the area in the ES document currently shown as tree plantings between Vicarage Lane and the railway line. Originally your petitioners had no objection to this, but it has come to light that the Rugby Club themselves would take over ownership of the land, not HS2 Ltd. We now strongly object to this unless HS2 Ltd negotiate with the Club to place a covenant on the land, so that in the event that the Rugby Club dissolves, then the land which would be sold, would revert to woodland habitat as shown on the original ES document. Otherwise the village is in danger of losing the Green Belt status of this land. In any case HS2 Ltd has already recognized that this land should be considered under ecological terms. We would ask that The House Of Lords Select Committee instruct HS2 Ltd to ensure that such a covenant is negotiated or move the Rugby Club elsewhere.

Part 3/DESIGN OF VIADUCTS

From the latest Environmental Statement we would like to refer to the Photomontage LV-01-127. This shows what the viaduct would look like from Corsey Lane across the A446 highway. In our opinion this construction is not what we would expect from a modem day construction. It is both ugly looking and no thought has been made to attempt to mitigate the visual aspect of this road crossing and it also lends itself to graffiti. Your petitioners would like the select Committee to ask HS2 Ltd to have another look at re-designing this viaduct perhaps making more of a tunnel construction with earth banks on either side and a pleasing looking portal at each end.

Due to this Photomontage your petitioners are now concerned about the Water Orton Viaduct 3 (Drawing CT-05-llla) which takes the North Chord of the Delta junction high over the M42 motorway. This viaduct will be seen from many places on the South side of Water Orton and no Photomontage has been produced of this view. We would therefore like HS2 Ltd to construct such a photograph and assure the people of Water Orton that this viaduct is constructed to the best possible engineering and visual design specifications to mitigate the visual aspect to the village.

3 Part 4/ COMPENSATION

Homeowner Payment Scheme discriminates against some houses in Attleboro Lane, and Vicarage Lane, compared to others ... The HS2 Volume 2 Community Forum Area report CFA19 Coleshill Junction noted that

"The Construction works to the south of Water Orton will generate a combination of significant noise and visual effects on the occupiers of seven residential properties at Attleboro Lane, which are situated just to the north of the Proposed Scheme. Works in this area will involve tlze demolition of properties to tlze south construction of the Attleboro flyover, the Attleboro Lane realignment and overbridge, Water Orton cutting and Attleboro Fann embankment and associated earthworks and retaining sb'uctures. These works are expected to take about three years to complete and the combination of significant effects during this time will give rise to a major adverse and significant amenity effect of the occupiers of nos. 47-57 (odds) and 55a Attleboro Lane."

Numbers 49 to 57 aU fall within the highest payment band whilst others fall outside it, which is unfair given the above. We would ask the select committee to revue the current status for compensation so all the properties mentioned above fall into the highest category.

The people in Attleboro Lane and parts of Vicarage Lane now have a dual problem. When Warwickshire County Council did a deal with HS2 Ltd to build a new school no thoughts were given to the people living in the houses backing onto the school. Once the new school is built the old school site will be sold off by the council for development So now, not only will these residents have to endure the building of the HS2 railway with all the noise and pollution involved but after it is finished they will have to further endure a building site behind their properties whilst the land is re-developed. Your petitioners believe this is exceptional and would like the Select Committee to instruct HS2 Ltd to make these houses a special case for compensation, no matter what the rules state, and pay the highest payment of compensation.

Part 5/ WATER ORTON PRIMARY SCHOOL

There is an agreement between Warwickshire County Council and HS2 Ltd to re locate the children of Water Orton Primary School into new premises before the HS2 line is built. HS2 Ltd has agreed to pay wee the sum of £3.5rn pounds towards the cost of the new school premises. In doing so HS2 Ltd have admitted that the line is so close to the existing school that the children's well being and education would suffer especially during the construction phase where noise and pollution would be greatest. However, your petitioners are concerned with the terms and conditions laid down by HS2 ltd for this agreement. HS2 Ltd have stated and hereby quoted:

"The Secretary of State will require that the Nominated Undertaker does not commence any works that would require mitigation measures to be in place at tlze existing Water Orton School until the existing school has been vacated."

4 II At the time of Royal Assent, wee can demonstrate it has a development programme and contractor contracts in place to ensure the new school is delivered and in educational use no later that two and half years from the time of Royal Assent as of today"

They then go further by stating that if the school is not ready HS2 Ltd will put into place mitigation measures and build the line anyway.

Your petitioners find this unacceptable as no matter what mitigation measures are implemented the line is so close to the school that the children's education and well being will suffer. The Water Orton HS2 Action Group put forward a solution to move this part of the Delta Junction to the North over the existing sewage beds and link into the main line further up the line. This was rejected because of this arrangement to build a new school instead. We would like the select committee to force HS2 Ltd to agree to one of the following. a/ That under any circumstances the construction of the North Chord of the Delta Junction will not commence until the children have been re-located to new school premises

OR b/ Move the line as per the Water Orton HS2 Action Group proposals and leave the existing school where it is.

6/ JACK O'W ATTON COTT AGES

With reference to the Jack O'Watton Cottages which are currently due for demolition under the current HS2 plans. These houses are currently rented by Seven Trent Ltd and all the residents have received a letter from the landlord stating that the cottages will be demolished and it is up to the residents to find other accommodation. Many of the people who currently occupy these dwellings have lived there for a very long time and many are elderly people in their eighties. Your petitioners would like HS2 Ltd, despite what the rules say concerning rented accommodation, to take a more proactive role in assisting these residents to find other suitable accommodation in the area and offering help and advice and paying for their removal fees.

7/ CREATION OF NEW BRIDLEWAY Referring to diagrams CT 06 l 34A & CT 06136A, HS2 are creating a new bridleway from the footbridge over the M6/M42 Link then running eastbound around the South of Water Orton emerging at Watton Lane by the M42 underbridge. Your petitioners have concerns about this bridleway, in that currently there are people from Chelmsley Wood bringing motorbikes over the M6 bridge and riding them around the fields. The concern is that the new bridleway would be used as a motorbike raceway bringing noise and pollution into our village and we would prefer that this bridleway was not constructed and further that the motorway bridge footpath M55 be stopped up.

5 THE PRAYER:

The Water Orton HS2 Action Group therefore asks the House of Lords that Mr John Warren who is Chairman of the Group (Acting as their spokesman) in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given the opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this bill.

And the Water Orton HS2 Action Group remains, etc.

Signed,

Cl.\ A 1 ~ I"\ 0. ....,

1,,-, 1:1.-.~ 012-r-. ... A e Tto » G-4.?cu f>

Date

6 HL: 240 To The House of Lords Session 2015-16

Petition against the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF WATER ORTON PARISH COUNCIL

Declares that:

1/ The Water Orton Parish Council is specially and directly adversely affected by "The Whole Bill"

21 Your Petitioner

Water Orton Parish Council represents all the residents of Water Orton. The building of the HS2 railway so close to the properties of the village along with the noise and pollution during construction and when completed the noise and visual; aspect of the line, is of great concern to the council and most of the residents and badly affects the whole village. Apart from the Euston Area in London, the village of Water Orton is the most affected area along the entire HS2 route, as we not only have the Main Line (4 Tracks) passing close by, but also the Delta Junction spurs passing very close to the properties in the village. Additionally we have the "Y" junction close by, which means that construction will stretch into phase 2 meaning we will have disruption to our area up to 2033. Water Orton, once a peaceful Warwickshire Village has already endured the construction of the M6, M42, M6-M42 Link and M6 Toll Motorways and the village is entirely encircled by these roads. To now have the HS2 lines built INSIDE the Motorway ring is entirely unreasonable and in our opinion the line should have been built on the Eastern side of Coleshill where there are few houses and plenty of open farm land. Previous plans drawn up by the Water Orton Action Group to move part of the Delta Spur to the North of the Village over the old sewage beds were rejected by HS2 Ltd.

3/ Your Petitioners concerns:

After petitioning the House of Commons your petitioner' s still have the following concerns that have not been satisfactorily resolved by HS2 Ltd. Although the House of Commons Select Committee were sympathetic to our concerns no action has been taken so far to work out solutions to these issues.

1 Part 1/ CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC PASSING THROUGH THE CENTRE OF WATER ORTON

Part 2/ TREE PLANTINGS

We have three concerns regarding these tree plantings and associated land: a/ The area of tree plantings shown is, according to HS2 Ltd, required for ecological reasons due to the existence of great crested newts. Your petitioners welcome this concern for ecology and also welcome the tree plantings, but further down the line behind the houses in Vicarage Lane, where human beings live, there are no tree plantings shown. The area of land is already safeguarded for construction and the houses mentioned are very close to the railway line. Your petitioners are asking the Select Committee to instruct HS2 Ltd to continue the tree plantings behind the houses in Vicarage Lane as this would help to mitigate the final visual aspect of the HS2 line and help to reduce noise. Although HS2 Ltd have agreed to build a bund to hide the line residents will still have to look out on a high embankment and planting of trees would improve the environment enormously, at very little further cost to HS2 Ltd.

2 bl Your petitioners have been told by HS2 Ltd that the land earmarked for tree plantings, shown in the diagram, would eventually be returned to the original land owners. This land is currently classed as green belt land. Your Petitioners are concerned that the land would not be returned as green belt and therefore we would like an assurance, in writing, from HS2 ltd that a covenant be placed on the land retaining it as woodland habitat to protect the delicate wildlife that resides there and that the habitat would be suitably maintained. If necessary the land could be gifted to Water Orton Parish Council who would then be responsible for its future as a woodland habitat. cl HS2 Ltd are in consultation with The Old Saltonian's Rugby Club, which is due to be demolished by the line, to move this club to the area in the ES document currently shown as tree plantings between Vicarage Lane and the railway line. Originally your petitioners had no objection to this, but it has come to light that the Rugby Club themselves would take over ownership of the land, not HS2 Ltd. We now strongly object to this unless HS2 Ltd negotiate with the Club to place a covenant on the land, so that in the event that the Rugby Club dissolves, then the land which would be sold, would revert to woodland habitat as shown on the original ES document. Otherwise the village is in danger of losing the Green Belt status of this land. In any case HS2 Ltd has already recognized that this land should be considered under ecological terms. We would ask that The House Of Lords Select Committee instruct HS2 Ltd to ensure that such a covenant is negotiated or move the Rugby Club elsewhere.

Part 3IDESIGN OF VIADUCTS

3 Part 4/ COMPENSATION

"The Construction works to the south of Water Orton will generate a combination of significant noise and visual effects on the occupiers of seven residential properties at Attleboro Lane, which are situated just to the north of the Proposed Scheme. Works in this area will involve the demolition of properties to the south construction of the Attleboro flyover, the Attleboro Lane realignment and overbridge, Water Orton cutting and Attleboro Farm embankment and associated earthworks and retaining structures. These works are expected to take about three years to complete and the combination of significant effects during this time will gi.ve rise to a major adverse and significant amenihJ effect of the occupiers of nos. 47-57 (odds) and SSa Attleboro Lane."

Numbers 49 to 57 all fall within the highest payment band whilst others fall outside it, which is unfair given the above. We would ask the select committee to revue the current status for compensation so all the properties mentioned above fall into the highest category.

The people in Attleboro Lane and parts of Vicarage Lane now have a dual problem. When Warwickshire County Council did a deal with HS2 Ltd to build a new school no thoughts were given to the people living in the houses backing onto the school. Once the new school is built the old school site will be sold off by the council for development. So now, not only will these residents have to endure the building of the HS2 railway with all the noise and pollution involved but after it is finished they will have to further endure a building site behind their properties whilst the land is re-developed. Your petitioners believe this is exceptional and would like the Select Committee to instruct HS2 Ltd to make these houses a special case for compensation, no matter what the rules state, and pay the highest payment of compensation.

Part 5 / WATER ORTON PRlMARY SCHOOL

There is an agreement between Warwickshire County Council and HS2 Ltd to re locate the children of Water Orton Primary School into new premises before the HS2 line is built. HS2 Ltd has agreed to pay WCC the sum of £3.Sm pounds towards the cost of the new school premises. In doing so HS2 Ltd have admitted that the line is so close to the existing school that the children's well being and education would suffer especially during the construction phase where noise and pollution would be greatest However, your petitioners are concerned with the terms and conditions laid down by HS2 ltd for this agreement. HS2 Ltd have stated and hereby quoted:

"The Secretan; of State will require that the Nominated Undertaker does not commen ce any works that would require mitigation measures to be in place at the existing Water Orton School until the existing school has been vacated."

4 "At the time of Royal Assent, wee can demonstrate it has a development programme and contractor contracts in place to ensure the new school is delivered and in educational use no later that two and half years from the time of Royal Assent as of today"

They then go further by stating that if the school is not ready HS2 Ltd will put into place mitigation measures and build the line anyway.

OR b/ Move the line as per the Water Orton HS2 Action Group proposals and leave the existing school where it is.

6/ JACK O'WATTON COTTAGES

7/ CREATION OF NEW BRIDLEWAY Referring to diagrams CT 06134A & CT 06 l 36A, HS2 are creating a new bridleway from the footbridge over the M6/M42 Link then running eastbound around the South of Water Orton emerging at Watton Lane by the M42 underbridge. Your petitioners have concerns about this bridleway, in that currently there are people from Chelmsley Wood bringing motorbikes over the M6 bridge and riding them around the fields. The concern is that the new bridleway would be used as a motorbike raceway bringing noise and pollution into our village and we would prefer that this bridleway was not constructed and further that the motorway bridge footpath M55 be stopped up.

5 4/ THE PRAYER:

The Water Orton Parish Council therefore asks the House of Lords that Mr John Warren (Acting as Roll B Agent) in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given the opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this bill.

And the Water Orton Parish Council remains, etc.

Signed,

It C:r. ~ P'S t?~l,L B A @6,->T f'oP. WA'T"~lt t!)R , eJ lv ff\ RISH e

Date

6 HL: 241

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rai l (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF THE PARK VILLAGE EAST HERITAGE GROUP

Declares that

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

Your Petitioner

2. Your Petitioner is The Park Village East Heritage Group ("PVEHG"), which was formed in 2013 to protect the specific interests of the residents of Park Village East, London NW1 in the stretch from Nos.1-36. Except for No.1 , the owner of which is petitioning separately, all are private family homes.

3. Park Village East ("PVE") is a road immediately adjacent to the section of the existing railway line leading into Euston, and immediately adjacent to the proposed section of high speed line which is designated by the Promoter as "Community Forum Area (CFA} 1 - Euston - Station and Approach".

4. The houses in this part of Park Village East (below. "PVE(2-36)") were built in the 1820s-1830s and are Grade II* listed (save that Nos.18-20 were destroyed by enemy action in WWII and replaced in the 1960s by a block of eight flats named Nash House). They are part of a highly significant development, architecturally and historically, designed by John Nash as part of his overall scheme for the Regent's Park.

Your Petitioner's concerns

5. Your Petitioner will show that, for the reasons set out below, this section of PVE will be one of the worst, if not the worst. affected streets in the country (other than those where actual demolition is to take place). However existing provisions for compensation and mitigation are wholly inadequate.

6. By this Petition. PVEHG seeks a special provision that the residents of PVE(2-36) should be included within the "Express Purchase" Scheme, and/or schemes available to residents in rural areas who will suffer far less blight and disruption, but which are denied to those in urban areas regardless of need.

7. Park Village East is situated in Camden and in the Euston throat area. and Your Petitioner therefore naturally shares numerous other concerns regarding the effect of construction of HS2 with other residents in this area. However, it understands that Camden Council and other groups will address the wider implications of HS2, and PVEHG's sole purpose for petitioning separately is to seek the special provision referred to in paragraph 6 above. 8. As shown below, PVEHG is a very special case indeed (over and above the rest of Camden, and of the UK overall), due among other things to the scale of construction in our road, the road closures for very long periods of time, and the noise (the highest volume anticipated on the entire line).

The Promoter's proposals affecting Park Village East - Summary

9. Presently, existing railway lines run along the side of PVE(2-36) in a cutting which is about 8m below street level. A retaining wall separates these lines from the street. The depth of the cutting means that noise from the railway in normal operation is scarcely noticeable.

10. HS2's proposals involve demolishing the existing retaining wall and creating a new retaining structure with a permanent cantilevered overhang under the eastern footway to PVE(2-36), comprising a major steel I concrete structure under the roadway itself. The new wall will be constructed within just a few metres of most houses.

11 . The existing line is about 8 metres below street level. The new lines will ultimately lie about 18 metres below street level, partially under the road (PVE) itself. Very extensive excavation is therefore required.

12. The proposed works will involve gigantic rigs being placed on the roadside immediately adjacent to these delicately built houses. These rigs will cut trenches to a depth of about 100 feet under the road and immediately adjacent to your Petitioner's houses. This operation will create a new barrette wall. However, construction plant will then remain on the road - seemingly for many years - while work proceeds on the new railway lines beneath.

13. The sole access to resident's houses is by the road, i.e. by PVE itself. However the above means that the road will be closed for use by residents for periods measured in years.

14. This work involves not only construction, but also substantial demolition. This includes, in particular, demolition of the Mornington Street Bridge (which directly abuts PVE between numbers 28 and 30). From the Environmental Statements, this will occur over an extended period and it appears to be the noisiest process on the entire line.

15. Much of the construction and demolition work will be conducted at night. This is said by HS2 to be necessary so that the existing railway lines can be operated during the day. Construction equipment and HGV movements will be going on continuously while PVE residents are trying to sleep.

16. Your Petitioner believes that it represents the highest concentration of residential occupiers in the closest proximity to the proposed line to be found anywhere along its length and that they will suffer the worst detrimental effects arising from the works to construct the line. Park Village East will be the epicentre of a construction site that will continue until about 2033 - in reality, the remainder of their lives for many residents. 17. HS2 itself acknowledges that the residents of PVE will experience "multiple adverse effects" as a result of the above. This euphemism does scant justice to the effect on residents. In practical terms the combination of all the above will be intolerable. Nonetheless. as shown below, the compensation and mitigation measures currently offered are wholly inadequate.

Consequence of the Promoter's proposals - Vehicle access

18. During this work. PVE will be closed to vehicles for very substantial periods of time. HS2 has not been clear about the relevant timescale. SES2 para 5.3.187 indicates that PVE will be closed to vehicles in sections between its junction with Parkway to about 30m south of Mornington Street Bridge from 2017-2022. SES2 Para 8.4.39 states: The disruption to Park Village East will extend over a six year period, but vehicular access to individual properties will be provided whenever pos.sible, although access to individual properties may have to be restricted for a period of up to 12 months during the principal works to the retaining wall structures. (The original ES had proposed only four years. but timelines subsequently produced by HS2 during the petitioning process in the House of Commons suggested this may now be up to eight years). It goes on to state: The access restrictions for resident s and the duration of the construction works will result in a major adverse isolation effect on the local community which is significant .

19. During these very long periods of road closure, there will therefore be no access for cars owned by residents or their family members or visitors. There will also be no road access for rubbish collection, post and other deliveries, tradesmen, and so forth.

20. Your Petitioner also has serious concerns regarding emergency access. It is said that it will be possible for screening to be moved away if the need arises to allow fire ambulance or police to pass through. We consider that the space available in the road, and the presence of numerous rigs and other construction equipment in the way, will make this impossible. When cha llenged on real issues of this ki nd, HS2 resorts to an unconvincing mantra that details will be worked out later.

Consequence of the Promoter's proposals - Noise and night noise

21 . SES2 para 14.3.13 confirms that "the following residential buildings are forecast to experience noise levels higher than the noise insulation trigger levels as defined in the draft CoCP", and lists all individual houses in PVE. Moreover, 14.3.18 Vibratory piling of bridge piers and vibro-compaction is likely to result in appreciable ground-borne vibration at a small number of dwellings dosest to these activities, as listed in Table 19. These receptors will also be exposed to appreciable noise from the construction of the revi~ scheme. The significance of the identified vibration effects has been assessed on a community basis in combination with the ai rborne noise also identified at these receptors. 14.3.19 The direct construction noise effects on the acoust ic character of the areas around the residential communities identified in Table 19 are considered to be significant . ...

22. The table there referred to (SES2 at pages 295-296) confirms that PVE will be subject to construction noise by day, and both construction noise and vibration at night, for extended periods:

,;r,.;:. ..._111~ ;tt",¥ [ ~rJ"r;i1t.Jcr.1)' t:..1..01r. .;s •r :he ~:a.:ic.r 13 Mo... t'" : :.c ,;:,... 1?u1n~i Y'", ~;-p ..o '3i:"' t '"'d1ty ~,v~rn·:i"'s ~ .. d~e o;,< ,.11'.39t' co:1~u:.,ct•on t"'aH~lk retam1rQ ~·.,; 1 :asl r·1ar C.)ris:r.;

dr':"vi.: S;JC, d 110 ?CC e

o~s;{' ar-j !Or:-':,2iw'l,:J~(t"\ :•~ "';:r.J:! •~n of riifN b,,C~-: pte>'i :.1·""

1 1 .,t,-at:Jr ! :>;,r,. '.'l,·29::. t·, ::,1i:3 ar d h19httu··"'~rtr , r-0 s-? ?.', -:·s £ast, l"'o:ci- 310,~~ fS:l~ ;;r-:! 0 5dE '/.:,r"l1!'9to'1 St·-:+.: Fncf!~

1 "'pc, ·,.-.,rr..;,t~ , J ~11it , 01:-?r!t:·~s. t,;;r,.;.a.: .. t!:.;1·,1r.;i _¢{j ,·:-=·"'·t· ... i,11 <.'.'n~;·,.,_:,:" ,anti~.. •!"'!?=! ro~..:

::":p, \,Jhj (;'! ~,,., ~)Ti(I":: ,:J~$trV.:tior, 1='3'.'!~ , I, -n· ~3)t ...."11 1"' ~1(a~at1c;r ,~r!:-:r,.:{!i.Y.l H3.:'k l,nt) t. , o,c.l, ~ta r.,grHt f'!",Of' tt: 'v r.(i;,; I~ :~·i 3r;:..1,1~ 15J1?.11:j asda

r"ppr;;.>c'•·,ate'r \10n'" "~:·. "Stti;-?t Bn~ge d":~:,,1t1,r., 5 ..._.:,.-.t~~ ~O d .'.i?lilfJ1J> ,;.~1 , :,15:1 vct1~,1' ,;/ 'l':',\' 0109': ~H~'"S ::':t: Par'" \"1 ,ag~ t ,·~<:4 3, :, tu;:-w:.~ "n)r:t~:y r :11~1: ,~·.·-:ts £.>':it rofi:h ~rounc ssos 1rd ,o:1:3

The stated levels of 80-90 dB (first row in table above) are higher than anywhere else on the line. The above table covers all of PVE(2-36).

23. SES2 para 14.3.33 accepts that despite mitigation measures, "the effects on the acoustic character in the following local residential community areas are considered to be significant: Park Vi llage East; ... [ other streets]".

24. The reality is that the effects will not merely be "significant" - they will be intolerable to PVE residents living so close to these works. In this regard, a recent BBC news item is highly informative. The article dated 15/9/2015 at http://www.bbc.co.uklnews/uk-england-tyne-34187843 describes comparable work within a built-up residential area comparable to Camden and to PVE:

" Newcastle overnight Metro work compensation fight" Four months of overnight noise described as "like 20 pneumatic drills" has left sleepless residents demanding compensation. People living on llford Road in Newcastle said the noise of work on the Metro rail line made sleep impossible. It took place from 01:30 to 04:30 BST, seven days a week from April to J..Jly. Metro operator Nexus said it did everything it could to "reduce the impact and address concerns as soon as they were raised". But resident Carole Howlett said there were "men shouting, floodlights and these great big huge piling machines called augers, piling 15ft into the ground". "The whole house was shaking," she said. "All the neighbours complained, bitterly, and they just kept fobbing us off."

llford road, very like PVE. has houses on one side of the street, and a railway line in a cutting below the opposite side of the street. The situation is closely comparable. Of course, that work only took four months (and it seems the work there did not involve tearing up the street itself).

25. PVE residents face no less intolerable activity, but here for years on end. This article is also illustrative as to the overall effectiveness of mitigation measures, no matter how well-intentioned: the operator's assurance that it did "everything it could" was simply not good enough. We anticipate a similar experience.

Consequence of the Promoter's proposals - Traffic and parking

26. Other petitioners will no doubt address the effect of HS2 construction on traffic congestion in Camden. Our concern is that here too, PVE will sustain a level of disruption which is significantly greater than elsewhere in Camden.

27. A construction compound in PVE itself is proposed. SES2 states at para 3.3.14 that An additional satellite compound, Park Village East (north), will be required to support the reinstatement of Line X, as well as elements of the retaining wall and tunnel portal works. This compound will be located immediately opposite Nos.6-10 PVE (map book CT-05-001). Its operation will have major adverse effects on viewpoints (4.8 et seq). It will be lit at night (5.3.44). Buildings in it (Portakabins?) will be stacked up to six storeys (5.3.45), so will tower above the historic buildings. It will be in use for six years, from 2018 to 2024 and support about 40 personnel (5.3.69). In relation to traffic, para 3.3.16 states that The main construction traffic access to the Stage A works will be via the National Temperance Hospital entrance, but with substantial use of the Carriage Shed and Park Village East satellite compound and the Park Village East (north) satellite compound. So road traffic, and consequential noise, will plainly be substantially exacerbated in what is presently a quiet residential street. 28. Residents of PVE(2-36) have off-street parking, but the road closures will prevent any access. Some have permits to park in PVE (i.e. close to their homes), but the closure of the road will likewise stop this. Again, these are burdens not suffered by residents of most other streets in Camden (other than where actual home demolition is taking place and full compensation therefore available) or elsewhere. HS2 has offered no alternatives where residents may park - at one stage the zoo car park was proposed, but it appears that this will now be commandeered by HS2 for its HGVs.

Consequence of the Promoter's proposals - Habitability overall

29. We submit that it is clear. from the matters raised above, that for a substantial period of time (measured in years) the houses in PVE(2-36) will be effectively uninhabitable. The combined "multiple adverse effects", including night working, noise, vibration, bright lights at night, and road closure will make life (and not least sleep) intolerable and impossible.

30. Even if their homes remain habitable in some technical sense, the effect on PVE residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes (including gardens and off street parking) will be far beyond what should be tolerated without fair and proper recompense. John Nash's explicit vision for the Park Villages was of "rus in urbe" (the countryside in the town; the rural in the urban). Available compensation measures are however on the very limited urban rather than rural basis. These fail to recognise the realities of our specific case.

Existing measures for mitigation and compensation

31. HS2 has conceded that compensation should be available (over and above basic and limited statutory compensation) to those whose homes are blighted by construction.

32. Indeed, as shown below (see paras 49-50 below), government ministers have made commitments and sought credit for the supposed generosity and fairness of these schemes.

33. Those falling within the "surface safeguarded area" are entitled to the Express Purchase ("EP") scheme. HS2's "Guide to HS2 property schemes" explains EP as follows:

If you are eligible, you can ask the government Io buy your pi operry at its un-blighted open market value-that is. the value on the open market asif t11erewere no plans for HS2 You will also receive, asper the C'..ompensation Code- reasonable costs of moving -for exarnple,stamp duty on a replacement property of similar value. reasonable surveyors' and legal fees. andremoval costs: and a home loss payment equal to 10% of the property's open-market value (up to £49 000) subject to meeting the qualifying criteria.

34. But so far as PVE(2-36) is concerned, HS2 has carefully defined the surface safeguarded area as covering the carriageway, right up to the entrances to - but not including - the houses themselves. Although use of the roadway is essential for vehicular access, and years of construction work will take place on that roadway, the line has been carefully drawn in a way that avoids HS2's liability to PVE residents under the EP scheme as presently formulated.

35. Other forms of compensation are also available to some of those affected. However, HS2 arbitrarily differentiates between many of them according to whether a property is in the Rural Support Zone (RSZ). defined as the area outside the safeguarded area and up to 120m from the centre line of the HS2 railway in rural areas.

36. The "voluntary purchase scheme" is available to those within 120m of the line (which PVE certainly is) but only in the RSZ. HS2's Guide explains that Under the voluntary purchase scheme. the government will buy your property for 100% of the un -blighted open market value, as assessed by two independent valuers.

37. Those not in the Rural Support Zone may instead be entitled only under the "Need to Sell" scheme. The Guide explains that; This scheme ,savailableto owner-occupiers who can demonstrate that they have a compelling reason to sell their property, but have been unable to do so - other than at a substantially reduced price-as a direct result oft he announcement oft he route of HS2.

38. However this is extremely disadvantageous, as: , it is discretionary: evidence is required under five separate criteria, including in particular: Compe!ling rea~m to sell -evidence of a compelling reason to sell your property now. or that you would be plac:ed under an unreasonable burden in the next three years, if you were unable to sell your property :J the decision of the Secretary of State cannot be appealed; and 1 it fails to cover necessary but unavoidable costs such as legal fees and stamp duty which householders forced to move through no fault or desire of their own should not - as a matter of natural justice - have to bear. Contrast the Express Pu rchase scheme, ava ilable only in rural locations.

The "Need to Sell" scheme is operated unfairly

39. It has also emerged that even the "Need to Sell" scheme is being operated unfairly, imposing an unreasonably high hurdle of "compelling reason", to the disadvantage of PVE residents. Reference will in particular be made to a response by HS2/DfT dated 27 August 2015 to an application (ref NTS P1- 79) by Mrs Eveline Carn of 4PVE. The reasons for refusal included these paragraphs:

J " Criterion 5-Although it was accepted that the applicant's children would be moving out of the property there was no evidence to suggest that thesizeofthepropertywould causetheapplicant an unreasonable burden over the next three years. There was alro no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant could not maintain the expenses associated with the property. D The applicant stated that she "wants to downsize to raise assets for retirement and to help my children on to the housing ladder". However, without a full financial picture for the applicant and her husband it was undear whether there was a need to downsize on financial grounds."

40. Clearly the Need To Sell scheme is being operated on a de facto basis that it is means tested - why else call for a "full financial picture"? That is outrageously intrusive. This was never part of its intent and is a further handicap to those members of your Petitioner who may attempt to apply under it so as to seek fair redress for the exceptional impact which HS2 will have on their lives. It locks residents into homes that are blighted by construction.

41 . Mr & Mrs Carn subsequently reapplied under the NTS scheme, citing as the reason to sell that Mr Carn had received a job offer in the US. This application has also been rejected, on the basis that a "compelling" reason to sell had still not been shown.

42. It appears that PVE residents with any assets will be effectively locked into their homes for the next several decades (because "compelling need" is interpreted as requiring that you not only have to have a real need and reason to move, but also have to show that you can't afford to keep and maintain the property anyway).

HS2's assurance - limited rehousing

43. HS2, acknowledging to some extent the severity of the effects of its proposals, has offered an unconditional but limited assurance as follows: The Supplementary Environmental Statement 2 and Additional Provision 3 Environmental Statement reports that vehicular accesscould be restricted for up to 12 months to individual properties along Park Village East asa result of works to construct the barrette wall. During the period that the barrette wall work does prevent direct vehicular access to the front of Nos. 6-24 Park Village East (outlined in blue on the attached map), the Nominated Undertaker will t reat occupiers of the properties as being el igible for temporary rehousing , by reason of the combined extent and durat ion of restricted vehicular access, ...

44. The limitation of this assurance to Nos. 6-24 (rather than 2-36) is discriminatory and inexplicable, given that no difference from the rest of PVE is apparent from the ES and SES2. We believe that the real reason is HS2's appreciation that emergency access will be impossible for those premises (despite its protestations otherwise), but HS2 has declined to explain its thinking.

45. More fundamentally, the assurance puts those to whom it is offered in an impossible dilemma - stay in their homes and lose road access. or face all the disruption of moving their households elsewhere (and subsequently back aQain). Most have lived in PVE for decades. 46. Moving home is said to be one of the most stressful and disruptive events in life. Doing it twice (moving out and then back again a year or more later) would double the stress and disruption. PVEHG submits that if the effect of HS2's proposals is so bad that they have made such an ofter (not offered to anywhere else in Camden) then this illustrates that: J PVE is a very special case indeed, and deserving of special treatment; - The effect on PVE is so exceptional that a special provision should be made; but - That special prov1s1on should be entitlement to the Express Purchase Scheme, at the option of individual residents, or other schemes already offered unconditionally to rural residents facing far less disruption.

47.An offer of rehousing is not an adequate provision. While some residents may wish to take that option, others would elect to move away once and for all. For them, Express Purchase is the only equitable form of compensation.

Express Purchase Scheme should be made available to residents of PVE

48. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that it is wrong that its members are expected to suffer extraordinary and disproportionate levels of blight, for the benefit of the country as a whole, but without recompense for the extremely substantial and peculiar damage to be inflicted on them.

49. The then Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, made a commitment in December 2010 that: " ... Where a project that isinthenational interest impos.essignificant f inancial loss on individuals, it is right and proper that they should be compensated fairly for that loss, so I have asked my officials to prepare a range of options for a scheme to assist those whose properties will not be required for the construction of the railway, but who will none t he less see a significant diminution of value asa result of the construction of the line" (Hansard 20 Dec 2010. column 1203).

'" I have indicated that we will seek to go further than has happened with such previous infrastructure schemes in t he UK. because it is right and proper that individuals who suffer serious financial loss in the national interest should be compensated." (ibid, column 1207)

50. Subsequently, Mr Robert Goodwill MP at the end of the House of Commons debate on HS2 on April 28, 2014 stated (Hansard col.659): "We have now launched an express purchase scheme for land safeguarded for Phase One- helping owner-occupiers sell quickly and with less fuss, regardless of whether their property is needed for HS2. They get the full unblighted open market value of t heir property, plus 10%, plus reasonable moving costs- including stamp duty."

51. We respectfully submit that the government should be obliged to honour these commitments. However, the current proposals for compensation involve an illogical cut-oft at the M25, with homes within the M25 being treated as uurban" and discriminated against on that arbitrary basis. 52 . Justification for this crude and groundless distinction has been advanced by the Promoter on the basis that in London, people's homes will be shielded by other streets, or that construction works are a normal part of urban life. We respectfully suggest that the former point is manifestly untrue in the case of PVE, and nothing about the scale of HS2's proposals at PVE is "normal".

53 . Many homes outside the M25 will receive far more generous compensation for far less serious blight. The principle of compensation is already conceded, and it is wrong for PVE to be excluded from it. Conversely, if residents of PVE are not entitled to compensation. then on what basis is it made available to those in rural areas at far greater distances from the line and far less directly affected? The distinction is arbitrary and crude - worse than crude, as the distinction bears no necessary relationship at all to fairness and need.

54. Your Petitioner respectfully suggests that PVE is therefore not being treated fairly by the compensation proposals. Your Petitioner submits that at least absent the provision of fair compensation, unconditionally and commensurate with the enormous and unique level of construction blight which they will endure, the proposals for HS2's construction are a breach of PVE's residents' human rights, in particular the right to respect for their private lives and homes under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right of every natural or legal person to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Protocol 1.

55. Your Petitioner respectfully asks your Honourable House to right this wrong.

The provision we seek is affordable and fair

56. If the Government cannot afford fair compensation - in accordance with its clear commitments to Parliament quoted above - then it cannot afford HS2.

57 . But in any event inclusion of the PVEHG within the Express Purchase scheme would ultimately not be a costly one, given the long-term value of the properties of significant value which the government would acquire in return. It would however be a practical way of addressing the real hardship and injustice which will result from the present proposals.

58. Moreover, the cost of making that scheme available to PVE(2-36) as a special case has to be considered in the light of the cost savings that the promoter has itself indicated it has achieved, by selecting its proposed scheme in preference to what it considers the closest alternative, the "Euston Express" scheme. In this regard, HS2's technical report on the Euston Express proposed alternative to the Euston tunnel, shown to Parliament and placed online at http:/twww.par1iament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2/Correspondence/ 2015-16/Euston_Express_petition_proposal.pdf, has some costings at its section 12. We understand that serious criticisms can be made of them. However, taking HS2's own figures at face value (and we assume that it cannot and will not itself dispute them), it concludes

12.1.2 The difference can be summarised as follows: - · Euston Express&:heme £1,245m - · Tunnelled Solution-Old Oak Common to E.uston-£564m · Additional Cost of the Euston Express Scheme £681m

On that basis, the value to HS2 of its current construction scheme - involving massive and targeted disruption to the lives of PVE residents - is on its own calculation a cost saving of £681 m compared to the nearest alternative.

59. Fairness (and a respect for human rights legislation) requires that a fair share of that saving be used to compensate PVE residents for the exceptional and specific harm that they will suffer in order that HS2 achieves that £681 m saving.

Relief which we seek from the Select Committee

60. For the reasons we set out above, we respectfully request the Select Committee to require the promoter to make a special provision that the residents of Nos.2-36 Park Village East be entitled, at their individual option and at a time of their own choosing, to the benefit of the Express Purchase Scheme.

61. Your Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that the government should either include PVE(2-36) in the surface safeguarded area, or provide a binding commitment as regards PVE(2-36) properties under which, inter alia, those properties should be deemed eligible for the Express Purchase Scheme and/or the other voluntary schemes currently available only to properties in the safeguarded or Rural Support Zone areas, or should be able to benefit from compensatory measures equivalent to the Express Purchase Schemes.

62. We believe there is already at least one specific case where the surface safeguarded area has been deemed to cover premises where there is no specific land take, namely 117 Parkway. So it appears there is already a precedent for extending the scheme in the manner we seek.

63. PVE(2-36) is a very special case indeed. and could and should legitimately be given consideration as such. It is inexplicable that very special case remains completely unrecognised by HS2 since the lodging of our first petition, and it has chosen to leave the fashioning of a fair scheme entirely to the generosity and fair-mindedness of the Select Committee of your Honourable House.

64. Unless the relief which we seek is granted, members of your Petitioner are paying twice over for HS2: first as taxpayers, and then again a second time by way of the enormous impact on their private and family lives, their homes and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their properties. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that it, or someone representing it in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains. etc.

;oJ+ ~-;;;:= -v u 30 Park Village East, London NW1 7PZ Roll B agent, acting for the Park Village East Heritage Group.

I~ April 2016 HL: 242

Session 2015-2016

PETITION against t he

HIGH SPEED RAIL ( LONDON-WEST MIDLANDS) BI LL

THE PETITION OF

HRH Princess Marie Esmera lda of Belgium Sir Salvador Moncada

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the Whole Bill

2. Your first petitioner is a journalist and w riter working at home. Your second petitioner is a scientist working at home half of the week. You~ petitioners are joint owners of a detached house, Grade II listed, in Park Village East, a street which they believe to be one of the most affected street with private houses alon g the proposed Phase 1 line from London to Birmingham. 3. Your petitioner's concerns are:

. The planned construction will happen within 5 metres from their house and your petitioners will effectively live in the middle of a construction site for a decade with extreme levels of air pollution and noise . . The noise generated by the work itself, demolition as well as construction, will constitute "major adverse effects" according to HS2 own assessment. Your second petitioner suffers from tinnitus and is very sensitive to high levels of noise. HS2 states that these could reach nearly 90 decibels . . Works will be carried 24 hours a day, 7 days a week which will be unbearable due to noise, dust and strong lights at nights. Your petitioners who work at home will experience huge disturbance during the day in addition to being unable to sleep at night. . Road closures mean that your petitioners will not have access by car to their house for a year at least and worry also about access for emergency vehicles . . Most of Nash houses do not have proper foundations so there is a real risk of subsidence which HS2 has not assessed . . Your petitioners feel that, for all these reasons, life will be simply unbearable during the period of construction . . Your petitioners feel that as residents of Park Village East, they represent a very special case which has not been taken in consideration by HS2, who provided, if any, very poor and failing measures of compensation and mitigation.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Lords Select Com mittee:

- for a rehousing scheme during the construction time by which they are offered a sum equal to a fair market value of renting accommodation of similar standard in a similar location during the period when their house will be uninhabitable. The scheme should cover the costs of moving, insuring the house as well as paying the council tax. - to be able to benefit from an Express Purchase Scheme or any other scheme offered to residents in rural areas if they were to decide to sell the house aimed at the special case of the Camden Cutting.

Your petitioners also believe that alternatives schemes exist that would reduce the period of construction as well as the disruption caused by HS2 in Camden. Your petitioners ask the Select Committee to require that an independent cost benefit ana lysis is carried out of HS2's scheme and of all the alternatives to it. 4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill

And the petitioners remain,etc

NAME: HRH Princess Marie Esmeralda of Belgium SIGN ATURE :

NAME: Sir Salvador Moncada SIGNATURE: IN PARLIAMENT HL: 243 HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2015-16

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PETITION

Against - on merits

To the Honourable the Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled .

THE HUMBLE PETITION of LAURENCE REDDY, MATTHEW REDDY AND ALISON REDDY - Owner and Occupier of Parklands, Kingsbury Road, Marston, Birmingham 876 ODH

SHEWETH as follows:-

1. A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced and is now pending in your honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes"

2. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary Mcloughlin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary lain Duncan Smith, Secretary Eric Pickles, Secretary Owen Paterson, Secretary Edward Davey, and Mr Robert Goodwill.

1 3.

Main clauses to which objection is made

4. Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway mentioned in paragraph 1 above. The clauses include powers for and provisions in respect of the construction of and maintenance of works; highways and road traffic matters: the compulsory acquisition of land; extinction and exclusion of rights over land and the temporary possession and use of land; planning permission and development consent; . Clauses 24-36 refer to those parts of the Bill which would disapply and modify various enactments and legal provisions relating to specia l categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries tree works and noise from construction and statutory nuisance.

5. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill set out the regulatory regime for the railway.

6. Clauses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provisions, including provision for the appointment of a nominated undertaker ("t he Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under t he Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement works and in respect of further high speed railway works. Provision is also made relating to the effect of theTown and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/18245.1. 2011/1824) ("the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations").

7. Th e works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. They co nsist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to t he Bill and other works, which are described in clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill.

Your Petitioner

8. Your Petitioner is the freehold owner and occupier of land known as Parlklands, Kingsbury Road, Marston, Birmingham 876 ODH (" Your Petitioner's land").

2 9. The Bill would authorise the construction and operation of the railway system and its associated development but in particular the Bill would authorise the compulsory purchase of 8 plots of Your Petitioner's land.

10. Your Petitioner's objections hereinafter set out are ordered as follows:

(a) Outright Compulsory Acquisition of Your Petitioner's land is not justified given that the land is not required permanently for any permanent works or at all subsequent to construction;

(b) The significant financial impact upon the use of the land and the effect upon the businesses operated thereon is disproportionate to the effect of compulsorily acquiring this land and which are not addressed by compensation provisions

Your Petitioner's Land and Nature of Use

11. Your Petitioner's land comprises a 3 bedroom property which was built for Alison Reddy together with a purpose equestrian centre built in 1997.The total landholding amounts to some 20 acres and 8 stables which are in a courtyard shape.

12. The stables are two storeys high with accommodation for staff in the second storey. The house although currently 3 bed has an extension which is currently being completed which will make the house 5/6 bedroom family house.

13. Aside from the stables, there is a tack room, a room built for the hydrotherapy pool, a function room and a second floor above 4 stables which was planned for st aff accommodation. There are 3 further wooden isolation stables and a shelter outside the main building.

14. In addition there are orchards which are laid out around You r Petitioner's land to out line a gallop track.

15. Your Pet itioner's land also comprises a long dri veway. There are 3 or 4 ot her houses adjoining the property (which are also proposed for compulsory purchased by HS2Ltd). The owners of t hese houses use t his driveway to access their properties.

16.Lastly Your Petitioner's land also comprises some farm outbuildings, gardens, garage and an orchard which HS2Ltd also propose to compulsory purchase.

3 Proposed use for Your Petitioner's Land

17.Your Petitioner understands that the proposed use for his land by HS2 Ltd is to act as a transport hub due to its proximity to junction 9 of the M42. It is further understood that Your Petitioner's land is not proposed to be used to accommodate for the railway line itself but that it will be used solely during the period of construction of the railway. Thereafter HS2Ltd will no longer need to keep Your Petitioner's land.

18. Your Petit ioner states this use of the land is clearly commercial and further believes that at completion of HS2 the land will remain commercial with possible usage as Industrial units or Business Park.

19. Your Petitioner states If compulsory purchased compensation should reflex business usage.

HS2 Ltd and Compulsory Purchase of Your Petitioner's Land

20. It is understand that Your Petitioner's Land was not identified as being required for the rai lway until Autumn 2013 and Your Petitioner received Notice of Compulsory Purchase by way of two letters dated 25 November 2013.

21. In one letter Your Petitioner's land is identified in terms of different plots as an extract of the Book of Reference Schedule A.

22. The Plan Nos identified are: 3-42 and 3-46.

23. The Plots Nos are 25, 28, 30, 34,39,43,46 and 52 .

24. Your Petitioner had not been approached or contacted by HS2 Ltd at anytime before November 2013 and has not been contacted since that date.

25.Your Petitioner has made the effort in the absence of being contacted directly by HS2 Ltd to attend attended various public meetings which have been arranged by HS2 Ltd. At such meetings despite efforts on the part of Your Petitioner to understand and seek to discuss the matter and in particular what justification HS2 Ltd claim for acquiring Your Petitioner's land permanently when it is not intended to be kept permanently by HS2 Ltd has never been explained satisfactorily or at all.

4 Consultation and Safeguarding

26. Given the fact that Your Petitioner's land has only recently been identified it has not been through the same consultation processes as other land proposed for acquisition.

27. Your Petitioner also understands that the land is not subject to safeguarding with all the attendant compensation provisions that at least ensures for the effect of having land identified for such.

Objections

(a) Compulsory Acquisition Not Justified

28. Your Petitioner understands that HS2Ltd is required to show as a matter of law that Your Petitioner's Land is justified in the public interest and as a matter of last resort. Your Petitioner understands that this involves proving not only that the specific land is required and necessary for the railway but also that sufficient alternatives to outright compulsory purchase of all of Your Petitioner's interest in the land has been considered and explored and shown not to be possible.

29. Your Petitioner's objection therefore is that HS2 Ltd, based on all of the facts set out above cannot show that it has addressed the relevant legal tests and show that permanent acquisition of Your Petitioner's land is justified in the public interest and as a last resort.

30. Further Your Petitioner's land has only very recently been identified as needed for the construction of the railway compared with the proposed details of the rest of the railway project. There is nothing in the public domain and no public consultation carried out in respect of the requirement for Your Petitioner's land during construction or otherwise compared with other alternative sites that had been either identified before or what alternatives to Your Petitioner's land have been considered.

31. Again, as Your Petitioner understands it this fails the relevant legal test to allow the conclusion to be reached that compulsory acquisition of another person's rights and interest in land has been justified in any way or at all.

5 (b) Impact and Compensation

32. Your Petitioners have been in the process of expanding the equestrian enterprise at Your Petitioner's land. The progress of this expansion of the business and facilities as well as the accommodation has been affected directly by the very late identification by HS2 Ltd of Your Petitioner's land as being required for the railway.

33. The effect of this very late identification of Your Petitioner's land has had a significant prejudicial effect upon the business and upon the lives of Your Petitioner and his family.

34. Your Petitioner, unlike other owners of land subject to proposed compulsory acquisition by HS2 Ltd, are not subject to the compensation measures associated with safeguarding. In addition, in the circumstances, given HS2 Ltd's complete failure to contact and consult with Your Petitioner prior to Notice of Compulsory Purchase being sent on 25 November 2013, Your Petitioner's human rights together with financial interests have been substantially prejudiced.

35. None of these impacts is accommodated within the compensation provisions as they currently stand or at all.

Proposed Amendments

36.For the foregoing and connected reasons Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should be amended to exclude Your Petitioner's land.

Closing submissions:

37. For the foregoing and connected reasons Your Petitioners respectfully submit that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above, so far affecting Your Petitioners, should not be allowed to pass into law.

YOUR PETITIONERS therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they may be heard by their Counsel, Agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights and interests of Your Petitioners and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection, or that such other relief may be given to Your Petitioners in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet.

6 AND your Petitioners will ever pray,

Signed

Laurence Reddy

Matthew Reddy

Alison Reddy -

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF AJAY BABURAO SHIRKE

Declares that

I. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is the owner of the property at 26 Park Village East, London, NW I 7PZ, which the Bill will "specially and directly affect".

3. Your petitioners concerns

A number of the proposed works are to take place along the road where I have lived since 12 July 2013 and directly below the property I live in, including the insertion of steel beams. In addition, Table 2 of Schedule 17 of the Bill notes that my property is to be authorised for any alterations or extensions for heritage or monitoring purposes.

My concerns are that the severity and extent of the disruption, being noise pollution, air pollution through dust and other debris from the building works, general disturbance, lack of access to my road, and health and safety concerns from the works to be carried out in close proximity or below my property, will make living conditions unbearable.

I understand that I purchased the property on I 2 July 20 I 3 which I note post-dated the qualifying date for the Need to Sell Scheme. I do not believe that on that date the extent of the works which have subsequently been confirmed were reasonably foreseeable. At the date of my purchase, I was led to believe that the works period for HS2 would be in the region of one year. Thus a significantly shorter period of time for the disruption than is now being suggested. In addition, it appeared that the works would take place behind the wall between our road and the railway lines, with only minor disruption to our road. This of course would still allow for access to our properties, unlike the works now proposed. Schedule 4 of the Bill states that the highway of Park Village East will be "stopped up". thus fully restricting myself and my neighbours to access our properties by road. Overall, the material and substantial changes to the nature of the proposed works, and the nature, severity and extent of the disruption will cause my property to be unsaleable and only lettable at a very substantial discount.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the only option for me is to move. have had my property up for sale with agents over the last year. However, the agents have not been able to achieve a sale, in spite of it being a prime property, due to HS2. I therefore believe that HS2 should implement for me and my neighbours the Express -

Purchase Scheme.

I do not believe there to be a downside to mine and my neighbours' proposals of purchasing our very unique and historic Crown Estate head leases on Park Village E.ast. HS2 would profrt in the future with a prime property portfolio of substantial investment value and development potential to encourage significant profits once the period of works Is completed.

4. The prayer

AND the Petitioner wUI ever pray, etc.

15 April 2016 HL: 245

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Grace Edghill of 107 Albert Street, London NWl 7NB

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the who le bill.

2 . Your petitioner lives at 107 Albert Street, which is about 100 metres as the crow flies from the Camden Cutting where major works are planned from 2017 to 2026; and will be directly and specia lly affected by the Bil l.

3. Your Petitioner and their interests are injuriously affected by the Bill as passed by the House of Commons for reasons outlined below. If the Bill were to be passed by the House of Lords in its present form, your petitioner's property and enjoyment of life would be significantly blighted for many years. I really enjoy living on Albert Street and it is sad to have to contemplate so many years of disruption, and especially because my ch ildren will have their formative years so affected. They are 10 and 8 now, and face the prospect of spending their teenage years unable to enjoy their own neighbourhood. Whilst I would greatly prefer to stay living on Albert Street, there is no doubt that once construction starts and perhaps earlier, the price of our property and our ability to sell will be adversely impacted - making it more difficult for us to move if we were to decide that continued living on Albert Street is intolerable.

4 . Our concerns are precisely those set out in the Petition (To the House of Lords Session 2015-16) of the Albert Street North Residents Association (ASNRA). These relate to the impacts of the planned construction works will have on our street and our immediate neighbourhood, revision of the maps in regard to our street, and compensation.

5. I do not propose to repeat in detail the arguments and requests in the ASNRA Petition which I fully support. In summary, my concerns are as follows.

6. Following representations made to HS2 Ltd and to the Houses of Commons Hybrid Bill Select Committee, Albert Street north residents received formal assurances from the Secretary of State that:

- 2 - (i) The cellars belonging to many of our houses will not be required for the utilities works planned for Albert Street North, thus overriding Compulsory Purchase Order Notices which had previously been wrongly served by HS2 Ltd;

7. I welcomed these assurances but remain deeply concerned about the impacts that the planned construction works for the Camden and Euston areas will have on our street and our immediate neighbourhood, and which will have a seriously detrimental effect on our well-being as residents and will last for many years. These impacts are described in the AP3 Environmental Statement and will include: noise and air pollution from increased HGV traffic on adjacent streets; no ise and air pollution from construction works in the Camden Cutting, heavy construction work and associated traffic for up to two years and the possibility that despite assurances (see paragraph 6(ii) above) our street may be used for construction traffic for many more years if Camden Council so decide; and finally for all these reasons, reduced ability to sell my property should I wish to do so, and reduced property values.

8. I ASK the committee to recommend a fundamental rethink of the design of the route into Euston and of the redevelopment of Euston station with a view to radically reducing the negative impacts of the current plans as noted above. Furthermore, I ASK the committee to recommend that until this comparative evaluation has been undertaken and considered by the government and by Parliament, there should be no construction work started between Old Oak Common and Euston.

9. Whether or not the committee is willing to recommend the ASKS in paras 7 and 8 above, I strongly urge it to recommend additional mitigation measures to (i) reduce the amounts of spoil from the construction site, and materials into the site, being transported by HGVs, with the great majority being carried by rail, and (ii) a stronger monitoring and adjudication regime to cover HGVs, and noise and air pollution from the construction site.

10. In addition, Albert Street North have been advised by HS2 Ltd that the published maps cannot be changed to reflect the assurance residents have been given regarding our street as a Construction Route (see para XE> (ii) above). We are told this is unnecessary since the assurance overrides the maps. However, we find that the maps HAVE been changed in a number of respects in the past few months and these changes include changes to the route designation for Albert Street North which do NOT reflect the assurance we were given. I ASK for the maps to be correctly revised in regard to Albert Street.

- 3 - 11. I do not wish to move from Albert Street. But the prospect of 9 years of disruption to our lives may prove intolerable and we may need to move. The price I would be able to achieve in the period up to 2026 if I sold our property would be significantly less than without the construction of HS2; and even selling at all might prove difficult.

12. I have noted that the Compensation arrangements for ourselves are far less generous than if we were rural dwellers. I ASK that the compensation is improved, especially in the Need to Sell scheme such that properties on Albert Street North would be more explicitly eligible to benefit from the scheme and that potential vendors would not have to show " compelling reason" if they wished to take advantage of it.

13. The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

14. And the petitioners remains, etc.

Grace Edghill

- 4 - HL: 246

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Andrew and Susan Smith

Declares that

I. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

The petitioners are Andrew and Susan Smith, who are the owners of Manor Farm Barn, Radstone. Northamptonshire which is located within approximately 350 metres of the of the centre line of the proposed High Speed Two (HS2) railway. The village of Radstone is a rural community comprising 18 properties in open countryside.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

The petitioners will be directly and adversely affected in the following ways:

Freedom to sell their home and property compensation Your Petitioners family circumstances are changing and at some point over the coming months and years these circumstances will require us to move home.

Due to the very close proximity of the line to our home. if we were to obtain any purchaser interest in our property it is going to be at substantially less than market value due to the blight on our property caused by the HS2 project construction and operation. The Promoters have in many references in the Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill stated that even with the proposed mitigation, dwellings will suffer direct adverse noise effects and they consider it significant.

Radstone as a village will be severely impacted by noise and visual intrusion caused by the construction and operation of the HS2 railway. re-alignment of the A43 and the construction of a Radstone road overbridge. These three construction components will cause major travel disruption, noise, dust and light pollution during the proposed 3 year construction period. This will make selling the property, if at all, extremely challenging.

In your petitioners view, the promoters have not put in place a sufficient property compensation scheme to allow us to sell our property at an un-blighted value when our life circumstances require it. The current Need to Sell property scheme proposal creates uncertainty and requires the provision of a range of subjective and intrusive criteria. It does not meet your petitioners expectations of what we believe to be a fair and the basis human rights of freedom of movement.

The Need to Sell scheme does not provide the surety of being able to sell our property at an un-blighted value when we need to. The current Need to Sell Scheme and its interpretation can be improved in a number of areas: • A village such as Radstone that is severely impacted should not be required to demonstrate to the scheme the market impact of the HS2 project. • The demonstration of a 'compelling reason to sell' is highly personal for us and other family members and very intrusive. • The demonstration of "unreasonable burden" should be accepted for Radstone as the construction period alone will constitute a period of severe impact upon the lives of village residents. • The scheme should have an independent right of appeal. • We ask for surety to plan our future when family and personal circumstances arise like any other family.

Construction Period

Radstone will be severely impacted by the construction period of the HS2 railway, resulting A43 road re-alignment, and Radstone road overbridge. We ask that appropriate restrictions are placed upon construction activities to reduce the severe impact upon daily life including for example not allowing the promoter to build a haul route past the village which will further increase noise and other pollutants.

4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remains, etc.

Andrew Smith Susan Smith 12th April 2016 12th April 2016 HL: 247 To the House of L ords Session 20 I 5-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF THE CHILTERN WAY ACADEMY

Declares that: I . The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingha m; an d connected purposes.

2. Your petitioner is the Chiltern Way Academy. Chiltern Way Academy (CWA) is a special needs academy made up of two campuses: one is based in Prestwood, Buckinghamshire and the other in Wendover, Buckinghamshire. The Wendover Campus (WC) will be I SO metres from the HS2 line and is the focus of the petition. The Bill may "specially and directly affect" many stakeholders including the YP (YP), their parents and carers, staff, the Local Authority, social services etc.

The school was externally reviewed/ inspected on two separate occasions in 20 14/20 I 5 and was judged to be 'outstanding'.

The WC educates and ·cares for I 04 YP (YP) aged 11- 18 w ith very complex needs; each has an Educational H ealth Care Plan (EHCP) or Statement of Educational Needs. YP at CWA have Social Emotional, Mental H ealth, Communication and Interaction Difficulties (SECID). We are the only school in Buckinghamshire to educate YP with this designation. This need can be better defined by dividing it up into two distinct groups:

YP with very challengi ng behaviour

YP w ith Autism and very cha llenging behaviour

In layman's terms, they are some of the most vulnerab le, challenging, volatile and potentially dangerous YP in the UK education system. The school educates and cares for these YP by creating a safe, calm and compassionate environment that allows them to grow and develop to become decent and employable young adults. Health and safety is an absolute pr iority. We constantly dynamically r isk assess to ensure the YP remain safe, as a consequence we operate a 'finely tuned machine.'

3. Your petitioner's concerns Excessive Noise

This will occur during construction and ope ration. ·~

Many of our YP with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are hypersensitive to noise and vibration. They do not experience or process the outside world, including noise, like you or I. They will present with cha ll enging behaviour, compromising themselves or other YP and staff. They will not come to schoo l. Their learning outcomes will be affected. Parents will not send their Autistic children to this school. The schoo l will go into decline.

The student population with a need leaning more towards behaviour will be affected by noise and disengage or will use the noise as an excuse to disengage. This will lead to disruption, challenging behaviour, hea lth and safety will be compromised and the school will become un safe.

Absconding

Many YP with ASD have a known fascination with trains. They will be drawn to the trains. This will re sult in the school having to manage behaviour to prevent them absconding. On occasions YP will abscond, health and safety will be compromised; the conseq uences cou ld be dire.

Th e behaviour population will be drawn to the train line during construction and operation. We will have to manage this, res ulting in greater disruption to the safe running of t he school. On occasions YP will access the constru ction site or train line, health and safety will be compromised; the consequences co uld be dire.

Outside Space

The school relies heavily on the outside space for break times and for ed uca tional purposes. The outside space will be seriously compromised both during construction and operation. Many of our YP will not want to go out side, of those who do some will get frustrated by the noise and will present with challenging behaviours, health and safety and outcomes will be compromised. Others will be drawn to the noise and will attempt to enter the construction site or see the trains.

Traffic

All YP are transported to school by taxi. We are concerned that construction traffic may delay their journey at the beginning and end of the school day. We are particularly concerned about the A413 between Wendover and Great Missenden. This route carries over 50% of our student population. We have been assured by HS2 t ha t they are putting measures in place. A failure to do so will mean staff will be la te; YP will be late and unsettled. They could abscond from their taxis. Others will simply refuse to come to school.

Dust

This will lead to outside space becoming un usable. The prevailing wind blows from the construction site across the Wendover Campus. YP and staff may also suffer from respiratory problems. We are hugely concerned that all of the above, or a combination of the above, will lead to a very successful school experiencing a decline in attendance and outcomes, and an increase in cha llenging behaviour seriously compromising the health and safety of YP and staff.

Wholly Unsatisfactory Proposed Mitigation:

HS2 mitigation proposals, to date, come nowhere close to reducing the risk to our YP and staff.

Many of the YP are operating at heightened levels of anxiety; their ability to se lf-regulate is severely diminished, which means that it does not take much to trigger a dangerous episode. It ca nnot be ove remphasised that the introduction of HS2 to this 'finely tuned machine' may have dreadful consequences. There will be an increase in serious incidents, absconds and violent behaviours. VP and staff will get hurt, and the school will become less safe. VP will not attend. Educational outcomes will be seriously compromised. HS2 will significantly increase risk.

HS2, in their letter dated 25 January 2016 (Assurance from the Secretary of State co the Board of Governors of the Chiltern Way Federation, Wendover House Campus) offered the following:

• To work with the school to develop a construction management plan • To remain in discussion with the school co reach agreement (where appropriate and necessary) double/secondary glazing, soundproofing and air conditioning • Re-landscape the playing field to include more vegetation • Reducing noise reverberation in the School by carpeting teaching areas and investigating soundproofing ceiling or wall tiles where possible.

It is vital t hat this school is precise in its planning. HS2's assurances are the antithesis of how we need to operate to run our successful model. The assurances are vague, indecisive and non committal. We are appealing against the construction of HS2 in close proximity co our school. In addition, we are appealing against the vague assurances offered by HS2.

Our mitigation proposal:

Safe Options (in order of preference)

I . Full Relocation from the Wendover Site (construct/purchase two schools: one in the north and one in the south of the county). 2. Full Relocation from the Wendover Site (construct/purchase one school in the middle of the county that serves the whole of Buckinghamshire). 3. Partial Relocation (move vulnerable YP with ASD to a quiet, central Buckinghamshire location) and upgrade the Wendover Site to provide maximum protection from noise and construction. 4. Partial Relocation (move all YP with ASD to a newly constructed bu ilding on the Prestwood Campus) and upgrade the Wendover Site to provide maximum protection from noise and construction. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Ian McCaul Agent for the above named Petitioner 14 April 20 16 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 HL: 248 PETITION against the

High Speed Rail {London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MR JOHN ROBERT GREAVES MRS MARGARET ANN GREAVES MR RICHARD SPENCER GREAVES MR ANTONY THOMAS GREAVES

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specifically and directly affected by the whole Bill.

2. The petitioners are landowners, farmers and occupiers of Curborough House Farm, Netherstowe Lane, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 8EJ. The petitioners run a number of businesses from the farm in to which they have diversified. It is proposed by the Bill to authorise the compulsory acquisition of certain interests in land and property of the petitioners to which they object.

3. The Petitioners Concerns

3.1 It is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition of certain interests in land or property of your petitioner who has via their agents on many occasions made formal representations to HS2 on how best to mitigate their losses.

The petitioners in this area run a number of different businesses and enterprises. In addition to farming 500 acres of arable land, with 420 acres owner occupied, they also run

a. An equestrian centre with approximately 48 horses on livery with plans to expand for a further 20 horses. This is an important part of the business and there are equestrian events held throughout the year where over the course of a weekend approximately 60 to 80 vehicles can arrive at site. The centre employs 3 full time staff and 1 part time employee.

b. There is model flying club which has been in operation for over 50 years which again requires permanent and suitable access. This has around 140 active members regularly attracting in the region of 70 members per day in good weather.

c. The family owns the site of the Curborough Sprint Course which runs events throughout the course of the year and again, the highway design proposed by HS2 has potential to cause immense difficulties re operation of the site. The Sprint Course raised their own concerns before the Commons Select Committee which are not adequately addressed. It attracts 15,000 visitors per year with events most days.

d. Your petitioners land is subject to an option agreement to IM Properties for promoting their land along with their neighbours (the Hollinshead Family) for residential development. The current proposals by HS2 under Addition Provision 2 Bill effectively removes all the road frontage on your petitioners land to Wood End Lane therefore giving rise to access problems in the future. e. There are various "environmental mitigation areas" planned on the farm by HS2's ecologists. Despite requests. we have received no rationale as to why these areas of land should be taken out of agricultural production and given over to wildlife sanctuaries.

f. A caravan storage facility which offers facilities for caravans and equestrian vehicles/trailers. There are 31 currently on site with plans to develop further (although this is not currently being developed due to the uncertainty over access to the site).

3.2 Fundamentally, most of the issues affecting the petitioners land stem from HS2's proposed realignment of Wood End Lane, running to the north and east of the railway line. As your petitioners land runs mainly to the south and west of the railway line, the railway line effectively severs the petitioners land from the main access route being Wood End Lane. In short it remains their road frontage and access to the highway network.

3.3 Indeed, the farm currently has its own two way tarmac driveway leading over its own land and directly onto Wood End Lane. This access is fundamental to the accessibility of the farm to the highway network as the only other alternative route is along Netherstowe Lane which is very narrow with tight bends and only single track. Netherstowe Lane is unsuitable for current and future needs.

3.4 Most of the family's income is generated from its diversified business enterprises which have now been ongoing for many years. Without suitable access, these enterprises are at serious risk and HS2 have as yet failed to address this point. There are cost effective measures which can be put in place to mitigate your petitioners losses.

3.5 Indeed, the only access that your petitioners would have to their farm under HS2's current proposals are along a short stretch of the former Wood End Lane which will give way to a proposed single track road with passing bays leading onto Netherstowe lane which in turn is single track heading south towards Lichfield. This proposal will be wholly inadequate as this single track road would then be the only means of access to the Curborough Sprint Course, the equestrian centre and flying club and their caravan storage facility.

3.6 Given that the Curborough Sprint Course generates 15,000 visitors per year with over 300 two way vehicular movements across most weekends from March to October, the Curborough Equestrian Centre includes 48 stables and holds monthly dressage events attracting around 60 competitors per time, the Fradley Air Field runs a model air club with a 140 members visiting the site regularly, then clearly, traffic movements are going to be an issue. Indeed, over a typical weekend, between May and October, these facilities can attract in excess of 500 two way vehicle trips with horse boxes, horse trailers, car transporters and the suchlike all attending a small geographical area. The petitioners put it on record that the single track road with passing places that HS2 propose will not be sufficient to meet this need and the business ventures and well used community facilities in this location will be at risk.

3.7 Moreover there are concerns about the impact upon the development potential of the property due to HS2's proposed realignment of Wood End Lane. These can be explained as follows

a. Your Petitioners have made HS2 Ltd aware on very many occasions that they and their neighbours, (the Hollinshead family), own a sizeable area of land in this location which together with some adjoining land is part of a limited area of land around Lichfield which does not have Green Belt designation. Indeed there are over 600 acres of land in this location which are under option to I M Properties who I believe are submitting their own petition. The current planning application covers 120 acres (planning reference 14/00057/0UT/MEI). Your Petitioners via their agents have made HS2 Ltd aware on numerous occasions that this land has been very robustly promoted through the Local Plan Process and that a planning application for 750 residential dwellings in the area is subject to appeal at present. This application is for dwellings, a primary school, neighbourhood facilities, shops community buildings and the suchlike. It also includes new access points to Watery Lane and Netherstowe Lane and improvements thereto. Your Petitioners and their professional advisers from IM Properties, CBRE planning team and Counsel are firmly of the opinion that this appeal will ultimately be upheld and are very aware of the statement issued by the Secretary of State in October of 2014 stating that the demand for housing numbers alone is not of itself sufficient "excuse' to remove land from Green Belt. As there is a significant demand for housing in Lichfield, and as this is part of an area of land which is not Green Belt, development here is thought to be very likely. b. Put into context, Lichfield itself has identified a requirement for around 10,000 new homes up to 2029. The application which was submitted by IM Properties on this non Green Belt land makes use of Wood End Lane and its junction with Netherstowe Lane in its current location as a means to connect the proposed development to the highways network and in particular the A38. By following their current proposals, HS2 Ltd will remove all of that vital road frontage to Wood End Lane and Netherstowe Lane that your Petitioners currently own resulting in a very long detour and the construction of road junctions upon third party land over wh ich your Petitioners have no control and no doubt leading to ransom. Key to the success of any scheme is maintenance of connectivity to Wood End Lane and Netherstowe Lane. Your petitioners have, via their own highway consultants put forward viable alternatives to HSZs proposal. c. Not only is there a demonstrable need in Lichfield for further housing to meet its own needs, but there is also a massive under supply in housing requirements in the Birmingham conurbation. Indeed, the latest figures as agreed by Birmingham City Councirs Cabinet on 27 July 2015, confirm a shortfall of 38,000 houses in the area. Under the 'Duty to Co-operate' this shortfall will need to be distributed within neighbouring authorities within the greater Birmingham housing market area which includes Lichfield District Council. It is conceivable therefore that several thousand additional houses could be allocated to Lichfield in order to help meet Birmingham's needs. In summary, there is a significant need and demand for housing in Lichfield and your Petitioners' land is part of the only available deliverable and sustainable area of land being promoted on the edge of Lichfield urban area which is not in the Green Belt. This position supports the need not to fetter the ability to deliver housing on the Petitioners' land and the prospects of achieving development here is thought very likely. d. At the time of presenting this Petition, your Petitioners would respectfully like to make the Select Committee aware of IM Properties comments that the Inspector examining the Local Plan for the area has commented that the land in this location is, in his opinion, in a sustainable, deliverable and suitable location. In the absence of HS2 Ltds proposed scheme, it has excellent connectivity to the highways network, it Is located on the north east side of Lichfield where the majority of the employment land is located at Fradley, and is in closer proximity to the railway station at Lichfield Trent Valley where car parking is currently being expanded. This affords a very swift journey time of approximately half an hour into Birmingham New Street.

e. The planning application which was submitted by IM Properties on this non Green Belt land makes use of Wood End Lane as a means to connect the proposed development to the highways network and in particular, the A38 . By following their current proposals HS2 Ltd will remove all of that vital road frontage on Wood End Lane that your Petitioners currently own resulting in a very long detour and the construction of road junctions upon third party land over which your Petitioners have no control and no doubt leading to ransom. 4. The petitioner therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the ru les and the Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers the Bill.

And the petitioners remains, etc.

CR Bedson BSc MRICS FAAV Agent for Mr John Robert Greaves Mrs Margaret Ann Greaves Mr Richard Spencer Greaves Mr Antony Thomas Greaves

11 April 2016 HL: 249

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Claudia and Crescenzo D'Alessandro

Declares that: 1. The petitioners Claudia and Crescenzo D'Alessandro are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners Your Petitioners are Claudia and Crescenzo D'Alessandro, resident at 3 Hunts Green Cottages, Hunts Green, The Lee, HP169LX, who the Bill will specially and directly affect, both during construction and after completion, by the proposed HS2 line. Your Petitioners live in that part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which the Bill will specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioners are injuriously affected by the Bill. to which your Petitioners object for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your Petitioners' concerns

3.1. Tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB Your Petitioners as residents of this part of the AONB are concerned about the serious and injurious effect of the currently intended proposals regarding this part of the AONB.

In this respect, between South Heath and Wendover, Buckinghamshire, the Proposed Route is on the surface and includes sections in cuttings, and on two viaducts and on embankments. This area is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) and is further protected under the National Planning Policy Framework and the European Landscape Convention.

Your Petitioners contend that building HS2 on the surface in this section will permanently destroy the tranquillity of the area and the beauty of its landscapes, qualities that lead to the AONB being visited over 50 million times a year by visitors from London and other areas, have severe adverse effects on the social, environmental and economic cohesion of the communities in the area during and for a period after its co nstruction, and permanently and seriously reduce the ability of residents of the area and the numerous visitors to enjoy the natural benefits of the area in which they live.

Your petitioners are also seriously concerned about the disruptions to their household which will result from the construction of the line and the dust, noise, hours of work, vibration. traffic movements, congestion and access problems and other implications during what will be a long period of construction. Your petitioners need to use the narrow lanes and roads which will cross and be affected by the construction of the proposed line and need to use the roads for access to Great Missenden and Wendover, in particular for access to school, shopping, recreation, medical services and rail, as well as to gain access to the A 413 for London and all other areas. Your petitioners further regard this network of narrow lanes in the AONB as a characteristic feature of the area and are also concerned about proposals to use some of these narrow country lanes for construction vehicles and access to the trace and to and from the A413 and elsewhere.

Your Petitioners request that the Chilterns AONB be further protected by extending the presently proposed bored tunnel beyond Wendover, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited, to ensure that the line passes through the whole of the AONB in a bored tunnel. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and within the local area forums, and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, would substantially remove the adverse effects complained of in the remainder of this petition and the need tor most of the proposed remedies otherwise required.

3.2. Your Petitioners accordingly emphasise that, if the Bill were to be amended to include the provision of a full tunnel throughout the AONB as referred to in paragraph 3.1 above, then, whilst the mitigation measures set out in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 below would, in large measure, be unnecessary and their impacts would be otherwise effectively mitigated, your Petitioners request that, except to the extent met by any such provision, the following mitigation measures should be adopted and implemented

a. That possible further extensions of the tunnel from South Heath and at Wendover be adopted, particularly as this also has acknowledged environmental benefits. b. That, if that is not accepted, then the line along this section of the track be housed within deeper cuttings, with larger sound barriers and bunds, where appropriate, to seek to reduce noise and to conceal the line and the gantries and that the power for the contractor to raise the line by up to 3 metres is excluded for the AONB section of the line. c. That the existing proposed green tunnel at Wendover be extended to the south and north of Wendover. d. That provision is made for constructing bridges where there is established rights of way, including making these Green Bridges, bearing in mind not only the need to retain trees and shrubs but also the need to preserve wild life access, particularly given that this is part of the AONB. e. That the speed of the trains be reduced as per the recommendation of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee Report in order to help reduce the environmental impact and suffi~ient to ensure compliance of noise mitigation with the World Health Organisation standards. f. That the Wendover Dean and Small Dean viaducts and adjacent embankments be of high quality infrastructure to be made as visually pleasing as possible, with enclosures where possible and with the maximum use of noise barriers on both sides, including boxing in if necessary. g. That the maximum amount of planting be used, at the earliest opportunity and with the use of mature trees able to grow to at least forty feet high, in order to conceal the line from view at the earliest possible time. h. That the plans for the current Hunts Green Spoil Dump are substantially reduced and minimised and that arrangements are made for the spoil to be removed from the area by rail or pipeline. Your Petitioners point out that, if the full tunnel proposals are adopted, then the amount of spoil involved for this section of the line will be substantially reduced and it could also be removed, including by rail, at the Wendover exit of the tunnel, or, if bored one way, from the M 25 end of the tunnel. i. That in relation to the balancing ponds, alternative sustainable urban drainage system techniques are considered in consultation with the local authority and that any ponds should not be artificially lined. j. That in relation to the River Misbourne, and water supply, full surveys and continuing monitoring should be undertaken regarding water quality and the effect of the construction works, with actions undertaken, including cessation of construction in this area, if any adverse impacts are found. k. That the pylons along this section of the line are removed and the power lines are reinstated underground. I. That it is specified that for the AONB, the line should have specially designed and constructed gantries designed to be as compatible and as unobtrusive as possible with the AONB environment and which designs shall first be subject to prior full consu ltation with local authorities and other local concerns for the Area. m. That the local authorities for areas along the proposed line should be reimbursed and compensated for additional expenditure and losses incurred in relation to their involvement and responsibilities in all aspects of the construction and operation of the proposed line n. That there should be established a Chilterns AONB Review Group as envisaged and described in, and with the powers and responsibilities as set out in, the amendments to the Bill regarding the same as proposed by Cheryl Gillan and Keith Baker for consideration at the Report Stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. o. That there should be established an independent HS2 Adjudicator with the duties, powers and functions as set out in the amendments regarding the same under the name of Cheryl Gillan and others relating thereto as proposed for consideration at the Report Stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. p. That arrangements should be made for independent local Valuers to be appointed to advise the Promoter in relation to compensation assessments and Need to Sell Scheme and other property valuations. q. That an independent assessment of cost including in respect of full tunnelling and a full cost benefit analysis is undertaken in relation to the AONB area before any construction works commence in this area.

3.3 Your Petitioners further request that the nominated undertaker be required to mitigate the remaining nuisances, by giving the Code of Construction Practice legal effect with independent assessment of compliance and sanctions for breach of t he Code. In addition your Petitioners request that the Code should specify, in all cases, the required mitigation work, facilities and construction be undertaken to the best available standards and techniques and to the highest standard of construction and operation of the railway and its associated developments and. in particular, that the Code or requirements in the Bill be so amended to enforce the following measures:-

a. Restricting HGV daily movements to the period between 09:30 and 15:30 throughout this section of the AONB, and particularly along the A 413 b. Additionally prohibiting HGV movements to and along the A413 during busy traffic periods and along school routes between 08.00 and 09.00 and between 15:00 and 15:30 during school terms. c. Prohibiting any widening or enlargement of the narrow minor lanes d. Constructing new roads for the contractors and vehicles to access the trace directly from the A413, including new haul roads, to avoid linking the same with the Link Road roundabout at Great Missenden and at Rocky Lane and prohibiting the use of all existing narrow minor roads in the AONB by construction traffic. e. That the Promoter and the contractors should be required to construct the railway to ensure that during construction and operation of the line noise, dust and vibration is minimised to meet the highest standards applicable and controlled and that air quality is maintained f. Constructing such facilities as may be necessary to remove spoil from the AONB area, including by rail or by pipeline, to apply proper methods of dealing with spoil and avoiding the creation of the spoil dump at Hunts Green. g. That contractors in the AONB will be required to restore the land and temporary access roads after use to acceptable AONB landscaping and that local authorities be given the power to inspect such works and if necessary sanction contractors. During construction, the nominated undertaker must be responsible for maintaining the quality of all roads used during and after construction, so that the roads must be returned to their original size and character, and all damage repaired by the nominated undertaker. h. That the Promoter provides an air ambulance with crew on standby during working hours, to ensure that medical emergencies receive a prompt response. i. That appropriate arrangements be made and put in place, including for the Promoter of the Bill to provide or secure the provision of the necessary additional finance, to enable the local police forces to increase policing and to put in place other protective arrangements in order to reduce the risk of crime in the area during construction. j. A hotline should be set up allowing residents to raise any issues of concern arising during construction and in particular for road users to report any damage to the roads, and the local and highway! authorities should have access to all reports to ensure these are addressed and remedied in a reasonable length of time.

4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that your petitioners, or someone representing your petitioners in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

•••• ,.,...... ,...... ,,,W",,,,,,o,,,,iT4"'~• • ,,,,,,,T,ono,,'1,n , •••••••• • ••••

Claudia D'Alessandro Crescenzo D'Alessandro

13/ 04/16 13/04/16 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ROSEMARY BASONE

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner, Rosemary Basone, is a long-term resident of Flat 2, 120 Gloucester Avenue, London NWl 8HX.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

1. The Closure ofAdelaide Road

Your Petitioner is a carer for her mother, who has dementia and lives in Hampstead.Your Petitioner currently travels daily (more frequently in the event of an emergency) to care for her mother and uses Primrose Hill Road and England's Lane as her route.

Your Petitioner is most concerned that the congestion resulting from the siting of a vent shaft in Adelaide Road, along with construction traffic, will make it impossible for her to get to her mother in a reasonably short length of time.

Your Petitioner is alarmed at the inevitable increase in pollution levels as a result of construction traffic. Of paiiicular concern is the welfare of the elderly on the Oldfield Estate and the children at the schools of St Paul's, Primrose Hill, North Bridge House and Haverstock schools.

Your Petitioner requests your Honourable House to use Juniper Crescent as an alternative site for the vent shaft.

Your Petitioner requests your Honourable House that all transport of construction materials, and removal of spoil, be done by rail.

2. HS2 's Responsibilities and Liabilities

Your Petitioner is alarmed at having received a notice that her property was to be included in their 'Sub Surface Safeguarding' scheme. Although acknowledging the distress this might cause me, no mention whatsoever was made of any compensation.

Your Petitioner requests your Honourable House that HS2 be made to admit to the damage that will be caused to Camden and Primrose Hill.

Your Petitioner requests that HS2 be made to pay for all the damage that it causes and include contingencies for such payments in their budget.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

ROSEMARY BASONE

13 April 2016 HL: 251 TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2015-2016

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL THE PETITION of Marjorie Christine Fox of 30 Peerless Drive Harefield, UB9 6JG

DECLARES THAT:-

THE PETITIONER is SPECIALLY AND DIRECTLY ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE WHOLE BILL

The Petitioner

1. The Petitioner is the freehold owner of the above property in Peerless Drive and has lived there for more than l 5 years.

The Petitioner's concerns

2. I petition indi vidually on firstly the threat to tranquillity of my home life, and secondly the threat to the SSSI Broadwater Lake in the Colne Valley of which I am a volunteer warden for Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust which is also Petitioning

General objections

3. The petitioner objects to the Bill because I believe the Bill's promoters have not demonstrated a credible economic or environmental case for the proposed railway; that the powers sought in the Bill are excessive and that the environmental, social, economic and health impacts of the proposed railway have not been properly assessed. 4. The petitioner also objects to the way public consultation has been undertaken and reported prior to deposit of the Bill. Information provided by the Promoter has been piecemeal, incomplete and difficult to access. Your Petitioner has attempted to engage with the Promoter through the Community Forum process, through formal consu ltations and through direct communication but has not had her questions answered or seen her suggestions result in any change to the proposed scheme. Your Petitioner therefore feels that she still lacks information about important aspects of the proposed railway and its construction that are likely to have adverse impacts on her. Specific Objections 5. The Petitioner's rights, interests and property are heavily adversely affected by the Bill, to which the Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing, yet we will not be compensated. The petitioner therefore requests adequate compensation. Construction phase

6. The Petitioner's property is in close proximity to the construction sites in Harvil Road Barefield proposed to be used under the Bill. Therefore the Petitioners' residential property will be subject to intolerable noise and dust for approximately 7 years given the combined construction of the viaduct, the spoil from the proposed tunnel from London as Harefield will have a massive disproportionate amount of spoil dumped around our village, as shown in the plans as sometimes 5 m high. 7. The Petitioner therefore requests that this spoil is transported by other means than on the roads, and put to environmentally sound purposes. 8. The Petitioner's property is in close proximity to Moorhall Road and Harvil Road which are proposed to be used under the Bill as a route for construction traffic for approximately 7 years with thousands of vehicles daily. 9. The Petitioner therefore requests time limits on working hours both for construction works and for permanent restrictions on the number of trains and when the trains run to enable us to have rest periods without traffic, train or maintenance noise. 10. The Petitioner further requests that the location and scale of these sites is changed or at least significantly reduced to minimise the impact on South Barefield.

Operational phase

11. From the Petitioner's property, the Petitioner enjoys views of the Grand Union Canal and the woodland surrounding the Site of Significant Scientifi c Interest (SSSI)at Broadwater Lake, which is part of the Colne valley which wi ll be spoilt during the construction phase and pe1manently. The petitioner is a volunteer for the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and acts as volunteer warden for the sssr The Petitioner visits regularly checking the site overall, noting condition of track, trees, wildlife, cleating li tter, reporting any risks to Herts and Middlesex. E.g. overhanging branches, flooding, The Petitioner notes comments from birders who report sightings regularly to HMWT. The Petitioner has assisted HMWT trying to deal with pennywort in the Colne Valley. The Petitioner has participated in volunteer mornings when under supervision we have cleared the edges of the lake to encourage nesting sites for the overwintering wild fowl. The Petitioner has helped to support bird watching mornings when HMWT has provided expert help to encourage local people to learn about the precious habitat and threats to it. The Petitioner is aware of many volunteer hours protecting this precious environment for overwintering birds. The proposed works will permanently damage this preci.ous SSS!. The Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill confirms this adverse affect. The proposed viaduct will devastate the lower southern end of Korda and Broadwater lakes. It will destroy the habitat by the scale and duration of the construction. Precious wildlife habitats will be destroyed within green belt. The Colne Valley is an irreplaceable resource, part of the lungs of London. 12. The Petitioner therefore requests that HS2 should be working for a net gain in biodiversity, not just no net loss and that mitigation and compensation is paid to the Wildlife Trust in accordance with their petition if the request for replacement of the viaduct with longer tunnelling is not granted.

13. The Petitioner's home will be subjected to noise from the incessant trains: the noise barriers are to be lower on the Harefield side, which combined with the varying effect of weather conditions destroy rare tranquillity. Your Petitioner therefore requests equal noise protection to minimise the perpetual noise from so many trains per hour in each direction.

14. The Petitioner requests meaningful consultation on the design and construction of the massive viaduct which so threatens our tranquil homes.

15. The Petitioner therefore requests equal, adequate, protection from the noise of trains and guaranteed freedom from night time noise.

16. The Petitioner has tried to engage with HS2 Ltd on behalf of local residents at the Community Fora meetings and through our MP but has only received standard letters to our MP which do not answer the points raised. This failure to understand or respond to our reasonable requests has added to the anxiety and stress. 17. The Petitioner has suffered stress and continues to suffer anxiety about the enormity of the disruption to our Jives by HS2 Ltd which has been compounded by HS2 failme to communicate with us through the whole period since the scheme was initially mentioned in 2010: we have endeavoured to raise our concerns throughout this period without achieving any recognition or significant change.

18. This has affected and continues to affect us all, especially those who suffer from respiratory difficulties including chronic illnesses and who are vulnerable to asthma, bronchitis, chest .infections. The probability of serious illness being caused by the dust and pollution is likely to be the subject of litigation unless adequate measures are taken to prevent such noise, dust and pollution.

19. The Petitioner requests an extension of the tunnel as ex plained in Hillingdon Council ' s petition The Petitioner requests that if this scheme proceeds despite her continuing total opposition as expressed in responses to consultations, that longer tunnelling is provided under the Colne valley to protect South Harefield.

20. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudiciall y affect the rights and interests of the Petitioner and other clauses and provisions necessary for her protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

21. The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that it, or someone representing her in accordance with the mies and standing orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this Petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

Marjorie Fox l) April 2016 HL: 252 IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF Lords SESSION 2015/2016

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Against- on Merits - Praying to be heard By Counsel. &c.

THE PETITION of Rose-Marie Adams of 28 Peerless Drive Hare:field ,Susan Edwards of 26 Peerless Drive, Jennifer Wheeler of 24 Peerless Drive ,Dorothy Jacques of 34 Peerless Drive Harefield Middlesex UB9 6JG

DECLARES THAT

THE PETITIONERS ARE DIRECTLY AND SPECIALLY AFFECTED BY THE WHOLE BILL

WE ARE FREEHOLD OWNERS the above properties in Peerless Drive and have lived there for more than 15 years. As residents with properties backing on to the canal we are adversely affected permanently by the operational effect of the HS2 route through Barefield

General objections Your petitioners oppose the Bill in principle . Wh ilst your petitioners acknowledge that the princi ple of the Bill is established at Second Reading, your petiti oners ' views on the subject are so strong they must be recorded in this petition .

1 . Your petitioners object in principle because they believe the Bill ' s promoters have not demonstrated a credible economic or environmental case for the proposed railway; that the powers sought in the Bill are excessive and that the environmental, social , economic and health impacts of the proposed railway have not been properly assessed . 2 . Your petitioners also object to the way public consultation has been undertaken and reported prior to deposit of the Bill . Informa tion provided by the Promoter has been piecemeal, incomplete and difficult to access . Your Peti tioners have attempted to engage with the Promo ter through the Community Fo rum process , through f ormal consultati ons and t h r ough dir ect communication but have not had their questions answered or seen their suggestions resu lt in any c ha nge to the proposed scheme . Your Peti t i oner s t h erefore feel that they still l ack i nfor mation abou t . import a nt a s pect s of the p r oposed railway a nd its construction that are likely to have adverse impacts on them.

Specific Objections 1 . Your Petitioners rig hts, interest s and property are heavily adversely affected by t h e Bi ll, to wh i ch your Petitioners object for reasons amongst ot hers , her e i nafter appearing, yet we will not be compensated . Your petitioners therefore request adequate compensation.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

2 . Your petitioner ' s properties are threatened because t h ey are in close proximity to t he construction sites in Harvil Road Ha ref ield proposed to b e used under the Bill . Therefore your petitioners ' residential proper ties will be subject to i ntolerable noise and dust for approximately 7 years g iven t he combined construction o f t he viadu ct, the spoil from t he proposed tunnel from London and relate d construction traffic , t he amount o f spoil as shown in the plans as sometimes 5 m h i gh .. this is therefore a long term adverse effect o n our tranquil homes

Your Petitioners therefore request that this spoil is transported by other means than on the roads, and put to environmentally sound purposes

3 Moorhall Road is the only route to Denham Railway station for access to London using Chiltern Railways : Moorf ield Road is the only access to the North Orbital Road A412 for access to the M25 : already traffic is heavy and if there is an accident , there is gridlock : the prospect of construction traffic along these roads is impractical. Al though HS2 has been asked to resolve this problem by Peti ti one rs , through earlier stages of the Parliamentary process no solutions have been found Your Petitioners therefore request adequate restrictions on construction traffic to enable daily access to essential services

Your Petitioners therefore request that the location and scale of these sites is changed or at least significantly reduced to minimise the impact on South Harefield

OPERATIONAL PHASE

8 From your peti tioners' properties, your petitioners enjoy views of the Grand Union Canal and the woodl and sur roundi ng the Site of Significant Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Broadwater Lake, which is part of the Colne valle y wh i ch will be spoilt both during the construction phase and permanently . The Environmental Statement accompanying the Bi ll confirms this adverse affect on our properti es by t he noise not only o f t he constructi on traffic, but permanently because the noise of t he t rains passing over the proposed viaduct which has been left impossible t o determine . We have r a i s ed t he di f fering effect of noise passing over wa t e r , yet have received no useful response . HS2 ' s response i s only to offer a lower noise barrier on the Barefield side than on the side closest to Denham thus i ncr easing the noise nuisance to Barefield residents

Your Petitioners therefore request equal noise protection to minimise the perpetual noise from so many trains per hour in each direction

Your Petitioners request meaningful consultation on the design and construction of the massive viaduct which so threatens our tranquil homes

Your Petitioners therefore request time limits on working hours both for construction works and for permanent restrictions on the numbe r of t rain s and when the trains r un to enable us to have rest periods without traffic , train o r maintenance noise

9 Your Peti tioners have tried to e ngage with HS 2 on behalf of local r esi dents at the Community Fora meetings and through our MP but has only received standard letters to our MP whi ch do. not answer the point s raisedTh i s failur e to understand or r espond to our reasonable request s has added to the anxiety and s t ress .

Your petiti oners have suf f erect s tress and continue to suffer anxiety about the enormit y of the disr uption to our lives by HS2 wh i ch has been compounded by HS2 failure to communicate with us through the whole peri od s i nce the scheme was initial ly mentioned i n 201 0 : we have endeavoured to raise our concerns t hroughout this peri od wi thout achieving any recogniti on or significant c h a nge .

This has affected and continues to affect us all, especially those who suffer from respiratory difficulties includi ng chronic illnesses and who are vulnerable to asthma , bronchi tis, chest . infections .. the probabi lity of serious illness being caused by the dust and polluti on is likely to be the subject o f litigation unless adequate measures are taken t o prevent such noise, dust and pollution

10 Your petitioners have requested an extension of the tunnel as explained in Hillingdon Council's petition which we support Your Petitioners have requested that if this scheme proceeds despite our continuing total opposition as expressed in responses to consultations, that longer tunnelling is provided under the Colne valley to protect South Harefield.

There are o t her clauses and p rovi s i ons o f the Bill wh i ch, if passed i nt o l aw as t hey now s t and will p rej udicially a f fect your Petiti oners a nd t heir right s, i n teres t s and propert y a nd f or whic h no a dequa te provis i on i s made to p r o t ect your Petit i oners.

YOUR PETITIONERS therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass i nto law as it now stands and that they may be heard by their Counsel , Agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights and interests of your Petitioners and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection, or that such other relief may be given to your Petitioner . in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet.

AND your Petitioners will ever pray, signed by:

Rose-Marie Adams

Jennifer Wheeler

Sue Edwards

Dorothy Jacques 1

To the House of Lords HL: 253 Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

THE PETITON OF:- SHARON M MEANLEY and RICHARD A MEANLEY, both of SCHOOL HOUSE, KINGSBURY ROAD, MARSTON, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, 876 OOH, hereinafter referred to as .. your Petitioners"

Declares that: ...:.: . l. Your Petitioners are specially, directly and injuriously affected by the whole Bill and in particular the complex, prolonged, cumulati ve and compounded nature of the construction and other works proposed for the area for Phase 1 of the Scheme.

2. Your Petitioners are property owners expressing a legal and beneficial interest in their property WHICH is their only private residence AND WHICH is located and situate directly on the Kingsbury Road (the A4097), on the outskirts of the North Warwickshire village of Marston, at the northern limit of Phase I of the Proposed Scheme; a pocket of land which has also been referred to as the interface between Phases I and 2 of the Proposed Scheme. and which is al so known as "the stub of the v-route·'.

3. Your Petitioners do not object in principle to the decision to construct a high speed rail system between London and Birmingham. but do object to the works proposed to be carried out (as referred to in paragraph 8 helow) since their respective legal rights, interests and properties are specially, directly and injuriously affected by the Bill, to which yo ur Petitioners object for reason s, amongst others, appearing in paragraphs 5 to 8 of this Petition. Your Petitioners aver that the engineeri ng wo rks, earthworks and construction works proposed for Phase I of the Scheme are situated within unreasonabl e close proximity to their property. The proximity of your Petitioners' property in relation to the nearest proposed construction sites are: ------Railhead, Main Satellite Co mpound, -1 Kingsbury Compound, Seeney Lane Road Kingsbury Road ' Earthworks/ Construction works School 47 965 metres* 845 metres* House, metres/SS Kingsbury metres* Road ·- - -- - *Ref- HS2 l TD Mapping Team. Distance to nearest wall structure and therefore does not provide fo r rear 9ardens/or outside spaces which will be even closer.

1 2

-+ As above-stated, objection is taken to the construction and engineering works pro posed for the North Warwickshire area of Marston, located along the A4097 fro m Dunton roundabout (Junction 9 M42), up to and including Bodymoor Heath Lane (also kno\'m as Bodymoor Heath Road) encompassing an area of land around 2-3 ki lometres in size running alongside the M42 corridor immediately north of Junction 9, often described as lying si tuate at the "stub of they-route·· adj ace nt to the line for Phase 1. Those wo rks are specified in the Environmental Statement or November 20 13, Volume 2, Community Forum Area Report 20 and consist mai nly of: • Railhead proposed fo r the Kingsbury Road (A4097) to be situate immediately behind your Petitioners' property a nd to s pan approximately 1 km in length and 500 metres in diameter; • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Ma in compound proposed fo r Kingsbury Road to be situate at Dunton roundabout/ M42, Junctio n 9; • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Satellite Compound • Kin gsbury Road Main Co mpound (Rail Systems) • Dive rsion of Kin gsbury Road, A4097; • Kingsbury Road Railhead Approach Tracks • M42 Marston Box Structure • Leeds Spur • Leeds Spur Div eunder • Curdworth Cutting • Birmingham a nd Fazeley Ca nal Vi aduct Ce ntral, North & South Sa tellite Compounds • Cuttle Mill Mid Point Auto-transformer Station • See ney Lane Overbridge Satellite co mpound, Seeney La ne Ove rbridge, Seeney Lane (bridleway to be upgraded to byway open to all tra ffi c) • Co leshill Juncti on • Curdworth Vi adu ct - Central, North & South Satellite Compounds • Water Orton Viaducts & Satelli te Compounds • Fa rraday Avenue Link - East & West roadhead; underbridge; overbridge at Ncwlands Farm), Satell ite Co mpound and Package Sub-stati on Satellite Compound (Rai l Systems) • Faraday Avenu e island bridge and overtrac k • Junction fo r Phase 2 - Leeds Spur (to provide fo r six confi rmed li nes).

Acts and omissions on the part of IIS2 Ltd which have prejudiced the position of your Petitioners 5 Your Petitioners aver that HS2 Ltd have prejudiced the case fo r your Pet iti oners in that they have : 5. 1 fa il ed to properly engage in meaningful co nsultation about the nature of HS2 a nd its impact on Yo ur Petitioners' home; 5.2 fa iled to provide op portunity to respond in meaningful fashion to a ll or a ny of the public consultat io ns iss ued u nder the hybrid bi ll process, namely and crucially in the draft Environmental Stateme nt and the Environmental Stateme nt public co ns ul tati ons:

2 3

5.3 failed to make a t imely determina tion that Your Petitioners' property ca me under phase 1 of the proposed sche me AND were unreasonably late in their communication of that decision; 5 .4 reneged on assurances and promises given at a meeting which took place on 29 May 2013, a nd subsequently; 5.5 fail ed to respond to Yo ur Petitione rs' formal complaint dated 7 rebruary 2014; 5.6 from 29 May 2013 until 20 Dece mber 2013 misrepresented or failed to discuss Your Petitioners' case between relevant government departments AN D in the period be tween those dates deliberately provided a fa lse impression tha t Your Petitio ners' case was being looked a t inte rnally; 5.7 failed in their duty to attempt to mitigate pre-petition hearing issues contained in Your Petitio ners' Parliamentary petition to House of Commons dated 14 May 2014; 5.8 failed in their duty to provide meaningful a nd d ue consideration to Your Petitio ners' settlement proposa ls put forward in the pre-petitio n stages AND failed to provide counter proposals to settl e Your Petitioners' matter in the pre-petition stages; 5.9 fail ed to provide full and meaningful conside ration to Your Petitio ne rs' proposals to progress or settle You r Petitioners' matter during the post-petition stage; 5 . 10 failed to provide meaningful counte r proposals to settle Your Petitioners' matter post petition stage; 5. 1 l acting through the ir advocate at select committee hearing of Your Pe titioners' petit ion on 15 Decembe r delibe rately misled the !l ouse of Co mmons Select Co mmittee about having sent to You r Petition ers' an improved settlement offer 5. 12 s ubjected Your Petitio ne rs' as an oppone nt advocate to case conduct w hich has fall e n far short of the standards w hich are acceptable for a government body; 5 .13 fa iled in their duty to recognise that Your Petitioners' case is a special case unde r section 9 of the 20 14 Decision Docume nt; 5. 14 have fa il ed to comply w ith the recommenda tions of the House of Commons Select Committee made at hearing of Your Petition e rs' petiti on on 15 December 2014 and in their statement dated 12 January 2015; S. 15 acted unreasona bly in their refusal of Your Petitioners' Freedom of Information request dated 15 March 201 S; 5. 16 fa il ed to provide clear a nd appropriate instructions to an expert w hich define the remit of his instructions AND continue to act unreasonably by placing too much weight a nd importance on the valuation report by Brown & Co; 5. 17 continue d to act unreasonably in their refusal to accept Your Petitioners' evidence of the unblighted market va lu e of Yo ur Petitioners' home as pe r the property va lu atio n report prepared by Roger Hanna h dated 30 April 2015; 5 .18 continued to act unreasonably in their requirement of a third property valu ation; 5. 19 co ntinued to act unreasonably in the ir requirement that only a HS2 I.TD panel valuer be appointed to co nduct that third val uati on; 5.20 continued to act unreasonably in the delayed agreement to the terms of instruction of the third property valuation; 5.2 1 continued to act unreasonably in challenging the requirement on Your Petitio ne rs' part to engage independent legal advice and appoint a Parliamentary Agent; 5.22 continued to act unreasonably by requiring that Your Petitioners' agree in principl e to Heads of Terms setting out settlement terms of Your Petitioners' case which are not agreed a head of a third property valuation;

3 4

5.23 in their handling of Your Petitioners' case have failed and continue to fail in their duty to recognise and give du e consideration to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998; 5.24 fai led fundamentally to follow due process in Your Petitioners' case, and co ntinue in their failure to follow due process, thus injuriously an d adversely affecting Your Petitioners' ability to represent the matter in person; 5.25 fundamentally failed to fo ll ow due process in Your Petitioners' case, and co ntinue in their failure to fol low due process in Your Petitioners' case, thus injuriously and adversely affecting Your Petitioners' ability to represent their matter; 5.26 failed to give due care and attention to Your Petitioners' case in their failure to recognise the significant adverse affects their conduct is having on Your Petitioners' personal and professional lives. health, home, personal happiness and ~ :·. well-being, (together with all those factors which impact directly or indirectly on their children); 5.27 continued to victimise, intimidate, marginalise, and discriminate against Your Petitioners' by their use of delay and strong arm tactics in their handling of their matter; 5.28 failed to act consciously with little or no regard to the public purse in contesting Your Petitioners' case and challenging at every opportunity without foundation to the effect of prolonging the prospect of settlement of Your Petitioners' case and in cu rring for all parties concerned unreasonabl e costs in doing so; 5.29 against the spirit of a sense of openness, fairness and justice they have treated Your Petitioners' case with implacable hostility and adopted an immovable position which is founded on no reasonable grounds.

Principal private residence: provision of a family home and planning blight 6. Yo ur Petitioners aver that since March 20 I 0, HS2 LTD and/or the Department for Transport have continued to expose them to unacceptable planning blight as recognised under the Town and Country Planning Act J 990 as a direct result of the announcement of the Proposed Scheme in that: 6. 1 /\s above-stated, your Petitioners' property is located on the A4097_ (the Kingsbury Road), adjacent to where Phase I meets Phase 2, otherwise known as the ·'Leeds Junction,'' "they-route stub," and/or "the interface between Phases 1 and 2" - an area which has been eannarked for unprecedented huge scale construct ion, creating for your Petitioners unacceptable environmental change and massive over-development of the area: the existing and historic landscape or which has comprised rural, unpopulated, open spaces. 6.2 Your Petitioners' property is a residential dwell ing which provides a family home for yo ur Petitioners and their yo un g children who reside permanently in the property. Your Petitioners aver that no other would wish to reside in such close proximity to the construction works or such a major project for such prolonged periods. and that failure to se ll their properties on the open market despite reasonable sale and marketing attempts ha ve proven this to be the case. 6.3 Your Petitioners' property is located in an area that will experience significant adverse effects from agriculture, forestry and soils disturbance; air quality disturbance: isolation: loss of community; dislocation, cut-off and loss of connectivity; ecology and cultural heritage disturbances: landscape and visual disturbances; soci o-economic benefits being outweighed; sound, noise, light and vibration di st urbances; traffic and transport disturbances; and waste, material resources, and utilities disturbances and nuisance; all to such an extent that it is

4 5

unreasonabl e for it to be considered that there shal l not be any blight on the property of your Petitioners. 6.4 In or around March 20 10, HS2 released documentation erroneously containing details of land in the area located within unreasonable close proximity to their property which had been earmarked for the construction of Phase 1. Subsequently such documentation was withdrawn from the public domain. This created blight to your Petitioners' properties and that sense of blight was exacerbated by uncertainty and speculation fo r three and a half yea rs when confirmation of those early details took effect in the form of release of the Environmental Statement (amending the Draft Environmental Statement) and the Bill. 6.5 Your Petitioners will show also that as a direct result of the mass ive construction works planned for the area they will continue to suffer unacceptable adverse effects from planning blight, both during the prolonged construction stages and the completed stages of Phases I and 2 for many years. 6.6 The plans for construction sites, junction box and railhead in such close proximity to your Petitioners' property together with all the proposed works for the area in which the property is located brings huge scale environmental change, health and safety issues, pollution, nui sance, and the introduction of up to 1000 workers who will be operating adjacent to your Petitioners' property on land that is currently undeveloped or unpopulated. and which presently forms open fields. formerly agricultural in nature, with only rural , if any, activities, being carried out in respect of them. There shall be overdevelopment, commercialisation, industrialisation and over population of the immediate area in which yo ur Petitioners· property is located which shall in itself lead to environmental change such that it is unreasonable to expect your Petitioners to reside in such close proximity to the same and/or hold any reasonable expectations of successfully maintaining the fom1er marketable value of their property and/or successfull y agreeing any sa le terms on the open market.

Further reasons/or objections 7 Your Petitioners aver that HS2 Ltd have failed in their duty to assess the environmental impact on their property in that: 7.1.1 Your Petitioners will state that HS2 Ltd have failed to conduct any relevant environmental impact testing in the area in which their property lies and all detail, commentary. and proposed views relating to their property has been omitted from the Environmental Statement . 7. 1.2 Your Petitioners will also show that HS2 Ltd have sought to agree the Builders· Draft Code of Construction with relevant Local Authorities, PRlOR to the decision to place the Railhead at the Kingsbury Road site in such close proximity to their property, and in any event have determined that the Kin gsbury Road Railhead is a construction site that will be operational 24 hours each day, thus rendering it outside the remit of constraints imposed by the Draft Code for their reasonable protection from effects. (Ref Fnvironmental Statement. Volume 2, CF4 Report 20, page 29. pamgruph 2.3. -J 7).

Agricultural.forestry, soils, and land disturbance 7.2 Your Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from agricultural, forestry , soils and land disturbance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase I. most notabl y in the forrn of the following:

5 6

7.2. I "Most effects on agri cu lture, forestry and soils will arise during th e construction phase and will be either temporary or permanent" (Ref: Environ mental Statement, Volume 1, page 131, paragraph 8.1.3). 7.2.2 A t public meeting held on 5lh December 2013, Lea Marston Hotel, information was provided by HS2 LTD ' s representatives that ·· . there will be dust, mud and other dehris on 1he Kin~shury Roud us a result of the rc11/head. .. " Your Petitioners' property li es in between the proposed railhead site, and the Kingsbury Road and your Petitioners shall therefore experience adverse effects from the same.

Air quality disturbance 7.3 There has been litt le or no testing of the full extent of adverse effects of air quali ty disturbance with regard to your Petitioners' property, AND it is the case of your

'4 "· Petitioners that no measures can be taken in applying effective controls to construction sites fo r their protection due to the multifaceted nature of all the operations proposed for the construction sites; magnitude of operations and works planned for the area of the Kingsbury Road/A4097 and its surrounds; and the unreasonable close proximity of structural and construction works to their property. Your Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from air quality di sturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase I, most notably in the form of the fo ll owing: 7.3. 1 ··operational etrects on air quality .. . [which] include direct emissions from new buildings (mainl y from heating plant) and indirect emissions from road traffic associated with changes in the hi ghway network or traffic generation around stations and depots." (Re/ E11v 1ro11mental 5,'ratemenr Volume I. page 132. paragraph 8. 2. I) 7.3.2 Ke y pollutants during construction and/or duri ng completed stages of the Proposed Scheme will include carbon monoxide (from increased car traffic. heavy goods traffic to and fro m the depots and construction sites planned for the area and general trafTic caused by di version s of traffic from local closed roads); escape of harmful gases ( caused by excavation works fo r the fin ished project, constructions sites, structures, earthworks and engineering works planned to take place on what are fo nner landfill sites); and fi ne particles (caused by installation and operation of the construction sites themselves. Your Petiti oners shall experience unreasonable adverse effects relating to emissions fro m diesel locomoti ves (not only during the prolonged construction stages but also from the completed project) especially since there will be 6 tracks at the junction box site, 30 sidings located directly behind the your Petitioners· property at the Kingsbury Road ra ilhead site, and re-routing in of the Binningham-Colesh ill main line to service the rai lhead site.

Loss of Community/Iso lation/ dislocation 7.4 Your Petitioners wi ll suffer and already have experienced unacceptable adverse effects of both temporary and permanent isolation. di slocation and loss of community commencing at the time of the Government 's announcement of the plans in March 20 l 0: and shal I continue to do so during both the constructi on and completed stages of Phase I. most notably in the fo rm of the fo llowing: 7.4.1 Permanent demolition of neighbours· properties. Presently, your Petitioners reside 111 a community of 16 properties situated outside the village communities of Marston and Lea Marston which have around 30 and 120

6 7

residential dwellings respecti vely. Your Petiti oners will experience real and perceived iso lation and loss of community of neighbouring properties during the construction stages and pennanently heyond the construction stages of the Proposed Scheme in the demol ition of the four most neighbouring pro perties of Parklands Stud, Barn Covert. Cocksparrow House Fann. and Cocksparrow Fannhouse for the Kingsbury Road railhead. For the A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge and Main Compound. there shall be demolition of the majority of the following neighbouring properties: Barns at Dunton Ha ll, The Chestnuts, Bella Vista, Wedgwood, and Mullengsgrove Farm. For the construction and other purposes of Phase I, there shal l be demolition of: Outbuilding near Cuttle Mill Fishery and pan of Middleton House Farm. 7.4.2 There is for your Petitioners a real risk of destruction of community and business operati ons of properties in the neighbourhood that are not being required for the build in that the current owners consider thei r properties are no longer fit for purpose and are looking to remo ve themselves from the nei ghbourhood under alternative schemes such as exceptional hardship or other.vise. 7.4.3 Environmental Statement Volume 2, CF A Report 20, page 8 I paragraph 5.4.17 states: ·'Construction of the Proposed Scheme wi ll require the demolition of eight residential properties on the edge of Lea Marston and Marston, wh ich are situated along or just off the J\4097 Ki ngsbury Road. The loss of eight dwell ings is assessed as a moderate ad ve rse effect. which is signi ficant. ..

Loss of Connectivity/ Isolation/ Dislocation 7.5 Your Petitioners ,viii suffer unacceptable adverse effects of both temporary and pennanent iso lati on, dis location and general loss of connectivi ty during both the construction and completed stages of Phase I most notab ly in the form of the fo ll owing: 7.5.1 Loss of connection to neighbouring property Canal Cottage and Dunton Stables caused by the clos ure of Marston Lane and access to the canal being re-routed via Cuttle Mi ll Lane (l?ef Dr{ift Env;ronmental Statement, CFA report 20 f'age 17 paragraph 2. 2.13). 7.5.2 Loss of connection with the local residential vi llage of Marston caused by closure of a so le public footpath/bridl eway leading directly from the Kingsbury Road to the canal and vi ll age or Marston. No other foo t route is possible due to the heavy traffic al ready experienced on the A4097, a precarious situation which will only be exacerbated by the increased traffi c flow patterns expected for the development or the area for the works, together with access to the railhead and main compound works be ing directl y off the A4097. 7.5.3 Removal of woodl and area currentl y used fo r wa lk ing safely in what is a rural land area on Marston Lane; which is presentl y part of the land take requ ired fo r the Kingsbury Road Railhead. 7.5.4 Realignment of the Kingsbury Road, A4097 whi ch is the only road access to yo ur Petitioners· property, thus adversely affecting accessibility to and from their property, givi ng ri se to cut-off and dislocati on, further disruption, and restrictions on freedom of movement to and from their property for yo ur Petitioners. (Ref Dru;; l:·nvmmmentul Statement, ( TA report 20 Page 16 purngraph 2. 2. 8).

7 8

7.5 .5 Demolitiowpennanent removal of the A4091 Tamworth Road Middleton Hall bridge.

Cultural heritage & ecology disturbance 7.6 Your Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from ecology and cultural heritage loss a nd disturbance during both the constr uction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 7.6.1 The cu rrent and hi storic landscape surround ing your Petitioners' property is and always has been agricultural and rural in nature, with woods, agricu ltural la nd, farming and country life activities. What is proposed fo r the a rea is huge scale construction, commerciali sation, and industrialisation during construction stages that are to last a minimum of fifteen years a nd to have permanent effects beyond that period such that there is no reali sti c prospect of the area ever being returned to its current a nd historic landscape. 7.6.2 The loss of natural ha bi tat in the a rea caused by the huge scale industry, commercial activities and cha nges proposed for the immediate area of the Kingsbury Road, will mean there shall be no reasonable expectation of the re-introduction of natural hahitat for the many years of construction, and for many years post construction.

Landscape and visual disturbance 7.7Yo ur Petitione rs will s uffer unacceptable adverse effects from landscape and visual disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the fo llowing: 7.7.1 "There will be extensive views of construction activities ... Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The hi gh magnitude of change assessed a longside the medium sensitivity of the receptor will result in a major adve rse effect." (Ref Environmental Statement Volume 2 CFA Report 20, page 161, paragraphs 9.4.20 & 9.4.2) 7.7.2 The loss of greenbelt la nd and green corridor of flora and fauna caused by the construction of the Proposed Scheme a nd the completed railway is of particul ar concern to your Petitioners given the requirement of shield from the noise and visual disturbances caused by the existing road network of M42 a nd M6 Toll Road, a nd the importance of retaining green belt in this area where there is already dense transport networ ks. Current sites proposed for compounds and the Kingsbury Road railhead are presently green belt la nd used for agricultural and recreational use. Under current plans those sites wi ll be transformed into huge scale construction a nd commercial sites leading to the unacceptable over industrialisation o f the immediate surrounds of your Petitioners' proper ty and the removal of current existing greenbelt and loss of green corridor for your Petitioners. 7. 7.3 There will be in creased traffic in the a rea caused by deliveries, workers arriving/departing construction sites, causing visual and landscape disturbance as well as nuisance for your Petitioners. The increase in traffic coupled with the loss of public footpaths causes for your Petitioners particular concern for their health and safety in pedestrian

8 9

access to and from their properties given the already precarious highway conditions of the A4097. 7.7.4 There shall be overdevelopment of the area in all the construction s ites and works required for the Proposed Scheme and your Petitioners shall experience unacceptable adverse effects of visual distur bance (in the form of construction plant along the route, in compounds, stations and depots), road diversions, temporary fencing and hoarding, temporary stockpile of materials, welfare facilities for site workers, storage of industrial materials, up to thirty sidings proposed for the railhead site and rolling stock intended for use of those sidings, structures being demolished and new permanent structures being erected.

Socio-economics benefits to immediate area outweighed 7.8Your Petiti oners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects such that they shall experi ence no socio-economic benefits, and socio-economic benefits to remaining local businesses are outweighed by the grossly disproportionate effects arising out of the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the fol lowing: 7.8.1 There will be a loss of local business from which your Petitioners currently benefit, namely, Joss of farm shop facilities for local supply of fruit, vegetables and dairy produce in the demolishing of Mu ll ensgrove Farm. There are no other food s hops available within reasonable walking distance to your Petitioners. 7.8.2 There is already a loss of local B&B facilities in the area. 7.8.3 Loss of local amenities of horse-riding school and livery faci lities in the permanent removal of Parklands Stud and Barn Covert for the purposes of the railhead, a nd loss of current connection via Marston Lane with Dunton Stables horse-riding facilities due to the permanent closure of Marston Lane. 7.8.4 Change in nature to facilities currently provided by Lea Marston Hotel which include, provision of localised, family and individual recreation, restaurants, and social meeting places.

Sound, noise, light & vibration nuisance and disturbances 7.9 Your Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from sound, noise, li ght and vibration disturbances and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 7.9.1 Extreme construction noise, light and vibration resulting from the construction site activities of the Kingsbury Road Railhead situated within unreasonable close proximity to your Petitioners' property. 7.9.2 Noise and/or vibration of construction sites being installed, operated, operations within the sites themselves, increased traffic, deliveries of huge scale and volumetric materials, and introduction of s ignificant numbers of personnel into the area shall, for your Petitioners, lead to significant and unacceptable adverse effects, on both a temporary and permanent basis, and s uch effects s hall be both " ... direct, resulting from the construction or operation of the Proposed Scheme, and/or indirect e.g. resulting in changes in traffic patterns on existing roads ... " (Ref: Environmental Statement, Volume 1, page 146, paragraph 8.9.4).

9 10

7.9.3 Your Petitioners aver that there sha ll be substantial interference from noise and/or vibration. in the vicinity and operation of the Rai lhead which shal l include amongst other things the noise of train brakes applied during the movement of rolling stock into and out of sidings and depot. construction work noise, site operational noise, noise from vehicle deliveries, noise o f up to 500 construction workers, noise from the operation of plant and other machinery, a nd a ll this will in itself cause too signi fica nt an inte rference with living conditions for your Petitioners. 7.9.4 Your Petitioners also aver that there shall be serious disturbance from light used to illuminate the Kingsbury Road Railhead, sidings, car parks and access points on a 24hour basis

Traffic & transport disturbance 7.10 Your Petitio ners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from tra ffi c and transport disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 7. 10.1 Your Petitione rs aver they shall experi ence unacceptable adverse effect<; such as traffic and transport disturbance, nuisance, carbon monoxide pollution, noise and light pollutio n from increased transport flows in the area, increased road traffic, nuisance in the form of arrival and departure of workers from construction a nd wor k sites, heavy goods and materials deliveries to work sites, physical changes to existing networks (road a nd train), moveme nt of road structures, and construction of rail structures. 7.10.2 Your Petitioners submit they s ha ll also experience the adverse effects of traffic congestion a nd general d elays; delays in public transport; diversions, and volumetric changes in traffic flows; increased accident and safety ri sks; and impacts on non-motorised modes of transport such as public footpaths/cycle routes. 7.10.3 Yo ur Petitioners shall experience a n increase in a ll sorts of traffic flow in the form of trains coming into construction s ites surrounding their property, heavy goods vehicles, other goods vehicles, rail vehicles, and lighter motorised vehicles such as cars.

Waste, Material Resources, utilities disturbance and nuisance 7.11 You r Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from waste and material resources (including essentia l uti lity services) disruption, disturbance a nd nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of phase 1, most notabl y in the form of the fo ll owin g: 7.11.1 Transpo rtation to offsite la nd fi ll sites of solid waste that will be generated by the construction and operati on of the proposed scheme. 7.11.2 Waste generated during both construction and demolition activities planned for the area. 7.11.3 Waste generated from worker accommodation sites. 7.11.4 Waste from rolling stock mainte na nce faci lities, track maintenance a nd infrastructure. 7.11.5 Liquid waste 7.11.6 The direct a nd indirect effects of waste-related tra nsport 7.11.7 The d isturbance to essential utility servi ces to your Petitioners' property such as gas, electric and water supplies as the intention for the

10 11

construction sites and workers accommodation sites is to channel into existing supplies. Existing supplies are inadequate fo r this purpose.

Water resources and flood risk 7.12 Your Petitioners wi ll s uffer unacceptable adver se effects from water contamination and flood risk during both the construction and completed stages of phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 7.12.1 Already naturally high water levels exist in the area and so proposed works will add to this pre-existing situation. 7.12.2 "Current projections indicate that there will he more frequent, higher intensity rainfall events in the future. The probability a nd severity of surface water flooding could therefore increase as surface water d rain age systems fail to cope with more frequent, higher intensity storms." (Ref Environmental Statement Volume 1 Page 157, paragraph 8. 12. 6) 7.12.3 Water supply to your Petitioners' property is likely to be disrupted by the channelling into of this s upply in order to facilitate workers permanently and temporarily located at the construction sites. 7.12.4 There is the potential for contamina ti on of waste water escaping from the construction sites and this is of pa rticular concern for your Petitioners in that the materials proposed to be used on these sites are heavily industrialised materials, and the excavation works will be taking place on former landfill sites. 7.12.5 There is the potential fo r contamina ti on of clean water supply to your Petitione rs' property in that there w il l need to be channelling into the supply and the risk of contamination arises at the point of access and mainte na nce of provision of this facil ity.

Breach of Human Rights 8 Your Petitioners also SPECIFICALLY PLEJ\D that their respective human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Righl<;: The right to respect for private and fam il y life and home; are materially breached and are speciall y, directly and injuriously affected by the Bill AND are so grossly and unj ustly affected and compromised by the Bi ll and its processes to date, to which your Petitioners object for reasons amongst others, as they appear also in paragraphs 9 to 11 of thi s Petition. In particular, your Peti ti oners aver tha t the unprecede nted culmination of a ll constructions a nd construction sites planned for the area in which their property is situate together with plans for operationa l hours o f the same being 24 hours each day, plus plans to re-route roads, close public footpaths, and provide for construction traffic access, a ll directly along the A4097 Kingsbury Road will di rectly and indirectl y create impacts that arc too great an interference with the basic human rights o f your Petitioners under Article 8 of the ECHR that to expect them to remain residin g in their homes in s uch close proximity to the proposed works for such prolonged pe riods of time, exposed to such impacts is beyond the realm of reasonableness. 8.1 To expect your Petitioners to continue to reside amongst the unacceptable adverse effects of loss o f local agricultural a nd woodland amenities during both the construction stages and the completed project phases of the Proposed

11 12

Scheme is too great an interference with their individual right to respect fo r private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.2 To expect your Petitioners to continue to reside amongst the unacceptable adverse effects of air quality disturbances during both the construction stages and the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and family life and peaceful e nj oyment of their home. 8.3 The permanent loss of community and sense of dislocation and isolati on for your Petitioners is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and family life a nd peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.4 The loss of connectivity and sense of dislocation is too great an interference with your Petiti oners' individual right to respect fo r private and family life a nd peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.5 The pote ntial for adverse effects of the ecology and cultural heritage disturbance in the area in which your Petitioners' property is situate, is too severe such that to expect your Petitioners to continue to reside amongst these unacceptable adverse effects during both the construction stages and the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their individual ri ght to respect for private and family li fe and peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.6 Your Petitioners shall experience unacceptable adverse effects of visual and landscape disturba nce from construction plant along the route, in compounds, stations, depots, road diversions, temporary fe ncing and hoarding, temporary stockpile of mate rials, welfare facilities for site workers, storage of industrial materials, up to thirty sidings proposed for the railhead site and rolling stock intended for use of those sidings, structures being demolished and new permanent structures being erected. To expect your Petitioners to continue to reside in unreasonable close proximity to the source of the unacceptable adverse effects of visual and landscape disturbances during both the construction stages and the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and family life and peaceful e njoyment of their home. 8.7 The potential for disturbance, nuisance, and pollution caused by the huge scale construction sites currently planned for the Kingsbury Road area is too severe such that to expect your Petitioners to continue to reside amongst these unacceptable adverse effects during both the construction s tages a nd the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.8 To expect your Petitioners to continue to reside amongst the significant adverse effects of sound, noise, light a nd vibration disturbances during both the construction stages and the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their indivi dual right to respect for private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8.9 The magnitude and nature of the impact of traffic a nd tra nsport disturbance on your Petitioners is unacceptable during both the construction stages and the completed phases of the Proposed Scheme and is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and fami ly life and peaceful e njoyment of their home.

12 13

8. 10 The potential for disturbance and nuisance created in by the utility shared usage arrangements is too severe in terms of effects on your Petitioners such that to expect them to co ntinue to resid e with these unacceptable adverse effects during both the construction stages a nd the completed project phases of the Proposed Scheme is too great an interference with their individual right to respect for private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their home. 8. 11 The potential for adverse effects on the water supply to your Petitioners' property, and the risk of flooding and water contamination

Alternative proposals 9 Your Petitioners note the promoters' assertion of the viability of an economic case which encourages placement of the Railhead and other major construction compounds at the Kingsbury Road site to preserve the potential to serve purpose also for Phase 2. Your Petitioners confirm their alternative proposals to he: 9. I Amend the existing footprint of the Kingsbury Road Railhead by extending the Railhead's eastern boundary directly up to the A4097/Kingsbury Road. This would mean the land take would include the Kingsbury Road properties of School House, Old School Farm and Old School. This could provide the potential to remove the north boundary of the railhead that much furth er away from the villages of Marston and 13odymoor Heath, thus mitigating to the effects on the residential properties located in those villages; AND/OR 9.2 Safeguard or otherwise com pul sory purchase the area of land on which your Petitioners' property is situate to wholly remove them from the unreasonahle and unl awful effects of: • property blight; • exposure to unacceptable adverse environmental changes; • unacceptable breach of their rights, including human rights; and • general unreasonable exposure to health and safety risks caused by the Proposed Scheme and its construction.

IO In light of the above, your Petitioners reserve the ri ght to raise the abovementioned matters and any further matters of concern relating to the substance of the Bill and thi s Petition that may arise from continuing discussions, the preparation and publication of reports. any possible re\'isions that may be made to current work site proposals or any other matters relevant to your Petitioners that may occur in due course and prior to thei r representation before the Select Commit1ee.

I I For the foregoing and the connected reasons as set out in this Petition your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law in its present fonn.

12 There are clauses and provisions arising out of the Bill which, if passed into law as the Bill now stands, will prejudicially, specially, directl y and injuriously affect you r Petitioners and their ri ghts (including their human ri ghts), interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

13 14

13 The Preamble to the Bill, in so far as it relates to the matters aforesaid, is un true and incapable of proof.

PRAYER:

YOUR PETITIONERS therefore asks the I-louse of Lords that they in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House be given an opportuni ty to give evidence on al l or some of the iss ues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bi IL AND FURTHER THAT:- ( I) the Bill may not be al lowed to pass into law as it now stands; (2) that they may be heard ACTrNC, IN PERSON , or through their COUNSEL, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES and/or WITNESSES in support of the allegations or this Petition herein stated, against the principle of the Bill and agai nst so much of the clauses and provisions of the Bill as effect the property, rights, and interests of your Petitioners and in support of such other clauses, amendments or provisions as may he necessary or expedient for their protection, or that such other relief may he given to yo ur Petitioners as your Honourable House shall deem meet; (3) that they may receive recovery of all costs associated with, occasioned by and arising out of the need to pursue a Petition to thi s House; AND (4) compensation in the fonn of a one off lump sum payment to represent recovery of costs associated with and occasioned by Your Petitioner's having to pursue fom,al action within the hybrid Bill process against HS2 Ltd.

J\ND your Petitioners remain etc.

SIGNED:

f'.M(S ~ARON M ME\ANLEY / Date

Dated this 14th day of Apri I 2016

14 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Ursula Brown

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner has been a resident leaseholder of Woodhall, Robert Street, since 1988. Your petitioner's property is located close to the proposed Main Construction Site on a residential street which is required for utility works and which will be heavily used by construction and other traffic during the construction of the scheme (a period of 18+ years). Your petitioner suffers from several chronic health conditions including inflammatory arthritis, which are largely controlled by medication and exercise. Since retiring, your petitioner has been an active member of the Third Age Project and the West Euston Time Bank, both based on the Regents Park Estate, and had expected to spend her remaining years in peaceful enjoyment of life on the Estate.

3. Your petitioner's concerns:

3.1 The proposed works in Robert Street

Robert Street is a tree-lined residential street on the Regents Park Estate. The current proposals would bring in additional traffic, noise and pollution up to 2033, and leave us with a legacy of increased traffic, a permanent reduction in open and green spaces and trees, and a reduction in visual amenity.

These works are:

(i) Utilities works which would involve digging up the roadway to install a 42 inch water main and divert existing utilities. This work will be noisy and put at risk the mature trees which line the Street.

(ii) The demolition of the National Temperance Hospital and establishment of a Main Construction Compound opposite the entrance to Robert Street. This will create noise, dust and pollution.

(iii) The use of Robert Street as a major route for construction traffic and diverted traffic over a period of ten years (2017-2026). This will create noise, further reduce the air quality, which is already well below EU levels, and be a danger to the pedestrians, many of them children and old people, who use the Street.

(iv) The use of Robert Street as a taxi route for a period of eight years (2026-2033). This will be a further source of air pollution, further reducing the air quality.

1 (v) The creation of a new signalled junction with Hampstead Road and an extended Cobourg Street. This will not only increase the general traffic flow along the Street, but the provision of signals will mean that vehicles are held stationary with their engines running alongside residential buildings and pedestrians using the Street, and reduce air quality even further.

Your petitioner requests that

(a) the construction timetable be rethought to minimise adverse effects on residents, and to minimise the length of time during which these will be experienced;

(b) that spoil and supplies be delivered and removed by rail, not road;

(c) that any residual spoil/supplies that cannot be moved by rail should be restricted to the national road network and avoid residential streets;

(d) that Woodhall be assessed for noise mitigation;

(e) that there be live, transparent air quality monitoring in Robert Street with immediate action if legal limits are breached (not 1 year+ in arrears, as currently proposed);

(f) that street trees be safeguarded

(g) that traffic management measures be implemented to ensure that taxis and other traffic entering and leaving the extended Cobourg Street are directed onto the national road network via Hampstead Road and prevented from using Robert Street as a taxi feeder or dispersal route or as a rat run.

3.2 Air Quality

Your petitioner notes with concern the predicted rise in air pollution in Robert Street and surrounding roads as a result of construction works in Stage A, and in surrounding roads in Stage 81, for which no mitigation is proposed. Your petitioner believes that these effects are still an underestimate of the likely situation. Pollution levels in the area for N02 already regularly exceed the legal maximum and your petitioner has serious concerns for her health.

The agreement reached between HS2 and London Borough of Camden on air quality does nothing to allay these fears as it (a) only relates to highways (b) only involves reporting on an annual basis (c) gives no specifics about action to be taken if legal limits are breached.

Your petitioner requests that the Nominated Undertaker be required to begin air quality monitoring along construction routes immediately, that live results are made publicly available, and that work should be suspended immediately pollution levels exceed the legal maximum. Your petitioner further requests the extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the areas around Euston Station.

2 3.3 Noise

Your petitioner is concerned that no mitigation is offered for the noise which will be generated by the works noted above.

Your petitioner requests that Woodhall be included in the list of buildings to be assessed for noise mitigation.

3 .4 Road safety - Emergency Services

Your petitioner is concerned that the works in and around Robert Street create an increased risk of accidents at local road junctions which are heavily used by your petitioner and other pedestrians. Although this risk is mentioned in the Environmental Statement no mitigation is offered. Your petitioner is further concerned that the congestion caused by the works would mean delays in summoning emergency services, which creates a further safety issue.

Your petitioner believes that it is inappropriate to use residential streets such as Robert Street as construction traffic routes or as taxi routes, and that this could and should be avoided by adopting the measures outlined above, in particular the use of rail for the removal and delivery of spoil and construction materials. This would reduce the projected increase in risk of accidents and prevent the congestion which would delay emergency vehicles.

3.5 Threat to street trees and green spaces

2, 7 40 m2 of open space have already been lost to replacement housing: 940m2 in Robert Street and 1,800 in the wider Regents Park Estate. The plans are for the loss of a further 4,220 m2 on the Estate, plus the total loss of St James Gardens. 13 trees have already been lost from the Estate, with a further 91 trees under threat (27 of these in Robert Street).

Your petitioner considers that the loss of these street trees and green spaces will cause a highly substantial adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, as well as contributing to the predicted deterioration in air quality, and creating adverse effects on health, both physical and mental. There is no pledge to replace all the trees lost on the Estate, and the proposed replacement green space is inadequate in size, quality and situation. Your petitioner has no confidence in the HS2 assurances to Camden Council that tree replacement will be like for like and compensate for the loss of mature trees.

Your petitioner requests that the felling of street trees in Robert Street be avoided, and that any which are accidentally damaged be replaced with mature trees of a similar species immediately on completion of the utility work. Your petitioner further requests that no more green spaces be taken from the Regents Park Estate.

3.8 Bus services in Hampstead Road and Albany Street and Severance

Your petitioner is concerned that the impacts on bus services along Hampstead Road and Albany Street have been greatly underestimated in the Environmental

3 Statement. These services provide an essential link between the Regents Park Estate and shops, hospitals and other facilities in Camden Town and beyond. Construction of the new Hampstead Road Bridge, construction traffic and general traffic increases on surrounding roads, combined with delays and diversions to bus services will result in severe severance for your petition and other residents of Wood hall.

Your petitioner believes that these effects could be mitigated by the use of rail for spoil and materials, as requested above.

3.9 Hampstead Road Bridge

The published design for the new Hampstead Road Bridge is too high and too long, and completely lacking in aesthetic appeal. This will add to the severance effects noted above, as well as having a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. No further information has been made public about the proposed reconsideration of the Bridge in the four months since the Commons Select Committee. The Bridge, as currently designed, signally fails to adhere to HS2 Ltd's previously stated principle for new constructions to "blend into their surroundings and retain the existing character". Your petitioner requests that any new Hampstead Road Bridge be designed in line with this principle.

3.12 Mitigation and Compensation

Your petitioner considers that HS2 Ltd has failed to offer meaningful mitigation for the effects noted above, and deplores the fact that no compensation is available for the loss of quality of life resulting from these effects. The ES notes significant numbers of severe adverse effects remaining after their proposed mitigations. In the case of Camden, mitigation is not enough. Your petitioner further considers that the discrimination between compensation packages in rural and urban areas is unsupportable, and would request that this be reconsidered, as well as the need for an independent, external adjudicator.

3.14 Lack of engagement

HS2 Ltd has offered no community engagement since the opening of the House of Commons petitioning period on 30 November 2015. In your petitioner's experience, engagement meetings organised by HS2 before that date have been no more than PR box-ticking exercises where the views expressed by local people were continually and consistently ignored. Requests for information are only partly answered, if at all.

Your petitioner requests that community engagement be resumed, and that this be viewed as a two-way process where the views of local people are given at least equal weight with other stakeholders.

3.15 In view of the extent and duration of the adverse effects of the current scheme on residents around Euston Station and the very limited mitigation proposed, we strongly urge the Select Committee to require that a temporary terminus be provided at Old Oak Common and that no work should start in Euston until:

4 (a) an independent cost-benefit analysis is carried out of HS2's scheme and of the various alternatives to it

(b) designs are agreed for a new coherent Euston Station including provision for classic rail services, HS2 services and Crossrail 2 within the footprint of the existing station

(c) plans are in place for local transport infrastructure to enable the onward movement of passengers using the new services

(d) spoil and materials can be brought in and out by rail.

4. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc .

Name ...... ~~ Signature .

5 HL: 255 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 the whole

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Middleton HS2 Action Group

Declares that:

1) The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the following clauses:

1. Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway. The clauses include powers for and provisions in respect of the construction of and maintenance of works; highways and road traffic matters: the compulsory acquisition of land; extinction and exclusion of rights over land and the temporary possession and use of land; planning permiss ion and development consent; Clauses 24-36 refer to those parts of the Bill which would disapply and modify various enactments and legal provisions relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries, tree works and noise from construction and statutory nuisance.

2. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill set out the regulatory regime for the railway.

3. Cla uses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provisions, including provision for the appointment of a nominated undertaker ("the Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under the Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement works and in respect of further high speed railway works. Provision is also made relating to the effect of t he To wn and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/18245.1. 2011/1824) ("the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations").

4.The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in Clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and other works, which are described in Clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill. Your Petitioners

1) Your Petitioners are the Middleton HS2 Action Group (MHAG) who represent the residents of Middleton Parish . MHAG are a democratically and formally constituted group (a written constitution was formally agreed at the Group's second meeting). MHAG was founded in 2011 to represent the interests of residents seeking to minimise the injurious impact of the proposed railway on our community. The Parish has a population of approximately 660 residents all of whom have been invited to a total of six public meetings convened by MHAG to inform residents about and discuss the proposals. At the latest of these public meetings, held on 6th April 2014, attendees agreed overwhelmingly by show of hands to support the objections and alternative proposal s included in this petition. The officers of MHAG are accountable to the residents of the Parish through a series of public meetings and formally constituted Annual General Meetings and through regular bi-monthly reports on activities in the Middleton Parish Magazine. MHAG (hereinafter referred to as Your Petitioners) have taken a leading role in negotiating with HS2Ltd on behalf of the community through a large number of meetings (at least 15 over the period from March 2011 to December 2013) and extensive correspondence extending over a period from March 2011 to January 2014.

2) The Bill would authorise the construction and operation of the railway system and its associated development through Middleton County Parish and your Petitioners object to the works outlined below. Your Petitioners and their rights interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3) Your Petitioners' objections hereinafter set out are ordered as follows:

a. Objections to proposed permanent works directly affecting those who live and work in the community of Middleton Parish. b. Objections to proposed temporary and construction works directly affecting those who live and work in the community of Middleton Parish. c. Objections to generic proposals affecting our and other communities (such as the proposed Construction Code of Conduct and the design speed proposed). d. Objections concerning the limits of compensation and residents and businesses who are affected but may not claim compensation

Your Petitioners' Concerns

A. Objections to proposed permanent works directly affecting the residents of Middleton Parish

1) Alignment of proposed Railway between Coleshi/1 and Drayton Bassett

1. Objection is made to the proposed horizontal alignment of the railway between the A446 Lichfield Road at Curdworth and Drayton Lane, Drayton Bassett. This objection relates to works 3/35 through to works 3/59 inclusive, encompassed by Clauses 35 to 45 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. Our objection in this regard relates to the significant and unwarranted level of environmental, economic and social impact together with loss of valuable amenity that the said choice of horizontal alignment will cause in our area. These impacts can be mitigated however by moving the line approximately 60m to the East at its furthest extension (close to Middleton House Farm and Business Complex and North Wood Area of Ancient Woodland) thereby very su bstantially reducing most of these negative effects.

2. In March 2011 your Petitioners published (at a public meeting, on the MHAG website, in the Parish Magazine and by letter forwarded to the Chief Executive of HS2Ltd and Secretary of State for Transport) their proposals for design modifications to the horizontal and vertical alignment of HS2 in our area. In a detailed analysis your Petitioners made it clear that, if adopted, these modifications would very significantly reduce the level of environmental damage at marginal extra cost. Amongst many advantages, the modifications would also mean that around 60 local jobs would be saved; that an area of Ancient Woodland would be preserved; that damage to the setting of a Grade 2 Listed building would be reduced and that the noise, vibration and adverse visual impact, currently assessed for our community and adjoining hamlets would also be reduced. These proposals were first presented to HS2Ltd at a meeting at the Department for Transport early in 2011.

3. Despite repeated requests for a response to these proposals over a long period, it was not until 5 February 2014 that a material response was received from HS2Ltd. This response took the form of a copy of a 'sift ana lysis' carried out by HS2Ltd wherein your Petitioners' proposals were rated against the proposals contained in the Bill on the basis of a range of environmental and engineering criteria. Out of a total of 45 criteria your Petitioners' proposals were adjudged by HS2Ltd to be no better and no worse than those in the Bill against 28 of the 45 criteria, better than HS2Ltd 's proposals on 16 criteria and worse on only one - cost. Your Petitioners have carefully considered the costings as presented by HS2Ltd and will show that they contain clear inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Examples of such inconsistencies and inaccuracies are that the property costs are shown as higher for your Petitioners' proposals, even though fewer buildings ne ed to be acquired, and that viaducts are shown as required over certain land not designated as flood plains in your Petitioners' proposals whereas this is not the case for the proposals in the Bi ll. As a result your Petitioners consider that the costings are neither robust nor reliable and in particular overstate the relative costs of your Petitioners' proposal.

4. The technical and engineering feasibility of your Petitioners' alternative proposals for a movement of the horizontal alignment of the proposed railway was never challenged by HS2Ltd until a few days before our petition was heard in the other House. Thus we had no t ime to prepare counter arguments. HS2Ltd's objections relate to minimum distances between points at the Y junction to the so uth. Your Petitioners believe that a small reduction in design speed would permit our proposed realignment to be implemented and therefore request that the Bill be amended to move the horizontal alignment of the railway eastwards between the points stated.

2) Flooding at Langley Brook

1. Your Petitioners have welcomed recent proposals to lower the height of the Railway at Langley Brook and to shorten the length of the Langley Brook viaduct. They are concerned however that this will exacerbate already serious flooding problems at Crowberry Lane where vehicles already often become stranded at times of heavy rain.

2. Your Petitioners therefore request that the proposed works be extended to include the raising in height of Crowberry Lane and the provision of a larger capacity culvert in order to mitigate this problem.

3) Bodymoor Heath Lane bridge over Railway and A4091 (work 3/50)

1. The alignment of the railway proposed in the Bill requires that Bodymoor Heath Lane is raised on embankments to bridge both the proposed railway and the A4091 to then form a new junction at Brick Kiln Lane. This proposal was announced by HS2Ltd very late in the consultation process and thus Your Petitioners were not given a reasonable amount of time to consider and comment upon its impact.

2. Your Petitioners object to this proposal on the grounds (i) that it will be a large and unsightly intrusion into the rural scene, being highly visible from the A4091 trunk road, to residents of the area, the general public and use rs of adjoining leisure facilities (e.g. Pool House Farm fishing and golfers using the Belfry Golf Com pies) and (ii) it will sterilise substantial pieces of open land which are presently used for agricultural purposes (iii) it will encourage the use of narrow local roads by through traffic (iv) it will be an unnecessa rily expensive piece of engineering, and (v) it will be a considerable source of noise and nuisance to occupants of Pool House Farm and nearby Hunts Green.

3. Your Petitioners request that the alignment of the railway be moved further eastwards (paragraphs 10-13 above refer). This would facilitate the creation of a simple 'T' junction of Bodymoor Heath Lane with the A4091 as exists at present, which would in turn largely avoid the negative effects of the proposal set out in the Bill and resu lt in a cost saving. 4. If this is not acceded to then your Petitioners propose that these impacts be mitigated by retaining a T junction of Bodymoor Heath Lane and the A4091. The problem of the difference in levels between the Railway overbridge and the A4091 can be overcome by a (i) raising the leve l of the A4091 close to the new junction and/or (ii) realigning Bodymoor Heath Lane to the South. This latter proposal would also provide the opportunity to remove the dangerous bend in the Lane close to the Lower Fa rm access.

4} Diversion of Footpath T17

1. Your Petitioners consider that the revi sed diversion proposed for this footpath, whilst it provides increased safety, still has serious shortcomings. These proposals represent an extremely tortuous diversion which provides an unpleasant environment for walkers, running very close to the proposed Railway and associated overhead gantries etc.

2. Your Petitioners request that the existing route of this footpath be preserved through the provision of a basic stepped footbridge over the Railway. This much shorter alternative could, we believe, be provided at little, if any, additional cost.

5} Kingsbury Railhead Afteruse

1. The Kingsbury Railhead is a temporary facility which is to be returned to an alternative use once construction of HS2 has been completed. The proposals show the restored state of the Railhead to be 'grassland'. Your Petitioner does not consider this to be a fully thought through and sustainable long term use for this area.

2. Your Petitioner is very concerned that unless further and more detailed consideration is given to the end use of this site that there is a danger that its temporary use will be used as a pretext for a long term use of a similar industrial or other environmentally damaging use. This will prolong the detriment suffered by local residents as a result of this intrusion into a rural landscape.

3. Your Committee has already acknowledged the special circumstances of the Kingsbury Area and the need for better and closer consultation between HS2Ltd and local communities. Your Petitioner requests that the Select Co mmittee defines "Special Case" and that such definition is accepted by HS2. Your Petitioner therefore requests that HS2Ltd be required to immediately enter into discussions with local communities and the local planning authority with a view to site for a use (to be determined through consultation) compatible with a Greenbelt location. Further that HS2 Ltd be requested to establish a Trust Fund to secure the ongoing maintenance of this site for the chosen purpose. 4. Your Petitioner considers that the most appropriate use is best determined by local consu ltation, but envisages that examples could include: sports pitches and a leisure centre, wildlife resource, pitch and putt course, parkland etc..

B. Objections to proposed temporary and construction works directly affecting our community

1} Proposed construction compound, Church Lane Middleton

1. The proposal to site a construction compound in Church Lane Middleton will result in a substantial increase in HGV turning movements at the junction of Church Lane and the A4091 dual carriageway during the proposed period of construction (the Environmental Statement indicates that the compound will be in use for up to 4.5 years). This junction is already the scene of a considerable number of accidents. Large veh icles turning right out of Church Lane onto the A4091 dual carriageway southbound cannot avoid obstructing the northbound carriageway where visibility is restricted and vehicles are often approaching at speed. Similarly, large vehicles southbound on the A4091 will obstruct this carriageway when attempting to turn right into Church Lane.

2. Your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended to require the implementation of improvements to this junction to obviate this accident hazard, to be fully completed before this compound is brought into use.

2) The impact of proposed construction works on the wider road network in the area between Water Orton/Curdworth/Coleshill/Kingsbury/Middleton/ Drayton Bassett

1. Your Petitioners have over a period of time drawn the attention of HS2Ltd and the Warwickshire County Council in correspondence and at relevant meetings to the very substantial impact which the proposed construction works will have on the local and national road network in our area.

2. This major impact is due in large part to the close proximity of the following major proposed engineering projects and construction facilities:

a. The proposed 'Delta' junction at Water Orton b. The 'Y' junction of the Leeds spur close to the M42 c. The HS2 bridge over the M42 and Birmingham Fazeley Canal d. The proposed 'Construction Railhead' off Kingsbury Road, Lea Marston

3. The impact on our area and road network will be prolonged as it is clearly the intention to continue the use of the Railhead for Phase 2 of HS2. Our area is intersected by several major national traffic routes and several road junctions.

4. Members of the other House have expressed its concern that insufficient attention has been given to the impact of construction traffic consequent on HS2 on our local road network. Your Petitioners are extremely concerned that the current proposals will create major traffic congestion and that the Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES) contains major errors and omissions in relation to the traffic baseline, forecasts and road junction capacity estimates.

5. The recent AP2 proposals include a revision of traffic flows based upon the combined effects of amendments in CFA 20 and other CFA areas (SES and AP2 Vol2 CFA 20 paragraph 6.1). Further, these changes will result in an overall INCREASE in the volume of HS2 construction traffic using the majority of our local roads. Thus an already substantial increase in the volume of local traffic (which your Committee had acknowledged to be of concern) is now expected to increase still further.

6. The SES fails to address inaccuracies in traffic baseline information highlighted in previous petitions. This applies particularly to figures of maximum peak hour queue lengths at key junctions. Local people are daily users of these junctions, and know from direct observation that the figures quoted are very substantial underestimates. These substantially uncorrected figures are used as the basis for the revised traffic forecasts contained in the SES.

7. The SES provides revised of traffic flows and capacity estimates at the A446 Lichfield Road/Faraday Avenue/Marsh Lane roundabout and at the A4091 Tamworth Road/A446 Lichfield Road roundabout. It did not however provide any revised estimates for the important M42/A446/A4097 Dunton Island roundabout which lies between these locations and must be affected by the revised traffic forecasts.

8. A few days prior to the hearing of your petitioners' objections to this HS2Ltd provided a traffic assessment of Dunton Island. This assessment claims to show that Dunton Island could cope with the additional traffic by the increase of the green phase on traffic signals controlling vehicles entering the island. However despite your Petitioners' requests no data has been made available concerning traffic flows and capacity on the island itself. Dunton Island is already overloaded at peak times and it is your Petitioners' belief that it will be grossly so when HS2 construction traffic is added to projected future flows. This will not only cause local gridlock, it will be a major accident hazard as queuing traffic backs up onto local motorways.

9. The SES has still failed to provide proper estimates of the increase in traffic using other local roads in order to avoid congestion at the above junctions, notably Bodymoor Heath Lane to which your Committee has in the past drawn particular attention.

10. Your Petitioners request that (i) an urgent review of traffic baseline data at key junctions is undertaken in order to provide a reliable basis for future forecasts, (ii) that full details of the M42/A446/ A4097 junction traffic modelling be put in the public domain including calculations of flows on the traffic island itself, and that this be the subject of independent expert scrutiny (iii) that work be undertaken to model the effect of traffic flows on other local roads diverted in order to avoid congestion, notably Bodymoor Heath Lane (iv) that based on these outcomes a comprehensive traffic management assessment be undertaken of roads in the area with a view to implementing road improvements which will ensure the safe and reasonably smooth operation of the local road network, these improvements to be implemented before construction work on the Railway commences.

11.Your Petitioners request in the event that these urgent revisions to the Environmental Assessment are not forthcoming, that the Bill be amended to include a requirement that with the utmost urgency:

a. A full traffic study of the area is undertaken in consultation with the relevant highway authorities and local communities. b. Where necessary to avoid unacceptable levels of t ra ffic congestion proposals are drawn up for the improvement of highways and junctions in the area. Also that: c. The above highway and junction improvements are fully implemented before work on the construction of the works related to the proposed railway as summarised in paragraph 44 commences.

12. If the above requirements are not accepted then your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended to ensure the deferral of the major co nstruction works outlined above until such time as these essential improvements have been completed.

C. Objections to generic proposals affecting our and other communities

1} Design Speed

1. Your Petitioners object to the design speed of the proposed railway which we believe is set too high. A lower design speed would very significantly reduce energy consumption and construction and acquisition costs, noise and vibration and allow tighter radii of horizontal and vertical curves thus enabling higher levels of sound mitigation and enhancing the ability to avoid sensitive landscape features and reduce the impact on residential and business properties. HS2Ltd have been unable to provide evidence that a full cost benefit analysis of options for alternative design speeds was undertaken prior to the announcement of their proposals for the railway.

2) Code of Construction Practice

1. Your Petitioners are extremely concerned that there is no time period yet defined for reinstatement of construction sites after completion of building works. This may mean that unsightly areas remain long after works have finished. Your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended to require that all temporary statement is made on the assumption that the Code of Construction Practice and the strategies will be fully effective, however, the Code of Construction Practice has no legal status.

8. Your Petitioners submit that the Code of Construction Practice should be incorporated into the Bill. Parliament and not the nominated undertaker should be accountable for the project. Any monitoring required under the Code of Construction Practice should involve the relevant local authority as well as independent experts with effective oversight and redress arrangements in the event of non-compliance with the Code of Construction Practice.

3) No assessment of the environmental impact on Kingsbury Water Park

1. Your Petitioners are of the view that the alignment proposed for the Leeds spur means that it is inevitable that there will be a major negative impact on the Kingsbury Water Park leisure woodland and wildlife area and adjoining RSPB reserves of national importance. This area lies within 250 metres of the proposed construction works yet these issues are not addressed in the Environmental Statement. Your Petitioners request that consideration of the proposals in the vicinity of Kingsbury Water Park be deferred until such time as a proper environmental assessment of the impact has been undertaken and consulted upon.

D. Objections to proposed compensation arrangements

1) Compensation

1. Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions in relation to property that is not to be compulsory acquired and outside the safeguarded zone do not allow for residents and businesses of Middleton Parish and who are clearly injuriously affected to be compensated adequately for the loss and damage they may incur as a result of construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development other than in circumstances where they are directly and substantially affected or can demonstrate a pressing need to move.

2. Your Petitioners request that the Bill should be amended to ensure that residents and businesses located in Middleton Parish outside the safeguarding area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should be entitled to claim compensation.

2} Impact on equestrian activities

1. Middleton is a centre of a great deal of equestrian activity and three local facilities in particular - Crowberry Stables, owned by Tim and Barbara Marsland, Horseshoes owned by Elaine and Irvine Foulkes and Highfields Farm owned by Jane and Glenn Smith located in Crowberry Lane and Church Lane are all in close proximity to the line and/or directly affected by related proposed construction works . They are however insufficiently close to qualify for any compensation for loss of amenity, impairment of the utility of these facilities or loss of business income under current proposals.

2. Horses are particularly sensitive to noise, and the close proximity of heavy I '

construction machinery would severely jeopardise the continued safe use of these facilities, which, owners advise, may well have to be discontinued. Additionally once the railway is operational, train noise and vibration would cause prolonged disturbance to horses.

3. In order to obviate this your Petitioners request that (i) the horizontal alignment of the proposed railway is amended as set out in paragraphs 10 to 13 above (ii) that the Bill is amended to ensure that appropriate and full compensation is paid to the owners for the loss/impairment of these facilities and related business income where applicable.

Closing submissions

For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioners respectfully submit that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above, so far affecting Your Petitioners, should not be allowed to pass into law.

The Prayer

The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Petitioner remains, etc.

I I Sign ed

Date ) 1-t '- A p (<. IL 201 6

Ann Bancroft Chair Middleton HS2 Action Group

Signec

Date

John Rowland Vice Chair Middleton HS2 Action Group

[each petitioner (or his Agent) MUST sign (or seal) the petition here1 Print the name of the person signing below each signature (and add "Agent" if appropriate] [add the date here]

1 If the petition is not signed by the appropriate person it will not be accepted by the Lords Privat e Bill Office (see How to petition against a hybrid bill in the House of Lords: Petitioning Kit Guide) HL:256 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 the whole

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands} Bill

THE PETITION OF MIDDLETON PARISH COUNCIL

Declares that:

I. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the following clauses:

!.Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway. The Clauses include powers for and provisions in respect of the construction of and maintenance of works; highways and road traffic matters: t he com pulsory acquisition of land; extinction and exclusion of rights over land and the temporary possession and use of land; planning permission and development consent; Cla uses 24-36 refer to those parts of the Bill which would disapply and modify various enactments and legal provisions relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated lan d, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries, tree works and noise from construction and statutory nuisance ..

2. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill set out the regulatory regime for the railway.

3.Clauses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provisions, including provision for the appointment of a nominated undertaker ("the Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under the Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement works and in respect of further high speed railway works. Provision is also made relating to the effect of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/18245.1. 2011/1824) ("the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations"). 4.The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in Clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and other works, which are described in Clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill.

Your Petitioners

1. Your Petitioner is Middleton Parish Council which represents the residents of Middleton Parish. The Parish has a population of approximately 660 residents all of whom have been invited to a total of six public meetings convened by the Middleton HS2 Action Group (MHAG) (a lso one of your Petitioners) to inform residents about the HS2 project and discuss the proposals. At the latest of these public meetings, held on 6th April 2014, attendees agreed overwhelmingly by show of hands to support the objections and alternative proposals included in this petition Middleton Parish Council supports fully the objectives of MHAG. The Parish Council has supported MHAG in its leading role in negotiating with HS2 Ltd on behalf of a community through a large number of meetings (at least 15 over the period from March 2011 to December 2013) and extensive correspondence extending over a period from March 2011 to January 2014.

2. The Bill would authorise the construction and operation of the railway system and its associated development through Middleton County Parish and your Petitioners object to the works outlined below. Your Petitioners and their rights interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your Petitioner's objections hereinafter set out are ordered as follows:

a. Objections to proposed permanent works directly affecting those who live and work in the community of Middleton Parish. b. Objections to proposed temporary and construction works directly affecting those who live and work in the community of Middleton Parish. c. Objections to generic proposals affecting our and other communities (such as the proposed Construction Code of Conduct and the design speed proposed). d Objections concerning the limits of compensation and residents and businesses who are affected but may not claim compensation

Your Petitioner's concerns

A. Objections to proposed permanent works directly affecting the residents of Middleton Parish

1. Alignment of proposed Railway between Coleshi/1 and Drayton Bassett 1. Objection is made to the proposed horizontal alignment of the railway between the A446 Lichfield Road at Curdworth and Drayton Lane, Drayton Bassett. This objection relates to works 3/35 through to works 3/59 inclusive, encompassed by Clauses 35 to 45 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. Our objection in this regard relates to the significant and unwarranted level of environmental, economic and social impact together with loss of valuable amenity that the said choice of horizontal alignment will cause in our area. These impacts can be mitigated however by moving the line approximately 60m to the East at its furthest extension (close to Middleton House Farm and Business Complex and North Wood Area of Ancient Woodland) thereby very substantially reducing most of these negative effects.

2. In March 2011 your Petitioner supported MHAG (at a public meeting, on the MHAG website, in the Parish Magazine and by letter forwarded to the Chief Executive of HS2Ltd and Secretary of State for Transport) in their proposals for design modifications to the horizontal and vertical alignment of HS2 in our area. In a detailed ana lysis your Petitioners (MHAG) made it clear that, if adopted, these modifications would very significantly reduce the level of environmental damage at marginal extra cost. Amongst many advantages, the modifications would also mean that around 60 local jobs would be saved; that an area of Ancient Woodland would be preserved; that damage to the setting of a Grade 2 listed building would be reduced and that the noise, vibration and adverse visual impact, currently assessed for our community and adjoining hamlets would also be reduced. These proposals were first presented to HS2Ltd at a meeting at the Department for Transport early in 2011.

3. Despite repeated requests for a response to these proposals over a long period, it was not until 5 February 2014 that a material response was received from HS2Ltd. This response took the form of a copy of a 'sift analysis' carried out by HS2Ltd wherein MHAG's proposals were rated against the proposals contained in the Bill on the basis of a range of environmental and engineering criteria. Out of a total of 45 criteria your Petitioners' proposals were adjudged by HS2Ltd to be no better and no worse than those in the Bill against 28 of the 45 criteria, better than HS2Ltd's proposals on 16 criteria and worse on only one - cost. Your Petitioner has carefully considered the costings as presented by HS2Ltd and they contain clear inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Examples of such inconsistencies and inaccuracies are that the property costs are shown as higher for Your Petitioner's proposals, even though fewer buildings need to be acquired, and that viaducts are shown as required over certain land not designated as flood plains in your Petitioners' proposals whereas this is not the case for the proposals in the Bill. As a result your Petitioner considers that the costings are neither robust nor reliable and in particular overstate the relative costs of your Petitioner's proposa l.

4. The technical and engineering feasibility of your Petitioner's alternative proposals for a movement of the horizontal alignment of the proposed railway was never challenged by HS2Ltd until a few days before our petition was heard in the other Hou se. Thus we had no time to prepare counter arguments. HS2Ltd's objections relate to minimum distances between points at the Y junction to the so uth. Your Petitioner believes that a small reduction in design speed would permit our proposed realignment to be implemented and therefore request that the Bill be amended to move the horizontal alignment of the railway eastwards between the points stated.

2. Flooding at Langley Brook

1. Your Petitioner has welcomed recent proposals to lower the height of the Railway at Langley Brook and to shorten the length of the Langley Brook viaduct. They are concerned however that this will exacerbate already serious flooding problems at Crowberry Lane where vehicles already often become stranded at times of heavy rain.

2. Your Petitioner therefore requests that the proposed works be extended to include the raising in height of Crowberry Lane and the provision of a larger ca pacity culvert in order to mitigate this problem.

3. Bodymoor Heath Lane bridge over Railway and A4091 (work 3/50)

1. The alignment of the railway proposed in the Bill requires that Bodymoor Heath Lane is raised on embankments to bridge both the proposed railway and the A4091 to then form a new junction at Brick Kiln Lane. This proposal was announced by HS2Ltd very late in the consultation process and thus Your Petitioner was not given a reasonable amount of time to consider and co mment upon its impact.

2.Your Petitioner objects to this proposal on the grounds (i) t hat it will be a large and unsightly intrusion into the rural scene, being highly visible from the A4091 trunk road, to residents of the area, t he general public and users of adjoining leisure facilities (e.g. Pool House Farm fishing and golfers using the Belfry Go lf Complex) and (ii) it will sterilise substantial pieces of open land which are presently used for agricultural purposes (iii) it will encourage the use of narrow local roads by through traffic (iv) it will be an unnecessarily expensive piece of engineering, and (v) it will be a considerable source of noise and nuisance to occupants of Pool House Farm and nearby Hunts Green.

3. Your Petitioner requests that the alignment of the railway be moved further eastwards (paragraphs 10-13 above refer). This would facilitate the creation of a simple 'T' junction of Bodymoor Heath Lane with the A4091 as exists at present, which would in turn largely avoid the negative effects of the proposal set out in the Bill and result in a cost saving.

4.lf this is not acceded to then your Petitioner proposes that these impacts be mitigated by retaining a T junction of Bodymoor Heath Lane and the A4091. The problem of the difference in levels between the Railway overbridge and the A4091 can be overcome by a (i) raising the level of the A4091 close to the new junction and/or (ii) realigning Bodymoor Heath Lane to the South. This latter proposal would also provide the opportunity to remove the dangerous bend in the Lane close to the Lower Farm access.

4. Diversion of Footpath T17

1. Your Petitioner considers that the revised diversion proposed for this footpath, whilst it provides increased safety, still has serious shortcomings. These proposals represent an extremely tortuous diversion which provides an unpleasa nt environment for walkers, running very close to the proposed Railway and associated overhead gantries etc..

2. Your Petitioner requests that the existing route of this footpath be preserved through the provision of a basic stepped footbridge over the Railway. This much shorter alternative could, we believe, be provided at little, if any, additional cost.

5. Kingsbury Railhead Afteruse

1. The Kingsbury Railhead is a temporary facility which is to be returned to an alternative use once construction of HS2 has been completed. The proposals show the restored state of the Railhead to be 'gra ssland'. Your Petitioner does not consider this to be a fully thought through and sustainable long term use for this area.

2. Your Petitioner is very concerned that unless further and more detailed co nsideration is given to the end use of this site that there is a danger that its temporary use will be used as a pretext for a long term use of a similar industrial or other environmentally damaging use. This will prolong the detriment suffered by local residents as a result of this intrusion into a rural landscape.

3. Your Committee has already acknowledged the special circumstances of the Kingsbury Area and the need for better and closer consultation between HS2Ltd and loca l communities. Your Petitioner requests that the Select Committee defines "Special Case" and that such definition is accepted by HS2. Your Petitioner therefore requests that HS2Ltd be required to immediately enter into discussions with local communities and the local planning authority with a view to ensure the site for a use (to be determined through consultation) compatible with a Greenbelt location. Further that HS2 Ltd be requested to establish a Trust Fund to secure the ongoing maintenance of this site for the chosen purpose. 4. Your Petitioner considers that the most appropriate use is best determined by local consultation, but envisages that examples could include: sports pitches and a leisure centre, wildlife resource, pitch and putt course, parkland etc.

B. Objections to proposed temporary and construction works directly affecting our community

1. Proposed construction compound1 Church Lane Middleton

1. The proposal to site a construction compound in Church Lane Middleton will result in a substantial increase in HGV turning movements at the junction of Church Lane and the A4091 dual carriageway during the proposed period of construction (the Environmental Statement indicates that the compound will be in use for up to 4.5 years). This junction is already the scene of a considerable number of accidents. Large vehicles turning right out of Church Lane onto the A4091 dual carriageway southbound cannot avoid obstructing the northbound carriageway where visibility is restricted and vehicles are often approaching at speed. Similarly, large vehicles southbound on the A4091 will obstruct this carriageway when attempting to turn right into Church Lane.

2. Your Petitioner requests that the Bill be amended to require the implementation of improvements to this junction to obviate this accident hazard, to be fully completed before this compound is brought into use.

2. The impact of proposed construction works on the wider road network in the area between Water Orton/Curdworth/Coleshill/Kingsbury/Middleton /Drayton Bassett

1. Your Petitioner has over a period of time drawn the attention of HS2Ltd and the Warwickshire County Council in correspondence and at relevant meetings to the very su bstantial impact which the proposed construction works will have on the local and national road network in our area.

2. This major impact is due in large part to the close proximity of the following major proposed engineering projects and construction facilities:

4. Members of t he other House have expressed their concern that insufficient attention has been given to the impact of construction traffic consequent on HS2 on our local road network. Your Petitioner is extremely concerned that the current proposals will create major traffic congestion and that the Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES) contains major errors and omissions in relation to the traffic baseline, forecast s and road junction capacity estimates.

5. The recent AP2 proposa ls include a revision oftraffic flows based upon the combined effects of amendments in CFA 20 and other CFA areas (SES and AP2 Vol2 CFA 20 paragraph 6.1). Further, these changes will result in an overall INCREASE in the volume of HS2 construction traffic using the majority of our local roads. Thus an already su bstantial increase in the volume of local traffic (which your Committee had acknowledged to be of concern) is now expected to increase still further.

7. The SES provides revised traffic flows and capacity estimates at the A446 Lichfield Road/Faraday Avenue/Marsh Lane roundabout and at the A4091 Tamworth Road/ A446 Lichfield road roundabout. It did not however provide any revised estimates for the important M42/ A446/A4097 Dunton Island roundabout which lies between these locations and must be affected by the revised traffic forecast s.

8. A few days prior to the hearing of your Petitioner's objections to this, HS2 Ltd provided a traffic assessment of Dunton Island. This assessment claims to show that Dunton Island could cope with the additional traffic by the increase of the green phase on traffic signals controlling vehicles entering the island. However despite your Petitioner's requests no data has been made available concerning traffic flows and capacity on the island itself. Dunton Island is already overl oaded at peak times and it is your Petitioner's belief that it will be grossly so when HS2 construction traffic is added to projected future flows. This will not only cause local gridlock, it will be a major accident hazard as queuing traffic backs up onto local motorways.

10. Your Petitioner requests that (i) an urgent review of traffic baseline data at key junctions is undertaken in order to provide a reliable basis for future forecasts (ii) that full details of the M42/A446/ A4097 junction traffic modelling be put in the public domain including ca lculations of flows on the traffic island itself, and that this be the subject of independent expert scrutiny (iii) that work be undertaken to model the effect of traffic flows on other local roads diverted in order to avoid congestion, notably Bodymoor Heath Lane (iv) that based on these outcomes a comprehensive traffic management assessment be undertaken of roads in the area with a view to implementing road improvements which will ensure the safe and reasonably smooth operation of the local road network, these improvements to be implemented before construction work on the Railway commences.

11. Your Petitioner requests in the event that these urgent revisions to the Environmental Assessment are not forthcoming, that the Bill be amended to include a requirement that with the utmost urgency:

a. A full traffic study of the area is undertaken in consultation with t he relevant highway authorities and local communities. b. Where necessary to avoid unacceptable levels of traffic congestion proposals are drawn up for the improvement of highways and junctions in the area. Also that: c. The above highway and junction improvements are fully implemented before work on the construction of the works related to the proposed railway.

12. If the above requirements are not accepted then your Petitioner request s that the Bill be amended to ensure the deferral of the major construct ion works o utlined above until such time as these essential improvements have been complet ed.

C. Objections to generic proposals affecting our and other communities 1. Design Speed

1. Your Pet itioner objects to the design speed of t he proposed railway which we believe is set too high. A lower design speed would very significantly reduce energy consumpt ion and construction and acquisition costs, noise and vibration and allow tighter radii of horizontal and vertical curves thus enabling higher levels of sound mitigation and enhancing the ability to avoid sensitive landscape features and reduce the impact on residential and business properties. HS2Ltd have been unable to provide evidence that a full cost benefit analysis of options for alternative design speeds was undertaken prior to the announcement of their proposals for the railway.

2. Code of Construction Practice

1. Your Petitioner is extremely concerned that there is no time period yet defined for reinstatement of construction sites after completion of building works. This may mean that unsightly areas remain long after works have finished. Your Petitioner requests that the Bill be amended to require that all temporary construction areas be fully restored to their original condition as soon as practicable and no later than two years after their use has ceased .

2. Your Petitioner requests that the proposals are amended to include full height screening of all temporary construction compounds and that measures are undertaken to reduce noise and dust contamination and that wheel washing facilities are provided at all construction compound locations.

3. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Code of Construction Practice as contained in the Environmental Statement, although it proposes a 'Community Helpline', contains no provision which would in any way guarantee a prompt and effective response to genuine and urgent complaints rai se d by members of the community and/or local businesses .

4. Your Petitioner request s that the Bill is amended to stipulate that responses t o complaints should in all cases be both prompt and effective and that urgent complaints should be addressed within a maximum 24 hour time period wherever reasonably practicable. Your Petitioner is extremely concerned at the potential pollution, congestion, safety hazards and damage to footways and carriageways which may be caused by heavy goods vehicles utilisi ng narrow country lanes in and around Middleton Parish. The lanes around Middleton are narrow, winding and in many places of only one vehicle width and with no footpaths. This will lead to inevitable conflicts between construction and other vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Your Petitioner acknowledges that it is intended that co nstruction HGVs will only be allowed to utilise those roads as defined in the Environmental Assessment, however there is no clear mechanism for the enforcement of this, including provisions for arbitration in cases of dispute, or sa nctions against contractors breaching these conditions. Your Petitioner requests that the Bill be amended to include requirements which address these matters.

5. Your Petitioner is concerned about the inevitable damage that additional HGV traffic will cause to local roads and footways. Whereas the Environmental Statement makes reference to highway reinstatement (under the heading 'site specific traffic management' Vol 5 Construction Code of Practice paragraph 14.2.5) it does not indicate how this is to be enforced, undertaken and financed. Local Highways authorities are currently operating under major financial constraints and cannot reasonably be asked to finance this significant extra cost. Your Petitioner requests that the Bill be amended to provide for an independent assessment of damage caused, a requirement for prompt rectification, and that all relevant costs be borne by HS2Ltd or their nominated contractor.

6. Your Petitioner objects to the fact that the Bill does not provide for an independent arbiter of the quality, effectiveness and extent of mitigation and remedial measures (eg. to rectify the adverse affects of constructions works on local communities, examples of which are outlined above) to be undertaken.

7. Your Petitioner is concerned that the nominated undertaker's ongoing accountability is unspecified. The Code of Construction Practice does not identify how any lead contractors will be made to comply and the redress and appropriate action that might be taken in the event that the contractors do not comply w ith the Code of Construction Practice. Assessment in the environmental statement is made on the assumption that the Code of Construction Practice and the strategies will be fully effective, however, the Code of Construction Practice has no legal status.

8. You r Petitioner submits that the Code of Construction Practice should be incorporated into the Bill. Parliament and not the nominated undertaker should be accountable for the project. Any monitoring required under the Code of Construction Practice should involve the relevant local authority as well as independent experts with effective oversight and redress arrangements in the event of non-compliance with the Code of Construction Practice.

3. No assessment of the environmental impact on Kingsbury Water Park

1. Your Petitioner is of the view that the alignment proposed for the Leeds spur means that it is inevitable that there will be a major negative impact on the Ki ngsbury Water Park leisure woodland and wildlife area and adjoining RSPB reserves of national importance. This area lies within 250 meters of the proposed construction works yet these issues are not addressed in the Environmental Statement. Your Petitioner requests that consideration of the proposals in the vicinity of Kingsbury Water Park be deferred until such time as a proper environmental assessment of the impact has been undertaken and consulted upon.

4. Objections to proposed compensation arrangements

1. Compensation

l .. Your Petitioner submits that the compensation provisions in relation to property that is not to be compulsory acquired and outside the safeguarded zone do not allow for residents and businesses of Middleton Parish and who are clearly injuriously affected to be compensated adequately for the loss and damage they may incur as a result of construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development other than in circumstances where they are directly and substantially affected or can demonstrate a pressing need to move.

2.Your Petitioner request s that the Bill should be amended to ensure that residents and businesses located in Middleton Parish outside the safeguarding area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should be entitled to claim compensation.

2. Impact on equestrian activities

1. Middleton is a centre of a great deal of equestrian activity and three local facilities in particular - Crowberry Stables, owned by Tim and Barbara Marsland ; Horseshoes, owned by Elaine and John Foulkes and Highfields Farm owned by Jane and Glenn Smith - located in Crowberry Lane and Church Lane are all in close proximity to the line and/or directly affected by related proposed construction works. They are however insufficiently close to qualify for any compensation for loss of amenity, impairment of the utility ofthese facilities or loss of business income under current proposals.

2. Horses are particularly sensitive to noise, and the close proximity of heavy construction machinery would seve rely jeopardise the continued safe use of these facilities, which - owners advise - may well have to be discontinued. Additionally once the railway is operational, train noise and vibration would cause prolonged disturbance to horses.

3. In order to obviate this your Petitioner requests that (i) the horizontal alignment of the proposed railway is amended as set out in paragraphs 10 to 13 above (ii) that the Bill is amended to ensure that appropriate and full compensation is paid to the owners for the loss/impairment of these facilities and related business income where applicable. Closing submissions:

For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above, so far affecting your Petitioner, should not be allowed to pass into law.

The Prayer

Your Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill. AND the Petitioner remain s, etc.

Signed

Print name

Cllr Gillian Keegan; Chair of Middleton Parish Council

Signed

Print Name

Date

John Rowland; Clerk and RFO to Middleton Parish Council

Date HL:257

To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London- West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF KINGSBURY PARISH COUNCIL of correspondence address of Clerk, Mrs S Humphries, 25 Ascot Drive, Dosthill, Tamworth, Staffordshire 877 lQP hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioners."

DECLARES that;-

l. The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. The Petitioners are Kingsbury Parish Council who represent the interests of property owners and businesses in the parish including Bodymoor Heath and Kingsbury, both present and future, who are directly/ind irectly and specifically affected by the construction and operation of the High Speed railway line located and situate at the interface of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the construction. Parishioners will be gravely affected by the complexity and prolonged nature of the construction and operational works for Phase 1 of the proposed scheme. The Petitioners aver that there are properties in the area of Kingsbury Road and Bodymoor Heath Lane which are situated within unreasonably close proximity to the earthworks and construction works proposed for Phase 1 of the scheme which will have a devastating effect on this area.

3. The Petitioners and their respective parishioners legal rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the provisions of the Bill if passed into law in its present form, to which the Petitioners obj ect for reasons amongst others, stated in this Petition.

4. The Petitioners object to the proposed construction and engineering works as specified in the Environmental Statement of November 2013, Volume 2, Community Forum Area Report 20. The works are in the North Warwickshire area of Marston, located along the A4097 from Dunton roundabout (Junction 9 M42), up to and including Bodymoor Heath Lane (also known as Bodymoor Heath Road) towards and including the A4091 (the Tamworth Road) and the A446 leading up to Dunton roundabout; encompassing an area of land around 4- 5 square kilometres in size running adjacent to the M42 corridor immediately north of Junction 9. This is often described as the "stub of they-route" adjacent to the line for Phase 1. The works consist mainly of: 4.1 Railhead proposed for Kingsbury Road (A4097) to be situated between the Kingsbury road and the M42 and to take an area of about 133 acres;

1 4.2 A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Main compound proposed for Kingsbury Road to be situated at Dunton roundabout/M42, Junction 9; 4.3 A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge 4.4 A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Satellite Compound 4.5 Kingsbury Road Main Compound (Rail Systems) 4.6 Diversion of Kingsbury Road, A4097; 4.7 Kingsbury Road Railhead Approach Tracks

5. Principle private residences: provision of family homes & planning blight The Petitioners aver also that HS2 LTD acting with the Department for Transport have subjected the area to heavy planning blight as recognised under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as a result of the Proposed Scheme since its announcement in March 2010 in that: 5.1 The properties in the parish of the Petitioners are heavily earmarked for construction and overdevelopment in relation to Phase 1 of the proposed Scheme. 5.2 The local areas of land which concern the Petitioners are the Kingsbury Road, Bodymoor Heath Lane, villages of Marston, Lea Marston, Bodymoor Heath and Kingsbury which li e adjacent to where Phase 1 meets Phase 2, otherwise known as the "Leeds Junction," "they-route stub," and "the interface between Phases 1 and 2." 5.3 The properties in the parish consist mainly of residential family dwellings but also some commercial business premises.

5.4 The Petitioners are located in an area that will experience significant adverse effects from agriculture, forestry and soils disturbance; air quality disturbance; isolation: loss of community; loss of connectivity; cultural heritage and ecology disturbances; landscape and visual disturbances; socio-economic benefits outweighed; sound, noise, light and vibration disturbances; traffic and transport disturbances; waste, material resources, and utilities disturbances and nuisance; such that each of these facto rs add to property blight for parishioners in the local community. 5.5 The Petitioners will show that as a direct result of the massive construction works planned for the area they will continue to suffer unacceptable adverse effects from planning blight, during the prolonged construction stages and the completed stages of Phase 1 and Phase 2 as to Phase 1 Junction - works estimated to commence 2017 and take a minimum of five years to complete. Thereafter, the potential for temporary sites to be used for Phase 2 and as such to be left empty for a period of eight years before Phase 2 commences in or around 2026. Thus leading to significant disruption over construction of the Junction and Railhead for the purposes of Phase 1 and thereafter, the significant disruption and infrastructure changes associated and arising out of Phase 2 leading to an extraordinary prolonged period of environmental changes caused in two prolonged construction phases, likely to span a minimum of 15 years.

2 6. Loss of Community/Dislocation of Community and Isolation The Petitioners aver that Parishioners will suffer unacceptabl e adverse effects of both temporary and permanent isolation, dislocation and Joss of community during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1. Bodymoor Heath residents need vehicular access at all times for shopping, schools, work etc as there are no amenities in the village, and concerns are raised that the boundary road network for them will become gridlocked making daily commitments impossible. The proposed demolition of local properties to make way for construction sites and structures of the Proposed Scheme mean that the following properties shall be demolished:

6.1 For the Kingsbury Road railhead, there shall be demolition of Parklands Stud, Barn Covert, Cocksparrow House Farm, and Cocksparrow Farmhouse.

6.2 For the A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge and Main Compound, there shall be demolition of the majority of the following neighbouring properties: Barns at Dunton Hall, The Chestnuts, Bella Vista, Wedgwood, Mullensgrove Farm.

Destruction of community and business operations of properties in the neighbourhood that are not being required for the build exists in that long standing owners considered their properties are no longer fit for purpose and have removed themselves from the neighbourhood under alternative schemes such as exceptional hardship, and their properties lie empty or are let on short term rentals. HS2 is becoming a major property owner in the Parish

Realignment of the Kingsbury Road, A4097 which is the main access to the area thus affecting accessibility for properties of parishioners. They will become cut off with further disruption, and restrictions on freedom of movement to and from their properties. This will also create other issues on neighbouring highways and roads, given the likelihood of increased traffic flows through the villages of Bodymoor Heath, Lea Marston and Marston, and potentially Kingsbury caused by the diversion of traffic to provide for the works and increased construction traffic proposed for the Kingsbury Road, A4097.

7. Cultural Heritage & Ecology Disturbance The Petitioners aver their parishioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from ecology and cultural heritage loss and disturbance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1.

7.1 The current and historic landscape surrounding the properties in the parish of the Petitioners is and always has been agricultural and rural in nature, with woods, agricultural land, farming activities, and country life activities that have spanned numerous generations. What is proposed for the area is huge scale construction, commercialisation, and industrialisation during construction stages that are to last up to twenty years and to have permanent effects beyond that period such that there is no prospect of the area ever being returned to its current and historic landscape.

3 7.2 The Petitioners will also experience a loss of children's education sites of Sych Wood, Hams Lane, Northwood, Middleton House Farm, plantation at Seeney Lane, Barn Covert Wood and Ladywalk reserve.

7.3 The loss of natural habitat in the area caused by the huge scale industry, commercial activities and changes proposed for the immediate area of the Kingsbury Road, will mean there shall be no reasonable expectation of the re introduction of natural habitat for the many years of construction, and for many years post construction. The Petitioners aver the parish and surrounding areas experience adverse effects on all habitats in the area including bats, monk jack, and birds attracted by the Water Park and wetlands of the area.

8. Landscape and Visual Disturbance The Petitioners parishioners will suffer unacceptable, adverse effects from landscape and visual disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1.

8.1 There will be extensive views of construction activities. The construction sites of the Main Compound, Kingsbury Road Railhead and Seeney Lane compound will be located in very close proximity to residential properties and in relation to those properties the magnitude and scale of those construction sites is tremendous. Therefore, the magnitude of change for the area will be of the highest impact and the Petitioners aver that there shall be the overdevelopment of the entire area.

8.2 The loss of greenbelt land is of particular concern to the Petitioners and North Warwickshire Borough Council as all parts of Phase 1 lie within the West Midlands Green Belt. It is important that any sites used for temporary are back to an appropriate Green Belt use once the line is open. This Phase 1 area covered in flora and fauna provides shield from the noise and visual disturbances caused by the existing road network of M42 and M6 Toll Road, a dense transport network area. Current sites proposed for compounds and the Kingsbury Road railhead are presently green belt land and used for agricultural and recreation use. Under current plans those sites will be transformed into huge scale construction and commercial sites leading to the industrialisation of the immediate surrounds of the area.

8.3 The railway is being constructed on concrete viaducts on major portions of the route which will be incongruous and inappropriate in a rural green belt area.

8.4 There will be the increased traffic in the area caused by deliveries, workers to the sites, causing visual and landscape disturbance as well as nuisance for the parishioners. The increase in traffic coupled with the loss of public footpaths causes the Petitioners particular concern for the health and safety in pedestrian access to and from properties in the parish, given the already precarious highway conditions of the A4097.

4 8.5 There shall be overdevelopment of the area in all the construction sites and works required for the Proposed Scheme and the parishioners shall experience unacceptable adverse effects of visual disturbance from construction plant along the route, in compounds, stations, depots, road diversions, temporary fencing and hoarding, temporary stockpile of materials, welfare facil ities for site workers, storage of industrial materials, up to thirty sidings proposed for the railhead site and rolling stock intended for use of those sidings, structures being demolished and new permanent structures being erected.

9. Sound, Noise, Light & Vibration Nuisance and Disturbances Petitioners Parishioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from sound, light and vibration disturbances and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1. This is an enormous concern due to the rural nature of the areas in the parish. Local noise monitoring has shown dBA levels should be typically between 25 to 30 in a rural area, a fraction of what it will be if the proposed railway line is constructed.

9.1 Extreme construction noise, light and vibration resulting from the construction sites proposed for the area.

9.2 It is without doubt that the noise and/or vibration of construction sites being installed, operated, operations within the sites themselves, increased traffic, deliveries of huge scale and volume materials, and introduction of significant numbers of personnel into the area shall, for the parish and local area, lead to significant and unacceptable adverse effects, on both a temporary and permanent basis, and such effects shall be both direct, resulting from the construction or operation of the Proposed Scheme, and/or indirect e.g. resulting in changes in traffic patterns on existing roads.

9.3 The Petitioners aver that there shall be substantial interference from noise, in the vicinity of the Railhead which shall include amongst other things the noise of train brakes applied during the movement of rolling stock into and out of sidings and depot and this will in itself cause substantial interference with living conditions for the residents of the parish.

9.4 The Petitioners also aver that there shall be serious disturbance from light used to illuminate the Kingsbury Road Railhead, sidings, car parks and access points.

9.5 As the railway will be on concrete viaducts, the noise from the operation of the trains will be amplified and carry further across open fields

10. Traffic & Transport Disturbance The Petitioners parishioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from traffic and transport disturbance and nuisance, during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1.

5 10.1 The Petitioners aver that as a result of the works proposed for the area which include major construction sites, (one of which is to be operational on a 24 hours/7days a week basis), huge scale construction and structures, and large scale infrastructure changes their parishioners will experience unacceptable adverse effects such as disturbance, nuisance, carbon monoxide pollution, noise and light pollution from increased transport flows, increased road traffic, arrival and departure of workers from construction and work sites, heavy goods and materials deliveries to work sites, physical changes to existing networks (road and train), movement of road structures, and construction of rail structures.

10.2 The Petitioners aver there will also be adverse effects of traffic congestion and general delays; delays in public transport; diversions, and volumetric changes in traffic flows; accident and safety risks; and severance impacts on non-motorised modes of transport such as public footpaths/cycle routes.

10.3 The Petitioners will also see an increase in all sorts of traffic flow in the parish and surrounding areas in the form of trains coming into what will be 3 major construction sites in the area which will include heavy goods vehicles, goods vehicles, rail vehicles, and lighter motorised vehicles such as cars.

10.4 Dunton Island is a major hub for the M6, M42, M6 toll, the A446 London to Lichfield Road, the A4091 Birmingham to Kingsbury Road and the A4097 Tamworth to Coventry Road. HS2 has failed to properly assess and plan for the impact of its works on this already over stretched major junction.

11. Water Resources and Flood Risk The Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from water contamination and flood risk during both the construction and completed stages of phase 1.

11.1 Already naturally high water levels exist in the area.

11.2 There is the potential for contamination of waste water escaping from the construction sites in that the materials proposed to be used on these sites is heavily industrialised materials, and the excavation works will be taking place on former landfill sites.

11.3 There is the potential for contamination of clean water supply to properties in the area in that there will need to be channelling into that supply and the risk of contamination arises at the point of access and maintenance of provision of this facility.

11.4 Proposed balancing ponds may not cope with the flow and may be of an inappropriate design for the area.

6 12. Acts and omissions on the part of HS2 Ltd which have prejudiced the position of the Petitioners The Petitioners aver that HS2 Ltd have prejudiced the case for Kingsbury parishioners/businesses in that they have failed in their duty to assess the environmental impact on properties; failed in their duty to meaningfully engage with them; failed to consult or enter into meaningful di alogue with them regarding mitigation/alternative proposals; failed to provide relevant information about the plans for the area in a timely fashion; failed to follow due process and procedure in the late definition of the interface between Phases 1 and 2, thus rendering your Respectful Petitioners unable to establish locus standi at all relevant community forums, consultations and discussions with other bodies.

13 Petitioners Proposals

13.1 HS2 has already proposed a "Special Management Zone" for the area of the Kingsbury Railhead which will appoint a community engagement team to amongst other things, manage relationships with the local community. The Petitioners have little faith in this process based on previous experience and would like this clarified and expanded. The House of Commons Select Committee stated Kingsbury should be a special case and the Petitioners would like this further expanded and defined. The Petitioner would like a "community detriment fund " established for their special case area to cover the unintended and unforeseen consequences of the construction of HS2 in their area over such a prolonged period of up to 2033 for Phase 1 and Phase 2

13.2 Amend the existing footprint of the Kingsbury Road Railhead to provide for the eastern boundary up to A4097 to include the Kingsbury Road properties located on the A4097, directly up to the A4097 and remove the nose of the Railhead that much further away from the village of Bodymoor Heath and Marston and to take advantage of existing established boundary vegetation. HS2 should have a commitment to take as little land as possible and have never produced an analysis that gives an optimisation of the amount of land required for a railhead.

13.3 In respect of the Railhead, safeguard or otherwise compulsory purchase the land area in which the most severely affected properties of the Kingsbury Road and Bodymoor Heath Lane are situate, and extend the definition of compensation so that it provides for measurement from the edge of the construction sites from the area.

13.4 In respect of the operation of the Railhead, to ensure that the operational activities of all construction sites including the Railhead are compliant with the Builders Code of Construction and local planning regulations and that no sites will operate on a 24hour/7 days each week basis.

13.5 Provide an undertaking that work shall be carried out on all roads in the area at separate times only.

7 13.6 Place the Kingsbury Road Railhead at lower level effectively sinking it and providing corresponding bunds and mounds and transplant existing semi mature trees to reduce environmental effects, pollution and nuisance from operations at the site and undertake to restore the land and its environments at and in the vicinity of the Railhead to its state as at the date of this Petition notwithstanding that mitigation measures will include earthworks and bunding.

13.7 Provide alternative access to the construction sites of the Railhead to reduce congestion on the A4097 Kingsbury Road and to provide and implement an effective plan to manage the traffic during construction to include if appropriate the widening of single carriageway roads. HS2 has proposed options which may make the congestion worse and unduly favour the traffic from the site.

13.8 Provide undertakings that work shall be carried out on all roads in the area at separate times only.

13.9 Provide an undertaking to introduce and enforce traffic calming measures in the areas to include in particular Bodymoor Heath Laneand Coton Road. The assurance given by HS 2 in a letter to the Petitioner dated 6 November 2014 to carry out a review of the traffic on the lane is insufficient. Such a review needs to be done immediately and traffic calming installed prior to the commencement of construction.

13.10 Provide financial and practical compensation to the residents of Bodymoor Heath and Marston for the disruption to their travel they will endure for the period of at least 4 years due to the construction on the junction of Bodymoor Heath Lane and the Tamworth Road A4091 of the Bodymoor Heath overbridge/Brick Kiln Lane affecting the only route in and out of their Village.

13.11 To involve the local community in the design of balancing ponds and viaducts which will have a continuing impact on this rural environment.

PRAYER: (l) THE PETITIONERS therefore asks the House of Lords that they or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this Petition to the Select Committee which consider this Bill

AND the Petitioners remain etc

SIGNED:

\ h\ 1-f- 9pM I 201 b CHAIRMAN - Councillor Jean Thomas Dated: ON BEHALF OF KINGSBURY PARISH COUNCIL

8 HL: 258 To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London- West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF KINGSBURY & DISTRICT STOP HS2 ACTION GROUP of correspondence address of group chairman Mr. I. Thomas 40 Piccadilly Crescent, Piccadilly, Tamworth, 878 2EL hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioners"

DECLARES that;-

1. The Petitioners are specially a nd directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. The Petitioners are the Kingsbury & District Stop HS2 Action Group established at public meeting held on 8th February 2012 (otherwise known as KDAG) and they represent the concerns and matters arising for residents a nd property owners of the North Warwickshire residential villages and hamlets of Marston, Lea Marston, Bodymoor Heath and Kingsbury, who a re gravely affected by the complexity, prolonged, cumulative and compounded nature of the construction works which are proposed for the area for the construction of Phase 1 of the Proposed Scheme and are likely to be used on a continuing basis for Phase 2

3. The Petitioners object to the works proposed to be carried out as referred to below as their respective legal rights, interests and properties are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which the Petitioners object for reasons a mongst others, appearing in paragraphs 4 to 12 of this Petition. The Petitioners aver that there are properties in the area situate on the Kingsbury Road and Bodymoor Heath Lane which are situated within unreasonable close proximity to the earthworks a nd construction works proposed for Phase 1 of the Scheme. The Petitioners a lso aver that the magnitude, prolonged nature and scale of the temporary and permanent works proposed for the area is such that it is devastating for the a rea.

4. Objection is taken to the construction and engineering works proposed to be undertaken in the North Warwickshire area of Marston and Kingsbury, located along the A4097 from Dunton roundabout (Junction 9 M42), up to and including Bodymoor Heath Lane (also known as Bodymoor Heath Road) towards and including the A4091 (the Tamworth Road) and the A446 leading up to Dunton roundabout; encompassing an area of land around 4-5 square kilometres in size running adjacent to the M42 corridor immediately north of Junction 9, often described as the "stub of the y-route" adjacent to the line for Phase 1. Those

11 works are specified in the Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Community Forum Area Report 20 and consist mainly of: • Railhead proposed for Kingsbury Road (A4097); • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Main compound proposed for Kingsbury Road to be situate at Dunton roundabout/M42, Junction 9; • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge • A4097 Kingsbury Road Overbridge Satellite Compound • Kingsbury Road Main Compound (Rail Systems) • Diversion of Kingsbury Road, A4097; • Kingsbury Road Railhead Approach Tracks • M42 Marston Box Structure • Leeds Spur • Leeds Spur Diveunder • Curdworth Cutting • Birmingham a nd Fazeley Canal Viaduct Central, North & South Satellite Compounds • Cuttle Mill Mid Point Auto-transformer Station • Seeney Lane Overbridge Satellite compound, Seeney Lane Overbridge, Seeney Lane (bridleway to be upgraded to byway open to all traffic) • Coleshill Junction • Curdworth Viaduct - Central, North & South Satellite Compounds • Water Orton Viaducts & Satellite Compounds • Faraday Avenue Link - East & West roadhead; underbridge; overbridge at Newlands Farm), Satellite Compound and Package Sub-station Satellite Compound (Rail Systems) • Faraday Avenue island bridge and overtrack • Junction for Phase 2 - Leeds Spur (to provide for six confirmed lines).

Planning blight 5. The Petitioners aver also that HS2 LTD acting with the Department for Transport have subjected them to heavy planning blight as recognised under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as a result of the Proposed Scheme since its announcement in March 2010 in that: 5.1 The properties of the Petitioners are located in an area which has been most heavily earmarked for construction and overdevelopment in relation to Phase 1 of the proposed Scheme. 5.2 The areas of land which concerns the Petitioners are the Kingsbury Road, Bodymoor Heath Lane, villages of Marston, Lea Marston, Bodymoor Heath and Kingsbury which lie adjacent to where Phase 1 meets Phase 2, otherwise known as the "Leeds Junction," "the y-route stub," and "the interface between Phases 1 and 2." 5.3 The properties of the Petitioners consist mainly of residential dwellings which provide a family home for private individuals and their families; some of which operate as provision of business facilities from which local business activities are run, farming and other commercial premises from which businesses currently trade.

21 5.4 The Petitioners' properties are located in an area that will experience significant adverse effects from agriculture, fo restry and soils disturbance; air quality disturbance; isolation: loss of co mmunity; loss of connectivity; cultural heritage and ecology disturbances; landscape and visual disturbances;; sound, noise, light and vibration disturbances; traffic and transport d isturbances;, and utilities disturbances and nuisance; such that each of these factors add to the property blight for the Petitioners. 5.5 The Peti tioners will show that as a direct result of the massive construction works planned for the area they will continue to suffer unacceptable a dverse e ffects from planning blight, during the prolonged construction stages and the completed stages of Phase 1 and Phase 2 leading to significant dis ruption over construction of the Junction and Railhead fo r the purposes of Phase 1 and thereafter, the significant dis ruption and infrastructure changes associ ated and arising out of Phase 2 leading to a n extraordinary prolonged peri od of environmental changes caused in two prolonged construction phases w hi ch is likely to span a minimum of 15 years.

Loss of Community/ Dislocation of Community and Isolation

6. The Petitioners aver that they will suffer unacceptable adverse effects of both temporary and permanent isolation, dislocation and loss of community during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the fo llowin g: 6.1 Demolition of properties to make way for construction sites and structures of the Proposed Scheme. 6.2 Destruction of community and business operations of properties in the neighbourhood that are not being required fo r the build exists in that long standing owners have considered their properties are no longer fit for purpose a nd have removed themselves from the neighbourhood under alternative schemes such as exceptiona l hardship and their properties lie empty or are let on short term rentals. HS2 is becoming a major property owner in the area. 6.3 Dislocation of community caused by the road closures, disruption to access and increased traffic flows caused during the construction stages.

Cultural heritage & ecology disturbance

7 The Petitioners aver they will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from ecology and cultural heritage Joss and disturbance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase l, most notably in the form of the following: 7.1 The current and historic landscape surrounding the area of the Petitioners is and always has been agricultural and rural in nature, with woods, agricultural land, farming activities, and country life activities that have spanned numerous generations. What is proposed for the area is huge scale construction, commercialisation, and industrialisation during construction stages that are to last a minimum of fifteen years and which are likely to have permanent effects

31 beyond that period such that there is no prospect of the area ever being returned to its current and historic landscape. 7.2 It is likely to also affect the nature reserves currently in the area, such as at Kingsbury Water Park. Coppice Wood near Seeney Lane Plantation was the environmental mitigation for the recent development of Hams Hall and this woodland w ill be destroyed not once but twice as it is there to offset the earlier development. The Petitioners aver they shall experience adverse effects on all habitats in the area which includes bats, monk jack, reindeer, and birds attracted by the Water Park and wetlands of the area.

Landscape and visual disturbance

8. The Petitioners w ill suffer unacceptable adverse effects from landscape and visual disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of phase 1, most notably in the form of the fo ll owing: 8.1 There will be extensive views of construction activities. The construction sites of the Ma in Compound, Kingsbury Road Railhead and Seeney Lane compound will be located in very close proximity to residential properties and in relation to those properties the magnitude and scale of those construction sites is tremendous. Therefore, the magnitude of change for the area will be of the highest impact and the Petitioners aver that there shall be the overdevelopment of the entire area. 8.2 The loss of greenbelt land and green corridor of flora and fauna caused by the construction of the Proposed Scheme and the completed railway is of particular concern to the Petitioners given the requirement of shield provided from the noise and visual disturbances caused by the existing road network of M42 and M6 Toll Road, and the importance of retaining green belt in this dense transport network area. Current sites proposed for compounds and the Kingsbury Road railhead are presently green belt land and used for agricultural and recreation use. Under current plans those sites will be transformed into huge scale construction and commercial sites leading to the industrialisation of the immediate surrounds of the area. 8.3 The railway is being constructed on concrete viaducts on major portions of the route which will be incongruous and inappropriate in a rural green belt area.

Sound, noise, light & vibration nuisance and disturbances

9. The Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from sound, noise, light and vibration disturbances and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 9.1 Extreme construction noise, light and vibration resulting from the construction sites proposed for the area. 9.2 Noise and/or vibration of construction sites being installed, operated, operations within the sites themselves, increased traffic, deliveries of huge scale and volume materials, and introduction of significant numbers of personnel into the area shall, for the Petitioners, lead to significant and unacceptable adverse effects, on both a temporary and permanent basis.

41 9.3 The Petitioners aver that there shall be substantial interference from noise, in the vicinity of the Railhead which shall include amongst other things the noise of train brakes applied during the movement of rolling stock into and out of sidings and depot and this will in itself cause substantial interference with living conditions for the Petitioners. 9.4 The Petitioners also aver that there shall be serious disturbance from light used to illuminate the Kingsbury Road Railhead, sidings, car parks and access poi nts. 9.5 As the rail way will be on concrete viaducts, the noise from the opera ti on of the trains will be amplified and carry further across open fie lds

Traffic & transport disturbance

10 The Petitione rs w ill s uffer unacceptable adverse effects from traffic a nd transport disturbance and nuisance during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the fo ll owing: 10.1 Huge scale construction and structures, and large-scale infrastructure changes will cause unacceptable adverse effects such as disturbance, nuisance, carbon monoxide pollution, noise and light pollution from in creased transport flows, increased road traffic, arrival and departure of workers from construction and work sites, heavy goods and materials deliveries to work sites, physical changes to existin g road and rail networks, movement of road structures, and construction of rail structures. 10.2 Adverse effects of traffic congestion and general delays; delays in public transport; diversions, and volumetric changes in traffic flows; accident and safety risks; and in particular on Bodymoor Heath Lane and Coton Road because it links two major construction sites on the A4097 and A4091 with no alternative route available. Th is road will suffer the consequences of displaced traffic seeking to avoid the congestion around Dunton Isla nd Uunction 9 on the M42) 10.3 The Petitioners shall experience an increase in all sorts of traffi c flow in the form of trains coming into what will be 3 major construction sites in the area which will include heavy goods vehicles, goods vehicles, rail vehicles, and lighter motorised vehicles such as cars. 10.4 Dunton Island is a major hub for the M6, M42, M6 toll, the A446 London to Lichfield Road, the A4091 Birmingham to Kingsbury Road and the A4097 Tamworth to Coventry Road. HS2 has failed to properly assess and plan for the impact of its works on this already over stretched major junction.

Water resources and flood risk

11. The Petitioners will suffer unacceptable adverse effects from potential water contamination and flood risk during both the construction and completed stages of Phase 1, most notably in the form of the following: 11.1 Already naturally high water levels exist in the area. 11.2 There is the potential for contamination of waste water escaping from the construction sites in that the materials proposed to be used on these sites is heavily industrialised materials,

SI 11.3 There is the potential for contamination of clean water supply to properties in the area in that there wiJJ need to be channelling into that supply and the risk of contamination arises at the point of access and maintenance of provision of this facility. 11.4 Proposed balancing ponds may not cope with the fl ow and may be of an inappropriate design for the area.

12. Acts and omissions on the part of HS2 Ltd which have prejudiced the position of the Petitioners The Petitioners aver that HS2 Ltd have prejudiced the case for local residents and businesses in that they have fai led in their duty to assess the environmental impact on properties; fai led in their duty to meaningfully engage with them; failed to consult or enter into meaningful dialogue with them regarding mitigation/alternative proposals; failed to provide relevant information about the plans for the area in a timely fashion; failed to follow due process and procedure in the late definition of the interface between Phases 1 and 2, thus rendering the Petitioners unable to establish locus standi at all relevant community forums, consultations and discussions with other bodies.

13. The Petitioners' proposals

13. 1 HS2 has already proposed a "Special Management Zone" for the area of the Kings bury Railhead which wiJJ appoint a community e ngagement team to amongst other things, manage relationships w ith the local community. The Petitioners have little faith in this process based on previous experience a nd would like this clarified a nd expanded. The House of Commons Select Committee stated Kingsbury should be a special case and the Petitioners would like this further expanded and defined. The Petitioner would like a "community detriment fund " established for their special case area to cover the unintended and unfo reseen consequences of the construction of HS2 in their area over such a prolonged period of up to 2033 for Phase 1 and Phase 2 13.2 Amend the existing footprint of the Kingsbury Road Railhead to provide for the eastern boundary up to A4097 to include the Kingsbury Road properties located on the A4097, directly up to the A4097 and remove the nose of the Railhead that much fu rther away from the villages of Marston and Bodymoor Heath and to take advantage of existing established boundary vegetation. HS2 should have a commitment to take as little land as possible a nd have never produced an analysis that gives an optimisation of the amount of land required for a Railhead 13.3 In respect of the Kingsbury Road Railhead, safeguard or otherwise compulsory purchase the land area in which the most severely affected properties of the Kingsbury Road and Bodymoor Heath Lane are situate and extend the definition of compensation so that it provides for measurement from the edge of the construction sites from the area and treat the Railhead as a permanent structure for the purpose of calculating compensation. 13.4 Place the Kingsbury Road railhead at lower level effectively sinking it and providing corresponding bunds and mounds and transplant existing semi mature trees to reduce environmental effects, pollution, visibility and nuisance from operations at the site and undertake to restore the land and environment at

61 and in the vicinity of the Rai lhead to its state as at the date of this Petition notwithstanding that mitigation measures will incl ude earthworks and bunding 13.5 Provide alternative access to the construction sites of the Railhead to reduce congestion on the A4097 Kingsbury Road and to provide and implement an effective plan to manage the traffic during construction to include if appropriate the w idening of single carriageway roads. 13.6 Provide undertakings that work shall be carried out o n all roads in the area at sepa rate times only 13.7 Provide a n undertaking to introduce and enforce traffi c calm ing measures in the areas to include in pa rticula r Bodym oor Heath Lane and Coton Road 13.8 provide fin a ncial and practical compensation to the residents of Bodymoor Heath and Marston fo r the di sruption to the ir travel they w ill e ndure for the period of constructio n affecting the only route in and out of their Village 13.9 To involve the local community in the design of balancing ponds and viaducts w hi ch w ill have a continuing impa ct o n this rural environment

PRAYER:

(1) THE PETITIONERS therefore asks the House of Lords that they or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this Petition to the Select Committee which consider this Bill

AND the Petitioners remain etc

SIGNED: by Chairman of the Kingsbury & District Stop HS2 Action Group on behalf of all group members

14-4-20/0 MR IAN THOMAS, CHAIRMAN Date

71 HL: 259

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Jeannette Leyton, Penny Leyton & Joan Leyton

Declares that:

The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

Your petitioners

The petitioners are Jeannette Leyton, 91 year-old owner and current sole occupier of Flat 6 Dinerman Court, 38-42 Boundary Road, London NW8 OHQ f'The Property"], Penny Leyton and Joan Leyton. Penny Leyton and Joan Leyton are Jeannette Leyton's daughters, who will inherit The Property on the death of Jeannette Leyton, which is a relevant fact due to the age of Jeannette Leyton. Jeannette Leyton has been living peacefully at The Property since 1985.

1Your petitioner's concerns

The Petitioners will be specially and directly affected by the Bill due to the Property's proxi mity (less than 70 metres) to underground tunnelling for HS2 phase one and the construction the Alexandra Place vent shaft.

During the 5 (and likely more) years of preparation and construction of the Alexandra Place ventilation shaft, the petitioners will lose car parking spaces and rights of way, with the closure of Alexandra Place, and the use of Dinerman Court car-park as a turn-around for all large non-HS2 vehicles.This will add great difficulty to petitioner Jeannette Leyton's access in and out the building and to local shops and transport.

The construction of the ventilation shaft in Alexandra Place, as well as heavily used construction traffic routes through the surrounding streets, with potentially up to I 00 HGV journeys per day, are likely to have a substantial impact on air quality in the surrounding area - older people such as petitioner Jeannette Leyton are much more likely to suffer serious ill health from poor quality air.

With the constant vibrations from drilling, tunnelling, building and hundreds of HGV journeys, petitioner Jeannette Leyton w ill certainly lose her right to quiet enjoyment of her property.

1 ( of 4 ) Road closures on Alexandra Place, Loudoun road and other neighbouring roads with the resultant traffic reconfiguration, bus stop closures and/or relocation, loss of bus routes and other transport disruptions will cause enormous upset to petitioner Jeannette Leyton. Because of her age and limited mobility, she needs to be certain that access to shops and buses is not made any harder than it currendy is, and that emergency vehicles will not be impeded in their access to the Property.

Because of the 5 years (and likely more) years of constr2uction work with ensuing noise, dust, vibrations and upheaval, the petitioners will suffer a huge loss of property value or potential rental value at a time when, due to the very advanced age, and frail condition of petitioner Jeannette Leyton, the Property may have to be suddenly sold or rented.The loss of property value may continue when HS2 is complete, due to vibrations from underground trains

The Bill allows for rights of entry of persons authorised by the Bill (clause 53) which would be very upsetting for Jeannette Leyton, who is deaf and frail, and may not understand what is going on.

The entire project is likely to be a cause of extreme stress and anxiety to Jeannette Leyton who will be 92 by the time the work starts. It is not unlikely (nor hyperbolic) to say that the environmental and personal disruption caused by this project could undermine her condition to the point of illness or death.

The petitioners wish for the following alterations/assurances:

That should petitioner Jeannette Leyton pass away during preparation for, or construction of, the Alexandra Place ventilation shaft, or during any additional local work connected to HS2, or should Jeannette Leyton be required to vacate the Property to enter a nursing home or similar, or if the petitioners determine that Jeannette Leyton 's health is being significandy impaired by dust, vibration, pollution or disruption to local streets and services, that HS2 be required to purchase the Property for the full value that the Property would have fetched had HS2 not happened, and that the remaining petitioners not be left trying to sell or rent out a property whose value has been significandy undermined by the local blight, dust, noise, upheaval etc caused by works relating to HS2.

That if, due to the impact of local HS2 work (including but not limited to pollution, vibration, noise, dust, road closures, bus-route alterations, general upheaval), should petitioner Jeannette Leyton's health be so materially impaired, or her living conditions deteriorate to such an extent that she has to move out of the Property, the Promoter of the Bill will cover the reasonable cost of any rehousing.

That HS2 will provide and pay for cleaning services at the Property for petitioner Jeannette Leyton, who at 91 (now) is barely able to keep up with cleaning, and will be overwhelmed with the increase of dust, dirt and pollution from the tunnelling, digging work and massive increase in HGV traffic.

That an alternative site for the proposed Alexandra Place ventilation shaft be considered and that HS2 should consult with the community about alternate sites that had previously been rejected.

That if an alternate site for the Alexandra Place ventilation shaft is not found, and in order to overcome the petitioner's concerns over the closure of Alexandra Place, and its use for heavy HS2 site traffic, that Loudoun Road between Fairfax Road roundabout and Alexandra Road be closed to

2 ( of 4) traffic (as it was between 2012-2014) so that lorries could queue up, pick up and drop off alongside the site in Loudoun Road, leaving Alexandra Place open, and reducing pollution and disruption which would be caused by lorries queueing all day in Alexandra Place.

That the HS2 be required to commission and fund a structural survey by an independent surveyor agreed to by the Petitioners to survey the Property before the work commences, and after the tunnelling is complete to ensure that any damage caused by HS2 is clearly identifiable.

As Jeannette Leyton is both elderly and hearing-impaired, the current complaints procedure is likely to be extremely difficult for her to use. The petitioner Jeannette Leyton, now 91, is unable to wait hours in Citizen's Advice Bureaux to get the kind of advice needed to file a complaint o r lawsuit should one be necessary. The petitioners request that a team of appropriately trained professionals (lawyers/solicitors etc) be appointed specifically to deal with concerns and rights of disabled and hearing-impaired elderly people affected by HS2, paid for by th3e Promoter of the Bill.

Due to petitioner Jeannette Leyton's age, limited mobility and absolute reliance on local buses particularly for trips to clinics and hospitals, the petitioners ask that the Promoter provide absolute assurances that the 31 bus will not be re-routed, and that there will be no relocation or closure of South Hampstead Station/Loudoun road 31 bus stops in Belsize Road, and that there will be no closure or alteration of footpaths between these bus stops and the Property which would lengthen the petitioner's journey to the currently closest 31 bus stops. If the 31 bus service is altered such that petitioner Jeannette Leyton cannot easily access it, the petitioners request that taxi services for essential trips to clinics and hospitals be provided and paid for by Promoter.

Due to petitioner Jeannette Leyton's age, frailty, limited mobility and absolute reliance on local store Tesco Metro, the petitioners would like assurances that there will be no closure or alteration of footpaths that result in any lengthening of the journey between the Property and Tesco Metro during HS2 phase one works. In addition the petitioners would like assurances that the route between the Property and Tesco Metro is kept in a condition suitable for a frail 92+ year old to traverse it without difficulty or danger of falling.

The petitioners regard such wording as "reasonably practicable" used in many of the assurances given by the Promoter particularly with regard to environmental concerns, routeing of spoil from and deliveries to the site by rail, compensation, compulsory purchase etc, as making such assurances worthless and would like all phrases including the words "reasonably practicable" and "reasonable endeavours" to be removed from assurances and replaced with concrete declarations of intent.

The petitioners realise t hat any alterations, additional provisions and/or assurances given on the basis of the requests above cannot be made for a si ngle case, such as that of the petitioner Jeannette Leyton, so the petitioners are aware that any alterations/assurances/additional provisions made on the basis of the above requests may be generalised to include any elderly, vulnerable and/or disabled residents in a similar situation to Jeannette Leyton. The petitioners request that any alterations/assurances/additional provisions made to limit the disruptive and harmful effects of HS2 on elderly, vulnerable and/or disabled residents, in similar situations to petitioner Jeannette Leyton, but based on other petitions, include the requests made above.

3 ( of 4 ) The prayer The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

- v f- Jeannette Leyton

Penny Leyton

Joan Leyton

April 14th 20 I 6

4 ( of 4) HL:2so To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION of BALSALL PARISH COUNCIL

Declares that 1. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill, particularly Clauses 1 - 3 (Works), Clauses 20 - 24 (Planning), Clauses 25 - 36 (Deregulation), and Clauses 60 and 61 (Deposited plans and sections). Your Petitioner 2. Your Petitioner is Balsall Parish Council, the council for the Parish of Balsall, situated within the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. 3. The Parish has been in existence since 1894, its population is 6,500. It is in the Meriden ward of the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, adjacent to the parishes of Berkswell, Hampton-in-Arden and Burton Green. The Parish is situated in the Arden landscape around 7 miles west of Coventry and 13 miles to the east of Birmingham. The main settlement of the Parish is Balsall Common, which is a large established rural settlement in the heart of the Meriden Gap that has developed as a commuter base over recent years. Because of its size and elongated shape, it has an influence over a wide area of surrounding countryside. Balsall Common is served by both Balsall and Berkswell Parish Councils, and has an active Residents' Association. 4. The wider Arden landsca pe, with its distinctive fieldscapes, is a popular area for recreational walking, being home to part of the Heart of England Way and a network of footpaths. The Solihull Local Plan sustainability assessment recognised that Balsall Common needed "a large area of accessible natural green space, and improvements to the Greenway" and said of Meriden ward "improvements to the cycle routes and other rights of way are a high priority, as are nature conservation opportunities and new native woodlands". The characteristics of the area are recognised as making "a significant contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the Borough, and where applicable, development proposals will be expected to demonstrate how these characteristics have been conserved".

Balsall Parish Council 1 5. Balsall Common village is bisected by the A452 Kenilworth Road. It is characterised by popular, low density residential areas with an open plan, cul-de-sac style layout and good schools. The village has a thriving local centre astride the A452 with a good range of shops, facilities and services. Balsall Common has one of the highest rates of journeys to work by car in the Borough. There are more congestion and link delays in Balsall Common than any other rural settlement in the Borough. One of the worst congested junctions is Kenilworth Road/ Station Road which is amongst the top ten worst congested junctions in the whole Borough. Berkswell railway station to the north-east of the village provides access to Birmingham, Coventry and London via the West Coast Main Line. Along the A452 Kenilworth Road, within Balsall Common, are 4 senior residential homes, 3 children's nursery schools, a residential care home, and the Heart of England Academy. 6. The Parish is located in the green belt and in what is known as "the Meriden Gap", which is an open green interval separating Birmingham and Coventry. Local and regional planning policy has sought to preserve this gap over the past few decades to ensure that these major cities remain defined and separate. The Gap forms a corridor between Chelmsley Wood and Coleshill, between Bickenhill and Meriden, and (at its narrowest point) between Balsall Common and Tile Hill. Your Petitioner's concerns 7. Residents of Balsall Parish are deeply affected by any development that threatens the rural amenity of the Meriden Gap or is likely to increase or impede traffic. The proposed route of Phase One of High Speed 2 is directly adjacent to the Parish, and is to be constructed overground, largely by way of a series of viaducts. The construction and operational traffic will go through the Parish, in particular on the A452 Kenilworth Road and 84101 Kelsey Lane/Waste lane. The Parish as a whole, and individual members of the community, will experience severe negative impacts. 8. While your Petitioner accepts that construction and operation of the proposed High Speed 2 railway will interfere with and adversely affect the Parish, your Petitioner considers that the powers proposed, and the extent of land acquisition, go considerably further than is necessary and impose too great an impact on a small community that will be severely impacted as a result of the development. 9 . Your Petitioner considers that inadequate provision is proposed to avoid adverse impacts upon the Parish, and to mitigate those that are unavoidable. Your Petitioner supports the view that High Speed 2 should be a sustainable development, which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

Balsall Parish Council 2 their own needs". Your Petitioner considers the Scheme, as currently designed, does not meet this definition. 10. Your Petitioner is unable to support the Bill in its current form, and objects to the Bill for the reasons given below, including: (a) Inadequate cost-benefit analysis of additional tunnelling (b) Construction traffic and works (c) The visual and landscape impacts of the HS2 Scheme (d) Noise impacts (e) Impaired public access to the countryside (f) Ecological impacts (g) Im pacts on water resources and flooding (h) Community compensation (i) Radio frequency blockage Mitigation of impacts through additional tunnelling 11. Your Petitioner is concerned that the current alignment of the route, adjacent the Parish, is to be overground and upon viaducts. In many areas, the viaducts v.rill pass through flat, open, green belt land, which will necessarily have a seriously detrimental visual impact. The viaducts are about 10 m etres high, above which v.rill be overhead line cables as well as noise attenuating barriers. As such, the viaducts v.rill be imposing and fundamentally intrusive structures having a serious impact upon the rural landscape and reducing its amenity. 12. Your Petitioner considers that the majority of its concerns relating to visual, landscape, noise and ecology could be addressed by the construction of a tunnel. Your Petitioner considers that the significant detriment to th e Parish and the residents of the Parish could be substantially mitigated by way of undergrounding the proposed alignment, comprising Work No. 2/ 146 and Work No. 3/ 1, from Burton Green to a point north of Balsall Common. 13. Whilst your Petitioner a ppreciates this may impose an additional cost on the Promoter, it is the view of your Petitioner that any cost to the Promoter ought properly to be balanced against the cost to individuals, to th e community and to local, regional and national economic interest. 14. Protection of this community and the green belt, particularly in this sensitive area, would provide far greater community, ecological and landscape benefits in the long term, than the additional costs of providing the proposed tunnel. Furthermore, prevention of a substantial visually intrusive development in this sensitive landscape

Balsall Parish Council 3 will avert the "slippery slope" of development and urbanisation of the Meriden Gap. 15. Your Petitioner also considers that when a change to the Scheme in the Bill is justified on its merits, it is no answer for the Promoter to say that such a change should be resisted because it goes beyond what is provided for in the Bill. It is the Promoter, not those affected, who have chosen what to put in the Bill and, if they have got that wrong, they should now accept the change. The Promoter has already indicated that further changes to the Scheme will be necessary. Your Petitioner therefore seeks: (a) a commitment that a full assessment of options for a tunnel extending from north of Balsall Common to south of Burton Green be undertaken, including a full cost benefit analysis and consideration of the environmental impacts; (b) a commitment that the results of the full assessment shall be made available to your Petitioner, and that the Promoter will work with your Petitioner in so far as is reasonably practicable to undertake the construction of a tunnel if the assessment concludes that it would be beneficial; (c) subject to the results of the assessment, commitments that appropriate powers will be sought to implement the chosen tunnel option, and that an appropriate tunnel option will be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts of the Scheme to an acceptable level; (d) if the assessment does not show that the construction of a tunnel should be implemented, a commitment that the Promoter will work with your Petitioner to consider alternative means of mitigating the impacts of the Scheme on the Parish. Construction traffic and works 16. Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should make every endeavour to use forms of transport other than the current road system during construction of the railway. The Promoter and nominated undertaker should confirm the numbers and type of vehicles on specific routes and assess impacts accordingly, particularly cumulative impacts. The nominated undertaker should also be required to minimise the cumulative impact of lorry movements by properly managing lorry movements, keeping the number of movements to a minimum, using the strategic road network and confining movements to normal worksite hours. 17 . Your Petitioner is concerned that the proposed construction works on the A452 and th e use of the A452 for construction traffic will result in this already busy road becoming s everely congested due to th e

Balsall Parish Council 4 quantity of construction vehicles using the road. The A452 is the principal route to, through, and from the village, and is already heavily used by Heavy Goods Vehicles. It is also a designated alternative route for traffic when there are problems on the nearby M42. 18. The road passes through the centre of the community close to local schools, nurseries, a care home and 3 senior living housing facilities, all of whose residents are particularly vulnerable to air, noise and vibration pollution. The Health Impact Assessment acknowledges that heavy construction trucks cause safety hazards, health risks, noise, and degrade air quality with particulates and dust. This disruption and environmental pollution will be very inconvenient for local residents who use this route daily for commuting, business and leisure. 19. Your Petitioner is concerned that a number of construction routes identified in the Environmental Statement include roads considered by your Petitioner as inappropriate for haulage use, including: Waste Lane, Hallmeadow Road, Park Lane, Lavender Hall Lane, and Station Road. The character and construction standard of these roads is in your Petitioner's view inappropriate or insufficient to accommodate the levels of construction traffic associated with High Speed 2. The evaluation by the Promoter that the effects are minor or moderate is not accepted by your Petitioner. The use of these roads as construction routes would cause serious harm to the safety, health and convenience of the residents in the vicinity and of those seeking to access the 8alsall Common Medical Centre and 8erkswell Station, as well as other road users. This would cause inconvenience and economic loss for residents and local businesses, for those travelling to and from Birmingham, Coventry, Kenilworth and Warwick, and for users of London Midland rail services. 20. The Promoter accepts that development of the Scheme has resulted in increased projected traffic flows, particularly on the A452 Kenilworth Road and 84101 Kelsey Lane/Waste Lane, but claims the level of significance has remained unchanged. The Petitioner is not reassured by the absence of quantified data, particularly as the report admits the increases in vehicles will make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross the road. 21. Your Petitioner does not understand how there can be a major adverse effect in one section but only a minor adverse effect adjacent to it, particularly with the number of vulnerable road users in the village. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that there will be a re assessment of the construction and operation effects of the proposed works. 22. Your Petitioner is concerned that there has been no re-assessment of the traffi c on 84101 Waste Lane following the relocation of the Cromwell Lane Satellite Compound and other route changes. The Balsall Parish Council 5 Promoter has taken no account of new planning approvals for 130 dwellings on 3 sites on the A452 Kenilworth Road south-east of the junction with the 84101. 23. Your Petitioner therefore seeks a commitment that the Promoter will construct and use a dedicated haul route along, or parallel to, the line of-route, and supports the amendment tabled in the House of Commons that would allow the exclusion of traffic from designated areas. The dedicated haul route would need to run from the depot in Park Lane down to Burton Green, crossing Truggist Lane and the Birmingham and Rugby railway near Truggist Hill. Further, your Petitioner seeks a commitment that the A452 and local roads will only be used as construction haul routes if and to the extent that use of the route along the High Speed 2 track alignment is not practicable in exceptional circumstances. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment that the Promoter will provide alternative free car parking, and access arrangements to Berkswell station for the duration of the works, and that temporary restrictions and closures will be phased with prior agreement of the local Highways Authority 24. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Bill does not set out sufficient means for compensating those impacted by construction activities. These impacts include air pollution, noise, vibration, visual, congestion, dirt and negative amenity, and although temporary, will continue for a number of years. As such, they will have a significant effect on the well-being of many people living in the vicinity. Your Petitioner supports the petitions of those local individuals who have raised such impacts. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment that there will be periods of respite from construction activities and noise, such periods to be agreed with your Petitioner. 25. Your Petitioner continues to be concerned that there will be a deterioration of air quality due to construction works and traffic. Your Petitioner considers that this will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the Parish and the health of its residents, particularly on children and the elderly. Your Petitioner therefore seeks a commitment from the Promoter that there will be a robust system for monitoring the air quality so that control measures can be developed and mitigation put in place, and any costs relating to breaches in air quality standards should be met by the Promoter, not by the local authority. Your Petitioner also seeks an undertaking that the Promoter will consult with the local parish councils, as well as Solihull MBC, to agree mitigation for the effects of construction traffic and to agree the maximum number of construction vehicles allowed at any time. 26. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Code of Construction Practice is in draft form and will remain as such until after the Bill has been enacted, and that there are inadequate controls on its future

Balsall Parish Council 6 amendment. The term "reasonably practicable" is used frequently in the COCP without stating who will judge the practicality of a measure. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment that the more stringent standard of "best endeavours" will be used in the Code. 27. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Code of Construction Practice merely replicates standard industry practices and seeks a guarantee from the Promoter that any future strengthening of industry standards will be complied with. 28. Your Petitioner believes the nominated undertaker should provide detailed plans, method statements, work programmes, and schedules of deliveries (particularly abnormal deliveries) in relation to each work site, well in advance of the commencement of operation in order to minimise their impact on residents and businesses. Your Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Code of Construction Practice to ensure your Petitioner is notified well in advance of any alterations in methods of construction and construction operations, particularly in relation to site servicing and set up arrangements. 29. Your Petitioner also alleges there is a lack of detail on noise mitigation in the Code of Construction Practice and that clear accountability and enforcement protocols are not defined. Your Petitioner would ask that the Promoter be required to address these issues. 30. Your Petitioner considers the measures set out within the Code of Construction Practice are inadequate to fully address the detriment that the proposed Scheme will have on local communities, and seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that funding will be provided for the employment of a local Environmental Health Officer, Ecology Officer, and Archaeological Officer, for the duration of the works, with the power to suspend works should agreed control measures be breached; that start-up and close-down periods of construction will be restricted to 30 minutes to prevent impacts on local residents occurring outside permitted hours of construction; that local approval by your Petitioner will be required for construction activities outside core hours likely to cause undue disturbance through noise, vibration, traffic, dust, fumes, or lighting, and that such work should be justified by the use of major plant or the need to avoid day-time disruption and applied for 14 days in advance; that work areas should be set up, maintained, operated, cl~ared, and reinstated to the satisfaction of your Petitioner with regard especially to the mitigation of visual intrusion, protection and insulation from noise and vibration, and the positioning of vehicle routes; that the nominated undertaker and its contractors will be responsible for providing security staff to maintain good order in and around worker camp sites and work sites to the satisfaction of your Petitioner; that your Petitioner will be consulted and its views considered in relation to local control measures; that the need for a

Balsall Parish Council 7 workers camp outside Balsall Common is reviewed, with consideration given to whether workers could be accommodated at the Bickenhill camp and be transported daily by bus; and that an independent, objective and comprehensive assessment process is undertaken in which the proposed Scheme is assessed for best practice in design, construction and operation stages, and that for project management, the Scheme should achieve CEEQUAL (the Civil Engineering Environmental Accrediting Agency) excellent as a minimum. Impact on roads after construction 31. Your Petitioner is concerned about the substantial increase in traffic that would pass through Balsall Common due to the proposed station at Bickenhill, which will have approximately 7,000 car parking spaces. The increased traffic will cause further air and noise pollution, wear on the road surfaces and inconvenience to local residents. As such, your Petitioner seek a commitment that the Promoter will meet any costs to the local authority for the maintenance of the roads and will seek to monitor and mitigate the impacts of the noise and air pollution. Any costs relating to breaches in air quality standards should be met by the Promoter, not by the local authority. 32. Your Petitioner objects to the proposal to retain the temporary roundabout at Park Lane after construction. The Promoter concedes retention of the roundabout "will result in a new significant moderate adverse effect on pedestrians on Park Lane as increased traffic flows will make it harder to cross the road." Your Petitioner is concerned that creating a permanent roundabout at this point, just 600m from another roundabout on the edge of Balsall Common will have a deleterious effect on the surrounding roads and residents. The Park Lane roundabout will have uneven traffic flows, and is likely to encourage HGV traffic to access unsuitable local roads. There is concern that the traffic impact is under-estimated, in that the route will become attractive, in both directions, to longer-distance commuters heading towards Coventry. Further, it is likely to create a rat run effect for commuters and when the A452 is being used as an emergency route for problems on the M42. Walkers on the Heart of England Way, Public Footpath M2 l 4 , will b e exposed to additional risk. The Promoter does not identify any benefits from the change. Your Petitioner concludes the roundabout is likely to increase accidents and congestion and therefore seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the temporary roundabout will be removed after construction, and that the landscape will be fully reinstated. 33. Your Petitioner objects to the Promoter's proposal for a second extra roundabout on the A452, at the junction with Marsh Lane and the Mercote Hall Lane trackway (Public Bridleway M218). These proposals will result in changes to Works No. 3/9, 3/9A, 3/98, and 3/9C, which

Balsall Parish Council 8 are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and the deposited Plans and Sections. However, no relevant revisions have been made to Schedule 1, Plan Sheet 3 -004, or Section Sheets 6-007 and 6-008. Consequently your Petitioner has no dimensional information upon which to make an informed assessment of the effects of constructing a roundabout which is portrayed in the Environmental Statement map books as some 80 metres in diameter and constructed on a dual carriageway having a 4% gradient. Your Petitioner does not believe the revised Works can be constructed within the Limits of Deviation permitted in Schedule 1 sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), and seek an undertaking from the Promoter that revised Plans and Sections of the relevant Works will be published and that your Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity to make further requests for relief from any injurious affects. 34. The Promoter states that the reason for this change is "improving operational traffic movements northbound and southbound along the A452 Kenilworth Road and into and out of Marsh Lane in this area." Your Petitioner does not agree that the introduction of a roundabout at this section will have any effect of improving traffic movements. This stretch of the A452 is free flowing and the addition of a roundabout will only serve to create delays and prevent the flow of traffic. Currently along this stretch of the A452, we have one roundabout at the junction of Bradnocks Marsh Lane. The two new proposed roundabouts mean this section of the A452 would have three roundabouts. The cumulative impact would be felt in Balsall Common as this prevents free movement of traffic in and out of the village. The impact on residents would be significant together with increased pollution, disruption, and standing traffic. This is acknowledged by the Promoter as "introducing a new delay to through traffic movements for users of the A452 Kenilworth Road itself." Your Petitioner robustly asserts this delay will be significant. There is no evidence of a traffic assessment to support the introduction of a further roundabout. 35. Your Petitioner believes a roundabout near Marsh Lane is inappropriate, because of the topography, the configuration of the Work No. 3/9 bridge, the presence of horse and cycle traffic, the need to avoid interruption of the traffic flow on the dual carriageway, inconvenience to the great majority of highway users, noise, and pollution. Because of the small proportion of traffic entering or leaving the A452 at this point, your Petitioner believes there is no case for inconveniencing and endangering the great majority of road users. Your Petitioner would also point out that a single-carriageway underpass, with signal control, would probably be adequate, and the signals could be arranged to give priority to cyclists and equestrians. The Environmental Statement gives scant mention or assessment of any injurious affects, for instance dismissing the delay to traffic as "not Balsall Parish Council 9 considered to be significant". Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a full evidence-based evaluation will be made of the junction options, and that in evaluating an underpass as discussed above, due weight will be given to the safety and convenience of non vehicular users crossing the A452, to the flow of traffic on the main road, and to the other factors described above. 36. The proposed Marsh Lane roundabout would take up to two years and six months to complete and extend the works of the A452 Kenilworth Road Overbridges satellite compound by six months. Your Petitioner considers this additional delay is unacceptable given the lack actual benefit but clear evidence of serious disruption. It is also admitted by the Promoter that the roundabout would have a major adverse amenity effect on residents, and increase noise and visual effects to residents by a further two months from 13 months to 15 months. However, this effect will become severe as the works to be undertaken at this section are far more intrusive than those proposed in the original Bill. The impact will also be long term and change the nature of the area forever. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking that these works will not be undertaken without a full and detailed traffic assessment. Visual and landscape impacts 37. Your Petitioner is concerned about the visual character and amenity of Balsall Common as a whole, and finds unconvincing the explanation given and the conclusion drawn about the omission of viewpoints 285.2.002 and 285.2.003 from the original Environmental Statement maps. The omission of these viewpoints from t he maps is fundamentally misleading. Your Petitioner considers that the impact on the views from residences along Ridings Hill and from Public Footpath M 196 adjacent to residences on Barrett's Lane will be more significant than the quoted moderate adverse effects, and are likely to be aggravated by subsequent proposed changes. Your Petitioner disputes that the effects will be temporary, as the screening trees, which provide a degree of mitigation, are not within the control of the Promoter. Your Petitioner therefore requests that HS2 Ltd be instructed to issue revised proposals for earlier and upgraded screening proposals to mitigate the visual intrusion of the railway du ring construction and operation, and where there are serious residual unmitigated adverse effects, to agree m eaningful offset and long-term compens atory measures with local communities. 38. The Promoter proposes to retain the roundabout between th e A452 and Park Lane, wh ich was to h ave been provided temporarily during construction. Provision of a balancing pond will increase th e loss of farmland. There will be a considerable loss of visual amenity due to the roundabout itself, a balancing pond and maintenance access, lighting columns and ligh t pollution, and sign age. Your Petitioner seeks an

Balsall Parish Council 10 undertaking from the Promoter that the temporary roundabout will be removed after construction, and that the landscape will be fully reinstated. 39. The other proposed roundabout at Marsh Lane also include a proposal for street lighting along this whole section of the A452 dual carriageway, which it is admitted will increase urbanisation within the rural context. Your Petitioner finds no need for the intrusion and loss of amenity caused by street lighting within this rural area, and seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the proposal for lighting will be withdrawn. 40. It is evident that the Promoter now proposes to make the balancing pond behind the cottages in Marsh Lane even wider than proposed initially in the Bill. Your Petitioner is disappointed that the Promoter has failed to respond to earlier representations that pointed out a water feature of this size would be incongruous with the area, would expose residents to nuisance from mosquitoes and other water breeding insects, and present a hazard for young children. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the balancing pond will be changed to move it away from dwellings, and that the necessary volume will be divided between smaller ponds distributed along the line. 41. The Promoter also proposes to thin the screening plan ting around the balancing pond, while no additional plantings have been proposed to screen the raised elevation of the roundabout and carriageways. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that additional screening plantings will be made, that these plantings will be done early in the construction phase following best practice guidance, and that the Promoter will make enduring agreements to provide on-going care and maintenance. 42. Your Petitioner is concerned that the viaducts and other infrastructure associated with the Scheme do not properly respect the environmental character of the area and are designed to be purely functional rather than sympathetic to their surroundings. Neither is their design iconic, which would be expected of a route providing a gateway to the West Midlands. The Promoter favours concrete as the most appropriate material for the construction of the viaducts and structures. This is not an assessment accepted by your Petitioner, who considers that the viaducts, in particular, would have major adverse effects on the landscape. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a Design Manual will be agreed with each local planning authority to ensure the design of major structures is of high quality, and supports the amendment to the Bill, tabled in the House of Commons, that would make the deemed planning permission for these structures dependent on approval by the relevant parish or town council.

Balsall Parish Council 11 43. Your Petitioner considers that the height of the proposed Balsall Common Viaduct will cause major visual intrusion in the area around Truggist Lane. The elevation of the rails above Truggist Lane would be 9.51 m, to which must be added the height of the noise barriers and overhead line equipment. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment from the Promoter that the visual impact of the viaduct and noise barriers will be reduced by using an alternative design, such as a through-truss structural design with integral side walls above the tracks rather than a box structure beneath them, and that the height of the rails will be significantly reduced. Furthermore, your Petitioner seeks a commitment from the Promoter that the design of the viaduct and associated noise barriers and overhead line equipment shall be of a high design standard and to be agreed with your Petitioner. 44. The Promoter has introduced a further bridge, Work No. 2/ 184, across the Kenilworth Greenway, as a replacement for 2 existing structures near Little Beanit Farm. The existing Victorian structures are constructed of brick and cast iron, and are characteristic of the Kenilworth Greenway as a whole. To preserve the overall amenity, your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that Work No. 2/ 184 will be designed to match the current structural style and will be constructed from, or clad with, original bricks salvaged from the demolition of the existing bridges. Noise impacts 45. Your Petitioner is concerned about the potential noise impacts arising from the construction and operation of the proposed works. Construction noise and railway noise are particularly noticeable in rural areas and the impact on those in the vicinity of the works should not be under-estimated. Your Petitioner urges that the Promoters be put to the strictest proof that their noise assessments are accurate, that they have adopted the best and most appropriate standards, that these have been applied correctly and that adequate provision has been made in all cases to avoid or, insofar as that is impracticable, to mitigate and compensate for the adverse effects. 46. Your Petitioner does not consider that the Promoter has undertaken a sufficient noise assessment in relation to the operational impact of the Scheme on the local community. A significant number of residential and commercial properties are located within 200 metres of the proposed alignment and there are no natural barriers to such noise due to the flat, open nature of the surrounding rural area. The noise impacts are likely to have a severe impact on the health and well-being of such local residents. 4 7. Your Petitioner is concerned that the proposed Scheme does not include noise barriers at all locations along the proposed railway. Even where it would be in a cutting, it is critical that there are effective noise Balsall Parish Council 12 barriers, due to proximity to resi.dential and commercial properties. Further, your Petitioner considers that the Promoter has not clearly stated the level of noise attenuation that will be achieved by the noise barriers on the Balsall Common Viaduct, Beechwood Embankment and Rail underbridge (Work no. 3/ 1). Your Petitioner supports the amendment to the Bill, tabled in the House of Commons, that would set a statutory noise limit, and seeks a commitment from the Promoter that noise barriers will be provided where needed ensure that the maximum noise level from the passage of a train will not exceed 60 dBA at a distance of 200 metres from the line, that properties exposed to a higher noise level will be provided with sound insulation and air conditioning to reduce the interior maximum noise level from the passage of a train to no more than 45 dBA, and that the Promoter will certify that noise levels on bridleways, the Kenilworth Greenway, and on roads are safe for the riding and leading of horses. 48. Your Petitioner therefore seeks a commitment that the Promoter will: (a) undertake a full assessment, using noise levels reflective of the prevailing conditions and provide additional noise mitigation measures as a result of such assessment; (b) consider, during its assessment of a tunnel in this area (see paragraph 15 above) whether, the tunnel would provide a suitable form of mitigation in relation to noise pollution and will consider the benefits of such mitigation when balancing the need for the tunnel against the cost; (c) further consider the noise impacts on local wildlife and how this can be mitigated and will seek to agree such mitigation measures with your Petitioner; and (d) amend the Bill accordingly. Impaired public access to the countryside 49. The Kenilworth Greenway is of great value to the Parish and its residents. It is a major recreational resource for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, joggers, naturalists and photographers. The Bill includes a provision to use the Greenway for heavy vehicles during construction of the proposed railway, and to reinstate it to its original condition following construction. Your Petitioner understands the Promoter has told the House of Commons Select Committee that any weak structures in the Greenway will be strengthened, but it seems that use of the Kenilworth Greenway during construction would cause irreparable damage to the structure, drainage system, culverts, embankments, flora, and fauna. This would result in a significant loss of amenity to our residents using the Greenway. Your Petitioner considers that a temporary parallel haul route should be created and used instead. Your Petitioner therefore seeks a commitment from the Balsall Parish Council 13 Promoter that the Kenilworth Greenway will not be used for construction traffic other than in exceptional circumstances. 50. Your Petitioner is concerned that if the Kenilworth Greenway were to be used by traffic during the construction phase, it would lead to the unnecessary felling of trees along the Greenway. Because of the length of time taken for trees to reach maturity, there would be significant loss of landscape amenity if trees are felled or damaged. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment from the Promoter that the felling of mature trees along the Kenilworth Greenway will only take place if essential for the passage of equipment, that the root systems of all the Greenway trees will be effectively protected th roughout the construction operations, that damaged or fe lled trees will be replaced early in the construction phase following best practice guidance, and that the Promoter will make enduring agreements to provide on-going care and maintenance of replacement trees. 51. The Bill includes a provision to provide a temporary cycle- and bridle way, (Work No. 2/ 183B), as a substitute for the Kenilworth Greenway during construction of the Scheme. Whilst this provision is welcomed, your Petitioner would draw attention to a loop in the proposed way that causes it to run alongside the Cromwell Lane Satellite Compound. Not only would this add further distance to the route, but it would also expose Greenway users to noise, poor visual amenity, and airborne pollutants. Your Petitioner therefore seeks an amendment to the route of the temporary cycle and bridleway so that it runs across the field sou th-west of the Cromwell Lane Satellite Compound in a continuous line, rather than making several changes of direction to follow the field boundary. 52. The Promoter has changed the route of the temporary cycle- and bridle-way, Work No. 2/ 183B, to run along Waste Lane for about 40 metres. No detail is given in the Environmental Statement, and your Petitioner is concerned about the safety of users. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the temporary route of the temporary cycle- and bridle-way along Waste Lane will be segregated from vehicle traffic to ensure the safety of users. 53 . The Greenway crossing of Cromwell Lane was very unsatisfactory in the original scheme, and your Petitioner is pleased that the Promoter has acceded to requests for an underpass. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the underpass will be designed, built, and certified by the Promoter to be fully suitable and safe for horse-riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. 54. The Promoter proposes to replace more than 1.5 kilometres of the Kenilworth Greenway with a substitute route, which has ramps up and down where it runs above the Burton Green Tunnel. The Highway Design Manual gives a preferred maximum gradient for mixed use of Balsa!! Parish Council 14 3%. This would mitigate safety issues, the icing risk, and the probability of extra wear to the surface. Your Petitioner asks that the maximum gradient of the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway be reduced to 3%, and that future operators of the proposed railway will pay the owners of the Greenway any costs involved in keeping the inclined sections in good condition and free of ice. 55. Near the electrical sub-station at Burton Green, by a cutting with graded earthworks, the Promoter refers to "improved mitigation earthworks". Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that there will be proper screening to ensure horses on the reinstated Kenilworth Greenway will not be startled by sudden-onset noise or the sight of fast-moving trains. 56. At Waste Lane, your Petitioner considers the Promoter's proposal for Public Footpath M 184 are inadequate and there is insufficient room for noise barriers and the planting of trees and shrubs where the path runs parallel to the Greenway. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that adequate space will be provided for an effective noise barrier and the planting of foliage to conceal the barrier between the areas with public access and the proposed railway, that the proposed access ramp between the Kenilworth Greenway and Footpath M184 at Waste Lane will be suitable for all footpath users, and that a ramp, with a gradient of no more than 5%, will be provided up the embankment of Work No. 2/ 186 to link Footpath M184 to the realigned Waste Lane. 57. The Promoter is offering to create access to the Kenilworth Greenway from Station Road at Berkswell Station, but no details have been made available of the proposed Work. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the diversion of the footpath Ml 96 will be designated as Works in the Bill with published plans and sections, that the Greenway extension will be designated as a Public Bridleway, and that the maximum gradients for the Greenway extension and M 196 will not exceed best practice values to suit all potential users. 58. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Kenilworth Greenway and the re routed substitute section (Work No. 2/ 182) are reinstated in a way that restores the original ambience. The essential character of the Greenway is the product of decades of naturalisation of the old man made rail-bed. The Promoter has given no clear specification for the foliage to be planted along the whole length of the Greenway and its substitute. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that a clear specification for restoration works and replanting will be agreed with your Petitioner and the Greenway Trust, that the original part of the Greenway and Work No . 2/ 182 will be planted on both sides with native tree species to reproduce the original ambience, that

Balsall Parish Council 15 the trees and shrubs will be of sufficient height and density to screen the noise barriers, that additional land will be allocated for this purpose if required, that this planting will be done early in the construction phase following best practice guidance and that the Promoter will make enduring agreements to provide on-going care and maintenance. 59. The residents of Balsall Parish make substantial use of the network of Public Rights of Way in the areas through which the proposed railway would run. Your Petitioner is concerned that many changes to the network have been proposed without the local consultation that ordinarily would be expected, and that these changes have a serious adverse impact on the amenity and convenience of these routes. Despite a number of representations, the Promoter seems unaware of

the current alignments of some of these Rights of Way1 and the Promoter has failed to publish Plans and Sections setting out clearly the proposed changes. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that no changes will be made to Public Rights of Way without proper consultation with interested parties, that priority will be given to preserving or enhancing the amenity and convenience of ways affected by the Scheme, that the Promoter will check the claimed alignments of all Public Rights of Way in our area against the relevant Definitive Map and will correct the Bill documents accordingly, that Plans and Sections will be published of ways that are to be modified substantially, and that your Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity to make further requests for relief from any injurious affects that become apparent. Ecological impacts 60. The quality of life enjoyed by residents of the Parish is affected to a large degree by the rural amenity of adjacent areas. Your Petitioner is greatly concerned by the impact of the proposed railway on the landscape, rural economy, public rights of way, ecology, and hydrology of the area to the east and north of Balsall Common. Your Petitioner seeks an assurance the Promoter will implement measures to reduce the detrimental effects that will be caused by the proposed railway by placing as much as possible of the route in cutting or tunnel as proposed earlier in this Petition. 61. Your Petitioner is concerned that insufficient recognition and protection have been given to the major biodiversity of flora and fauna, including an ancient heronry, in Marlowes Wood. The current proposal threatens the whole wood and its ecosystem. Once they have gone they are gone forever. Herons are renowned for being easily disturbed and they, together with the bats, owls and other mammals, will lose their habitats of mature ancient trees and hedgerows. Current mitigation is not satisfactory, as this will destroy Marlowes

Balsall Parish Council 16 Wood and seeks to introduce new planting which will take decades to establish. It takes 200 years for an oak tree to fully mature. Everything from microbes in the soil, fungi, and plants, to the invertebrates, butterflies, moths, and small mammals, to the herons, bats, owls and all the other species, will be lost, probably for ever, unless there is a substantial improvement in the mitigation. Your Petitioner requests that the maximum protection be given to the Wood as it is now, that the proposed mitigation and offset plantings be fully reappraised, and that no construction sites should be located within the Wood. 62. Your Petitioner does not believe that the reduction of the planned broadleaved planting by the A452 Kenilworth Road at Marlowes Wood to a 20m strip is acceptable. These trees will provide insufficient habitat and screening, particularly as the trees will take at least a generation to grow sufficiently to be effective. 63. Trees are critical features in the landscape and need long-term planning and care due to their slow growth rate. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment from the Promoter that where tree planting is to be used as an offset, a replacement ratio of 5-for-1 will be used in order to ensure satisfactory replacement, and that advice from the relevant parish and town councils and local interest groups on species and locations will be heeded. 64. Your Petitioner notes that the proposed Scheme will entail damage or removal of hedgerows throughout the local area, with serious implications for the complete ecosystems to which they give shelter. Your Petitioner notes the intention to plant substitute lengths of hedging, but seeks a commitment from the Promoter that the replacement hedges will be planted and nurtured to maturity in appropriate locations, using species that are similar to those displaced, and that the overall scheme of planting will provide a quantity and quality of habitats equivalent to those that have been lost. 65. The Natural England Bat Mitigation Guidelines 2004 run to 76 pages. It states that mitigation plans should be opened up to public scrutiny, and that the long term security of bat populations should be assured. Every bat species, and 9 have been identified in area CFA23, have different life habits for mating, breeding, hibernating and feeding. The Guidelines report that mitigation by compensatory creation of new roosts is impossible. Isolation and fragmentation of colonies are High Risk issues. Your Petitioner urges that the Promoter be required to comply with specialist advice and ensure adequate green corridors are provided along and across the proposed railway. 66. Otters and their habitats are of deep concern. There is evidence they inhabit the banks of the River Blythe, its tributaries, and even under the A45 overbridge at Stonebridge. During the construction process, Balsall Parish Council 1 7 there will be disturbance and damming of water-courses, together with the toxic affects of huge amounts of concrete. Multiple types of pollution from construction and operation will have a severe negative impact on their habitats and, therefore, their survival. Your Petitioner requests that protective m easures are adopted in full. 67. The absence, in various reports, of amphibians and other species is surprising; fish were named as possible predators which is true, however, the Great Crested Newt spends much of its life cycle out of water on pasture. There was no indication of wider research projects being set up to determine the accuracy of the presumption of absence. This is yet another endangered species at considerable risk during the construction of the proposed Scheme. Your Petitioner requests further intensive research is commissioned and the acted upon. Impacts on water resources and flooding 68. The reports in the Environmental Statement on Water Resources and Flood Risk are of concern to your Petitioner. The area is subject to regular and significant flooding of the River Blythe Valley and its tributaries. Your Petitioner is aware that Global Warming may make these occurrences more frequent and severe, and believes there is an increased risk of polluted run-off from the proposed railway. Your pe titioner requests a commitment to undertake further research and review the mitiga tion measures to deal with these matters. 69. Associated with th e roundabout proposed at Marsh Lane on the A452 is an increase in the culverted length of Bayleys Brook by 45 metres. The additional constructional works would be close to the Brook, which is designated a habitat of principal importance. Your Petitioner is concerned that the safeguards in the Code of Construction Practice will provide inadequate protection, and that, after construction, the predicted increase in flood levels will be exceeded because of obstruction of the culverts. It appears that the proposed roundabout and connecting roads have been superimposed on the previous scheme without a full evaluation of the hydrological impacts. Your Petitioner seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that the diversion of Bayleys Brook n ear Marsh Lane will be re-evaluated, that a route will be chosen to minimise th e culverted length, and that the Promoter will m ake enduring agreemen ts to ensure th e Brook and its culverts are kept clear of obstructions so th at wildlife is able to move freely along its course. Community compensation 70. Your Petition er is concerned that, without further protection, th e proposed works will leave a negative legacy on the land scape and communities in their area. Whilst the Environmental Statem ent contains mitigation for a number of identified adverse impacts, your

Balsall Parish Council 18 Petitioner considers tha t the aggregation of a large number of adverse impacts not considered significant would result, when considered across the whole of your Petitioner's area, in significant adverse effects on the environment and local communities. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter be required to establish a local Community Fund, as a means to offset the on-going generalised harm inflicted on the wider area, including that of of your Petitioner. The Fund would be used for replacement and additional facilities, infrastructure, and other mitigation. Such funds were established in respect of Birmingham Airport and other major infrastructure projects, for example, High Speed 1 and the Hinckley Point nuclear power station. 71. Further, your Petitioner seeks a commitment from the Promoter that future operators of the proposed railway will be required by contract to maintain the Community Fund to support community projects in the areas of Solihull Borough adversely affected by the Scheme, that the fund will be administered by a committee drawn from local parish and town councils and other relevant bodies, that the operator of the railway will be obliged by contract to contribute £100000 annually to the fund, and that the Fund will receive the proceeds from (inter alia) any penalty charges imposed for exceeding environmental limits. 72. Businesses are likely to suffer impairment as a result of disruption during the construction phase. Your Petitioner considers it would be fair for businesses so affected to be provided with some relief from business rates, and seeks an undertaking from the Promoter that provision will be made to assist businesses who can demonstrate impairment due to construction of the Works. Radio frequency blockage 73. Your Petitioner considers that the proposed Balsall Common Viaduct, other high structures, and embanked sections of railway could block or distort electromagnetic signals used for television, mobile telephones, emergency services, and navigation. Residents, businesses, and service providers would suffer inconvenience, hazard, and expense if signals were blocked or distorted. The Promoter has failed to carry out an assessment and has failed to distinguish the issue from that of interference, which is regulated by Ofcom. Your Petitioner seeks a commitment from th e Promoter that a prompt and proper investigation of the potential blockage of radio signals will be carried out, that all necessary powers and funding will be provided for installing repeater stations to ensure a full service, and that these devices will be positioned to minimise the impact on the landscape.

Balsall Parish Council 19 74. For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless appropriate safeguards are provided to protect your Petitioner and the Bill is amended as proposed above, so far affecting your Petitioner, the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law. 75. There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner and its rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner. The Prayer The Petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Shafim Kauser, Clerk to Balsall Parish Council

14 April 2016

Balsall Parish Council 20 HL: 261

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF PETER CUNDALL

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

Your petitioner is the owner of a property in Albert Street North, where he has lived over 43 years. It was his family home, where his son and daughter started life and, later on .at various times they have come back to live here for extended periods.

The house is grade 2 listed as are nearly all the houses in this section of the street, along with a Victorian pub (The · Spread Eagle) and approximately 30 flats. All these properties are also in a conservation area . It is a quiet residential street with only about 10-20 vehicles passing every hou r and still one of the very few intact streets in the area preserving Camden Town's Victorian heritage.

But it is also approximately 100 meters from the proposed tunnelling works and these buildings have no proper foundations and are mostly constructed from bricks and weak lime mortar. As a consequence, potentially serious damage can easily be caused by vibrations from HGVs.

2. Your petitioner and his interests are injuriously affected by the bil l as passed by the House of Commons for reasons outli ned below.

If the bill were to be passed by the House of Lords in its present form, his property and his enjoyment of life would be significantly blighted for many years to come.

3. Following representations made to HS2 Ltd and to the Houses of Commons Hybrid Bill Select Committee, your petitioner has received formal assurances from the Secretary of State that:

(i) The cellars belonging to his house will not be required for the utilities works planned for Albert Street North, thus overriding Compulsory Purchase Order Notices which had previously been wrongly served by HS2 Ltd;

4. Your petitioner welcomes these assurances but remains extremely concerned about the impacts the planned construction works for the Camden and Euston areas will have on the street and the immediate neighbourhood, which will also have a seriously detrimental effect on our well-being as residents. These impacts are described in the AP3 Environmental Statement and will last for many years. They include:

(i) Hundreds of heavy goods vehicles a day on adjacent streets - creating noise, air pollution, accident risk and additional vehicle congestion in an already congested area;

(ii) Noise and air pollution from construction activity in the Camden Cutting, bearing in mind that the pollution in Camden is already above EEC permitted levels;

(iii) Heavy construction work and construction traffic for up to two years on the street caused by the rerouting of utilities; and the possibility that, in spite of the assurance given on construction traffic (see pa ra 3 (ii) above), our street may be used for construction traffic for many more years if Camden Council decides to use it to reduce pressure of HGV traffic on adjoining streets;

For all these reasons, your petitioner is likely to suffer a reduced ability to sell his property should he wish to do so, and a reduction in its value. s. Various mitigation measures and assurances have been offered to him (see para 3 above) and to other local residents by HS2 Ltd, and a number of assurances have been provided to Camden Counci l. These are welcome as far as they go. But they do not address the fundamental problem - that the route into Euston as currently designed, and the plans for Euston station as provided for in Additional Provision 3, will impose impacts of intolerable magnitude and duration for residents on our street and in the adjoining neighbourhood.

6. Accordingly, your petitioner ASKS the committee to recommend a fundamental rethink of the design of the route into Euston and of the redevelopment of Euston station to radically reduce the negative impacts of the current plans noted above. There are several alternative design options in existence for both the station and for the route into Euston. Lack of transparency on the part of HS2 Ltd and the government has meant that we do not know to what extent these options have been seriously considered. The government has previously refused Freedom of Information requests for such information. Our strong impression is that serious consideration of alternative options has not taken place. HS2 Ltd and the government should now make public any such analyses they have done on alternative options. HS2 Ltd's current plan for Euston station and the approach route into it, along with potential alternative options, should be subject to a comprehensive comparative technical, economic, financial and socio/environmental evaluation. In this evaluatio"n, proper weight should be given to the interests and well-being of the residents and businesses of Camden, bearing in mind the House of Commons HS2 Select Committee's conclusion that "Camden is exceptional and needs special treatment".

7. Furthermore, he ASKS the committee to recommend that until this comparative evaluation has been undertaken and considered by the government and by Parliament, there should be no construction work started between Old Oak Common and Euston.

8. Whether or not the committee is willing to recommend the ASKS in paras 6 and 7 above, he strongly urges it to recommend a range of additional mitigation measures, covering in particular:

(i) Volume of HGV traffic to and from the construction site. He attaches high importance to reducing the amounts of spoil from the site and materials into the site being transported by HGVs, with the great majority being carried by rail instead. He will be watching closely for the revised spoil and materials transport plan promised by the Secretary of State by the end of May.

(ii) A stronger monitoring and adjudication regime to cover HGVs, and noise and air pollution from the construction site.

10. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Name: Peter Cundall SignaturE HL: 262

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF HILARY WHARF AND BRUCE WESTON

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Biii as they have a property at South Heath that 1s near enough to the planned route and bored tunnel portal to be adversely affected in many ways - both during the eight years of construction and in operation.

2. Your petitioners

Your Petitioners are Hilary Wharf and Bruce Weston who are the joint freeholders of Boeken. Frith Hill (South Heath Leg), South Heath. Great Missenden. HP16 9QF. This property where they have lived for the last 19 years 1s sited on the top of the ridge on the east of the Misbourne valley about 1.5km from Great Missenden in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ("the AONB") on the western side of South Heath. Their property currently enjoys a tranquil location with far reaching views of the countryside, but will be within sight and sound of HS2. Boeken is a substantial property. with an interesting history and built to take advantage of the extensive westerly views. It is also an equestrian property, with paddocks, stables. out buildings, and a surfaced equestrian exercise area. It has a tennis court. gardens and a residential anne. Boeken: • Lies within 250m of the line of HS2. and about 350m from the north portal exit point of the bored Chiltern tunnel. • W ill overlook a haul road. unless it is relocated. that will cross currently untouched green fields that will handle all the construction traffic - cars. materials. as well as spoil from cuttings • W ill have some spoil heaps opposite it; and a new taller pylon sited nearer the property • W ill lose access to its footpath to Jenkins Wood that is used regu larly • Will suffer peak noise when HS2 is operational well in excess of WHO Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and at 67dB is one of the worst effected locations in the area • Exits onto the Frith Hill SHL and will suffer increased access issues at the GM link roundabout, especially in the peak.

Your petitioners are both now retired. Bruce Weston has recently suffered acute ill health, being hospitalised in September 2015 as a result of severe pulmonary embolisms on both lungs. The greater part of their personal wealth is tied up in their equity in Boeken. which is unsuited as a residence in retirement as it 1s far too large and the grounds are now too difficult to maintain given that Bruce has ceased to enjoy good health Your Petitioners· property has been on the market for nearly a year and no one has made any offer. Local agents all confirm the property is blighted by HS2. 3 Your Petitioners concerns

Your petitioner has two main concerns • Firstly, that HS2 Ltd may fail to purchase Boeken under the 'Need to Sell' scheme at its full un-blighted value

Your petitioners are in discussion with HS2 Ltd as to the method of valuation. While the method is expected to change. HS2 Ltd have been unable (or unwilling) either to clarify precisely how the revised arrangements will operate, or how the exi sting and future valuation methods will interact. This has introduced unwelcome delay into the process • Secondly, that the mitigation currently proposed for the immediate area (in terms of noise, preserving communities. access to nearby places, protection of the AONB landscape and the environment. maintaining social and business needs, addressing residents health and wellbeing) is inadequate. There is concern that o As more properties are bought by HS2 Ltd (under either compulsory purchase or 'Need to Sell' arrangements). less priority is given by HS2 Ltd to ensuring good mitigation: the persistent pressure of some of the most affected residents ceases when they are bought out o The continued subjection of possible mitigations to the requirement to be 'reasonably practicable' 1s being used as a means to leave residents with poor mitigation and substantial ad verse impacts. The Promoter's estimation of what is 'reasonably practicable' sometimes seriously underestimates the value of avoiding environmental harm This second concern is addressed locally by extending the Chilterns bored tunnel throughout the AONB. or at minimum one mile further to Leather Lane Noise

Your Petitioners believe that the area behind the portal (that includes Boeken) will be exposed to excessive noise. and that reasonable measures to reduce this exposure have not been adopted:

• Night-time peak noise greatly exceeds LOAEL, eg the peak noise from HS2 is 67dBaLAMax at Boeken 84% of the 43 homes that are in excess of 65dBaLAMax in the area lie south of the portal (on Frith Hill SHL. Bayleys Hatch. and Sibleys Rise) • Any noise above LOAEL has adverse health effects on at least some people , and this is imposed on residents without their consent. or compensation, or even making this clear (HS2 ltd has persistently failed to publish the peak noise contours). • No acoustic screening is proposed for the west side (ie Bocken's side) of HS2. The topology of the proposed access to the portal leaves the west side particularly exposed. • The noise exposure will be much worse for Bocken's grounds. as they are closer to the portal. • Despite being an equestrian property no risk assessment was conducted to establish the appropriate mitigation eg for use of the arena, and no mitigation is provided. • If slab track becomes the required method of construction outside tunnels. noise levels may be considerably higher than those estimated in the Environmental Statement (ES) • During construction the new haul road at the rear of property wi ll expose the entire property to noise. While HS2 Ltd have agreed to discuss moving the haul road , nothing 1s yet agreed • Boeken. like other nearby properties. may be exposed to tunnel boom. The Promoter has refused to give a binding undertaking that he will prevent this happening.

The Promoter has made the avoidance of exposing people to harmful levels of noise subject to a test of reasonable practicability. This is an additional source of concern, as the Promoter may decide that it is not reasonably practicable to remain within the noise values estimated fo r the ES.

There is no special provision for the protection of relatively quiet places, and the Promoter's approach works in a manner that offers less protection where fewer people live. This is concerning, as Boeken is located in a relatively quiet location, as are the footpaths that link Potter Row to Great M1ssenden. and no acoustic protection has been provided.

Visual detriment

Your Pet1t1oners are concerned that insufficient effort is being made to avoid visual detriment to both Boeken, the footpaths between Great Missenden and Potter Row and to Great Missenden Potter Row and nearby hamlets. Two of the electricity pylons will be removed, and a considerably higher pylon will be installed instead. with provision in the Bill, but not the ES , to have two taller pylons.

2 Waste light from traction power arcing and from night-time maintenance will spoil the nightscape and the visibility of stars in the night sky, not only for Boeken, but more generally in the area. Construction traffic will be visible in the currently tranquil valley behind Boeken. These issues would be resolved by extending the bored tunnel, and at least as far as Leather Lane. Access

The siting of the haul road to join the A413 at the Great Missenden Link Road roundabout will have a serious impact on congestion, the ability to join or cross the A413 in morning and evening peaks. causing dislocation and isolation from crucial facilities for all in South Heath (and Boeken }. After persistently denying the existence of these adverse impacts. HS2 Ltd conceded their earlier traffic numbers were wrong.

These impacts could be relieved by extending the bored tunnel, and at least as far as Leather Lane, and would be partly relieved if the haul road is moved to join the A413 in the vicinity of Leather Lane.

While HS2 ltd has agreed to discuss moving the haul road with Bucks County Council. they have made no commitment. and .do not intend to change the hybrid bill. It therefore cannot be re lied upon

The footpath between the Link Road ro undabout and Potter Row will be closed during construction.

Cost and safety

( There are a number of unresolved technical problems with HS2 that mean that there will be some combination of:

• Excessive risk from derailment or train collision, relating to the instability of the track bed and embankments. and the operation of trains without sufficient headway to prevent collisions in the event of a train stopping rapidly • Add1t1onal cost from the instal lation of slab track with noise prevention features. track bed and embankment stabilisation • Lower operational speeds. with a resultant reduction 1n journey time savings, but with the option for less environmentally damaging routing (possible at lower speeds because a greater curvature is practicable) ruled out by the issue being addressed so late • Additional adverse environmental impacts from the generation of additiona l noise

HS2 1s due to start being constructed within a year, so there is no realistic possibility that technical development will resolve the problems with little additional cost.

Your Petitioners are concerned that neither the first nor fourth possibilities arise, and that the anticipatable additional costs or lower speeds be taken into account before the design of HS2 is finalised, so that alternative methods of construction that avoid the need for these add itional costs, eg tunnel ling , are assessed against the full cost of HS2 Ltd's currently preferred method of construction.

There 1s also a risk of sabotage, as causing a derailment of a very high speed train would be catastrophic The risk is primarily where HS2 operates in the open. Your petitioner is concerned that HS2 Ltd are not regarding this risk as something that needs to be minimised at th e design stage.

In addition the basis of the Promoter's cost estimates for alternative options, ie extra tunnelling, are not robust: the unit costs of tunnel boring are grossly inconsistent compared to benchmark tunnels given in a study cited by HS2 Ltd themselves. Properly taken into account these factors increase the relative attractiveness of additional bored tunnelling. Your Petitioners are concerned that HS2 Ltd have biased their evaluations of tunnel extensions in a way that exaggerates their relative cost. and have fai led to respond to a request for an open-books approach.

3 Your Petitioners believe that it is now necessary for an independent evaluation of the cost of the options to be undertaken. Th is should also include a proper assessment of the value to society of better protecting the AONB.

Compensation

The prospect of proximity to HS2 and the works in connection with construction has reduced the desirability and saleability of Boeken. This has been accepted by HS2 Ltd .

Your Petitioners' concerns are about the method by wh ich the value of the property is assessed by HS2 ltd. The arrangements for this were criticised before the HoCSC, and new arrangements are shortly to be announced, following the Phase 2a consultation . The precise details have not been declared, and questions about how the old and new arrangements interact remain unanswered.

Your Petitioners' concerns are that the valuation method currently adopted may underestimate the true un-blighted value ie the likely open market realisation were the property not blighted.

The new arrangement is understood to allow the applicant to select a valuer who is not on HS2 Ltd's list rf he wishes. This can extend the number of local valuers available, but stil l does not require HS2 ltd themselves to select a local valuer. Local valuers shou ld be selected in preference to others.

Your Petitioners are concerned that the absence of any appeals process means that should the valuation process result in a demonstrably low offer price. there is no opportunity fo r redress .

Your Petitioners are also concerned that the NtS scheme relies too much on discretion. The recent increase in approved cases coincides with increased criticism by th e Hoc SC over ,ts operation . The rules should be fairer. be more responsive to blight as determined by the market, and make compensation more accessible to all those affected.

Remedy

Your Petitioners request that the bored tunnel be extended throughout the AONB. Fa iling that your Petitioners request that it is extended at least a further mile to Leather Lane.

Your Petitioners believe that the Promoter should be obliged to change his policy on noise so that:

• The LOAELs adopted for HS2 should correspond to the WHO recommendations (only that for peak night-time noise does) • Lower noise targets shou ld be specified for relatively quiet areas • Harmful levels of noise should be prevented • The excuse for failure to reduce noise levels to below a harmful level that it is too expensive to be reasonably practicable should not be admissible

Your Petitioners bel ieves that the discretionary compensation arrangements be amended so that:

• There are clear and comprehensive rules concerning eligibility • The rule concerning location should be dropped • Persons prepared to suffer the costs of moving should automatically be eligible if they can demonstrate that HS2 is blighting their property • The NtS valuation process be improved to produce better estimates of unblighted values • There is an independent appeals process

4 • The 'retrospective compensation' arrangements 1 for those who have 'Sold and Lost' should be clarified and publicised (as it remains virtually unknown)

Your Petitioners believe that the achievement of the Minimum Environmental Requirements and implementation of the Construction Code should be enforced by an independent regulatory body

4. The prayer

The petitioner* therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bil l.

AND the petitioner* remains, etc.

Signatories

Hilary Wharf

Bruce weiton

14 April 2016

1 " Retrospective compensation" is raised by the High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee, 1st Report (March 2015), para 132; the Government's commitment is in 2nd Report (Feb 2016), para 271-272.

5 HL: 263 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Paul Ramsay Kelleher and Sonia Ingrid Kelleher

Declare s that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by HC Bill 137 2015-16 (as amended in the High Speed Rai l (London-West Midlands) (Bill Se lect Committee) dated 24.02.2016; Schedule 16, Part 4 (page 333), County of Hertfordshire, District of Three Rivers, Land Area 118, Provision of worksite and access for construction.

2. Your petitioners

Your petitioners are joint owners and occupiers of the single-family, detached, rural property known as Hill House, Chalfont Lane, West Hyde, Hertfordshire, WD3 9XN . We have lived in the property for 16 years . I am 72 and retired and my wife will retire in 2017. Our property is directly and completely bordered o n two sides by a massive HS2 safegua rded area of approximately 400-450 acres of farmland which will be used to establish the extensive Colne Va lley Main Construction Compound complex, consisting of the Colne Valley Viaduct Compound and the Chiltern Tunnel Main Compound along with various associated Satellite Compounds and storage sites. Hill House is the only residential property which directly borders that massive site. The front of the house has unobstructed far reaching views of the site for a distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres. The Colne Valley Viaduct Main Compound will be situated directly in front of Hill House at a distance of approximately 160m and will include accommodations for up to 250 transient workers. Single-track Chalfont Lane runs past the front of Hill House. The lane will be closed to public access, except residents, throughout the entire construction period of approximately 8-10 years. It will be permanently widened from a single-track lane to a two-way thoroughfare constru cted to a standard of sufficient strength and width to accommodate two 3.5-ton Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) passing simultaneously in each direction. The western end of Chalfont La ne will be linked to the M25 motorway via purpose-built and dedicated slip-roads. Once the slip roads are completed, all HGV traffic will access the construction compound complex via the M25 slip roads and then roceed eastward along Cha lfont Lane to any of three entrances leading to/ from the various cohst uction compounds. The remaining eastern/residential section of Chalfont Lane will not be used by\t,GVs except for those needed to travel between the main compound complex and two nearby !nttellite storage sites via the A412 (North Orbital Road). Those HGVs, and all other HS2-related vehicular traffic traveling to/ from the compounds via the A412, will pass in front of Hill House at a distance of approximately 9m.

3. Your pet itioners have four significant concerns, all of which directly re late to the Hill House property.

A. The Colne Valley Main Construction Compound will be situated on the south side of Chalfont Lane. A small parcel of HS2 safeguarded farmland is located on the north side of Cha lfont Lane between Hill House and the A412 . Under the HS2 construction scheme, that small parcel of safeguarded farmland will be used for the purpose of constructing " landscaped earthworks and landscaped planting to screen views of the proposed scheme (both at construct ion and operational phases) from the residents of Maple Cross." The earthworks will consist of a la rge 40mx40m earthen bund topped by planted trees to a height of 5-10 m and growing. They will directly border the entire 190-foot eastern boundary of Hill House and overshadow both the house and garden. Opposite the earthworks, on the south side of Chalfont Lane, HS2 will locate a low administrative building with workers accommodations and storage facilities approximately 160m away from Chalfont Lane. The landscaped earthworks are intended to screen views of that building and vehicles transiting Chalfont Lane from the residents of Maple Cross. The views between the construction site and Maple Cross are in a north-south alignment. Open farm land would slope downward to the north away from the earthworks toward the Maple Cross over a distance of 0.725 km . An existing tall, dense ancient hedge row, situated on top of a high, earthen banking, would be on the immediate south side of the earthworks proving a total screen height of approximately SM above Chalfont Lane which runs downhill behind the hedge/banking. The combined factors of natural topography, hedgerow/banking height and down-sloping Chalfont Lane result in the landscaped earthworks being redundant for the purpose stated. It is requested that HS2 Ltd delete the requirement for that specific section of planned earthworks.

8. Once the dedicated M25 slip roads are placed into service, it is not necessary for HS2-related HGV traffic to use the eastern/residential end of Chalfont Lane for access to the A412 (North Orbital Road) . A purpose-built HGV access road currently exists within the safeguarded area, including a purpose-built junction with the A412 . It is currently being used to access gravel works located approximately 1 mile away from the A412 . Once HS2 construction works begin, that access road will be redirected away from the construction works. When that occurs, the eastern section of the access road will become available for dedicated use by HS2 -related HGVs. Alternately, Bridleway Rickmansworth 004, which runs immediately parallel to that access road and which will also be closed during the construction period, could be used for direct access to the A412. In both cases an existing road within the proposed construction compound layout would need to be extended for a short distance to link up with either the purpose built road or the bridleway. Use of that alternate access will divert HGV traffic away from the eastern/residential section of Chalfont Lane; it will reduce the distance that the HGVs must travel along the A412 by approximately 600m; it will reduce HGV traffic blight for the residents of West Hyde who face the A412, and it will eliminate the need for the HGVs to navigate the small and often congested small roundabout located at the junction of the A412 and the eastern end of Chalfont lane. It is requested that HS2 establish that alternate direct access to the A412 as the designated HGV access between the A412 and the entire Colne Valley Main Construction Compound complex once the dedicated M25 slips roads are placed into service.

C. Chalfont Lane is the only pedestrian footpath available to the residents of Hill House and the three domestic properties located on Sunnyhill Road to access to the local school, shops, church, pub, bus stop and other Wests Hyde residents. It is requested that the design for permanently converting Chalfont lane into a two-lane thoroughfare for use by HS2-related vehicles include a protected pedestrian walkway w ith a metal safety railing that is situated along the northern side of Chalfont Lane between Sunnyhill Road and the A412, a distance of approximately 140m, and that the safety railing include an adequate permanent opening to permit clear vehicular access to the Hill House front driveway.

0. On 9 April 2014, HS2 advised your petitioners, "As your property is in what is known as the 'surface safeguarded area ' you may be able to sell your property to the government, if you wish to do so. " On 30 March 2015 your petitioners' solicitors submitted a Statutory Blight Notice to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting compensation in accordance with the terms of the HS2 Express Purchase Scheme, to which we were entitled in principle. The Blight Notice identified six significant "blight factors" , three of which are designated by HS2 within their Environmental Statement (Colne Val ley CFA 7) as having a " Major Ad verse Effect" on the location of Hill House . The Blight Notice was countered by the Secretary on 28 May 2015, 1 day prior to the expiry date for reply, on the ground that "the appropriate authority does not propose to acquire any of the property." The counter notice cove r letter ack nowledged that "Part of your clients property fa lls within the Extended Home Owner Protection Zone (EHPZ) so they are entitled to serve a blight notice. However, the percentage of property with the zone is not large enough to qualify for the prope rty to be considered under the Express Purchase Scheme ... I note the request that your clients property be considered as 'atypical' and for 'special ci rcumstances' to apply. Property professionals at HS2 Limited are considering this request and will contact you separately in this respect in due course." The letter did not address the "blight factors" nor suggest and form of mitigation therefor. On 15 December 2015, nearly seven months later, the HS2 Head of Acqu isitions agreed, in principle, to purchase your petitioners property on Voluntary Purchase terms. On 15 Janua ry 2016 the same individual clarified t he offer by advising, "The Department for Transport has considered the request that your property is co nsidered 'atypical' and, taking into account the impacts of the HS2 scheme, has agreed that 'special circumstances' apply in your case. The resultant offer that has been put forward ... is that your property is acqu ired on the same terms as if it were located in the Rural Support Zone". The Voluntary Purchase Scheme is the lowest-level voluntary purchase scheme offered by HS2 and is primarily intended for those who can demonstrate a " need to sell" . Your petitioners do not have a need or desire to sell. We feel compe lled to permanently re locate due to the significant permanent "blight factors" identified within our Statutory Blight Notice. The severity of the combined effects of those blight fa ctors, during the co nstruction period and beyond, will overpower our right to peaceful enjoyment of our life and property, as well as threaten our health, safety and welfare to the point where our domestic situation will become untenable and the market va lu e of our property will plummet. We are seeking a level of compensation commensurate with that reality. Th e special circumstances surrounding atypical Hill House can not be neatly categorized under any of the existing HS2 compensation schemes. The severity and permanent effects of the blight factors remain unchanged regardless of whether or not any portion of the Hill House property needs to be acquired for the HS2 scheme or what percentage of the property may or may not be within the Safegua rded Area or the EHPZ. The terms of any form of voluntary purchase are arbitrary in this situation. The terms of the voluntary purchase scheme offered to your petitioners do not include co mpensation for disturbance or home-loss payment, as the Express Purchase Sch eme does. That is an inequitable situation that is not commensurate with the unique ci rcumstances affecting your petitioners and their property. We are, in effect, being displaced as a direct result of the HS2 Scheme. If your petitioners accept a level of compensation in accordance with the strict terms of the HS2 Voluntary Purchase Scheme, we will suffer a financial loss by being required to cover our own displacement and home-loss costs. Therefore, we will not realise the full equity in our property for the purpose of purchasing a replacement home in the same local area where we have lived in for the past 30 years . Your petitioners' ages and circumstances negate the possibility of applying for any mortgage to cover those costs. In effect, your petitioners are being expected to subsidise the construction of the HS2 with part of the equity in our home. Your petitioners and their solicitor consider the terms of the HS2 Express Purchase Scheme to be, at a minimum, a fair and reasonable level of compensation for the "special ci rc umstances" affecting your petitioners and their "atypical" property known as Hill Hou se. Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that HS2 amend the terms of their voluntarily offer to us to match the terms of their Express Pu rchase Scheme. 4. The prayer

Your petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND t he petitioners remain, etc.

Paul Ramsay Kellener ----.....

Sonia Ingrid Kelle1rer

14 April 2016 HL: 264

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF HENRIETIA EVA SELIGMAN

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is an owner of property in Great Hampden, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

I have lived in the Chiltern Area of Natural Beauty ("AONB") all my life and I thoroughly appreciate and re spect its amenities. In my regular walks, I can understand how the area came to be called "the lungs of London" as I meet so many wa lkers from London whose close proximity means that they can enjoy its peace and beauty.

On the, frankly, unspeakable assumption that HS2 was to be constructed, notwithstanding the constantly flawed economic case made for it in the context of ever-rising and still clearly understated costs, I petition to ensure that the irreparable damage to the AONB is restricted to the maximum degree. Moreover, the threat to the wildlife habitat needs to be minimised.

In my view, HS2 should be tunnelled throughout the AONB to and beyond Wendover. HS2 should be compelled to justify why it has rejected such tunnelling. To-date, HS2 has refused to publish its justification and it should be compelled to do so in the int erests of full public transparency.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing he r in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

HENRIETIA EVA SELIGMAN

13th April, 2016 HL: 265

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rall (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF JAMES HARRY DAVID SELIGMAN

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner

The petitioner is an owner of property in Great Hampden, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

I have lived in the Chiltern Area of Natural Beauty ("AONB") all my life and I t horoughly appreciate and respect its amenities. In my regular walks, I can understand how the area came to be ca lled "the lungs of London" as I meet so many walkers from London whose close proximity means that t hey can enjoy its peace and beauty.

On the, frankly, unspeakable assu mption t ha t HS2 was to be constructed, notwithstanding t he constantly flawed economic case made for it in the context of ever-rising and still clearly understated costs, I petition to ensure t hat the irrepa rable damage to t he AONB is restricted to t he m aximum degree. Moreover, the t hreat to the wildlife habitat needs to be minimised.

In my view, HS2 should be tunnelled t hroughout t he AONB to and beyond Wendover. HS2 should be compelled to justify why it has rej ected such tunnelling. To-date, HS2 has refused to publish its justification and it should be compelled to do so in t he interests of full pu blic transparency.

4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone represent ing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which co nsiders this Bill.

AND the pe titioner remains, etc.

JAMES HARRY DAVID SELIGMAN

151h April, 2016 HL: 2s·s

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands ) Bill

THE PETITION OF HAMPTON-IN-ARDEN PARISH COUNCIL

Declares that:

1. The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the Bill Clauses lto 36 in relation to the construction and operation of the railway and specifically the construction of works, highways and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules land 2 to the Bill and in subsequent Amendments to the Bill listed as Additional Provision 2 (Clauses 5.10-13) and Additional Provision 4 in Supplementary Environmental Statement 3. 2. The Petitioners are the Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council. The Parish Council is a formally constituted Statutory Organisation which represents the interests of its Parishioners. Their rights, interests and in some cases property are specially and directly affected by the Bill and subsequent Amendments listed as Additional Provision 2 and Additional Provision 4. The Petitioners have worked tirelessly over 6 years to secure the best possible mitigation for the Parish, its parishioners, businesses, environment and wildlife through negotiation with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and HS2 Ltd. To this end the Petitioners participated in all six meetings of the Community Forum arranged by HS2 Ltd and in meetings of the Solihull MBC Working Party and its subsequent Scrutiny Boards. The Petitioners have also had meetings with Solihull MBC Councillors and staff and with HS2 representatives and with our constituency MP Mrs Caroline Spelman. HS2 will traverse the whole length of the eastern part of the Parish of Hampton-in-Arden and is also impacted by the construction and operation of the Interchange station at the northern end of the Parish at Bickenhill. It is also affected by the associated major road works to the A45, A452 and M42 interchange which juxtapose with the Parish boundary and serve the community.

3.1 Diddington Lane realignment (AP2)

The Promoters original proposal in the Hybrid Bill was to clos.e Diddington Lane to through traffic whilst allowing access from either end to accommodate farm and railway maintenance access. It enabled the provision of a safe 'Green Route' for cyclists, walkers and equestrians. This proposal was supported by the Parish Council, the Hampton Society and residents of Diddington Lane. One day before the Petitioners appeared in front of the Commons Select Committee in December 2014, we were informed that the Promoter had made an agreement with Packington Estates, a large landowner in the Parish, to keep the lane open to through traffic. No consultation with the community-Parish Council, Hampton Society or residents had been undertaken. We advised the Commons Select Committee of our concern and we reserved the right to Petition at a later stage. In spring 2015 we were informed by HS2 that a substantial realignment of the road from a point just beyond Diddington Lane residences was proposed. This was not acceptable to the Petitioners, the Hampton Society or Packington Estates and following a joint meeting of all three parties a letter, signed by all, was sent to HS2 which emphasised our wish to retain the current alignment. However, the realignment appeared in AP2 in July 2015, showing a diversion to full DMRB standards and HS2 Rural Road Design Criteria across fields to the west with the loss of some 13 hectares of good quality arable land. This would be inconsistent with the character of this quiet rural lane with very low traffic volumes and road width of between 5.5 and 6 metres-and encourage the development of a rat-run to the nearby Interchange station, affecting the whole of the village. We have contested HS2 estimates of a 5% increase in traffic volumes through the village to the Interchange station-a figure, given a 7000 space car park-we find grossly under-estimated. The village has restricted road width, narrow pavements, dangerous bends, no pedestrian crossings, and no effective traffic calming which leads to persistent and excessive speed. In February 2016 the Parish Council submitted its Neighbourhood Plan to Solihull for approval and adoption. This included (Para 3.3.15, Key Action TRA6) action to develop a safe cycle and pedestrian route through the village- action supported by the Police with whom we had meetings in 2015. The Parish Council has subsequently developed detailed traffic management proposals which have been submitted to Solihull MBC. We await any formal response. The option to retain Diddington Lane on its current alignment has been rejected by the Promoter due to the proximity of a track-work crossover which requires greater structural depth thereby restricting road headroom. In October the Petitioners presented alternative proposals to HS2 at a meeting attended by Caroline Spelman MP. This included cogent argument to move the crossovers to allow full headroom for traffic at 5.3 metres or, if the lane were closed to through traffic as originally proposed, a reduced headroom of some 4.8 metres still allowing farm and maintenance vehicle access. That same month Caroline Spelman presented to Parliament a 742 signature Petition from the village seeking the provision of a 'Green Route' solution to Diddington Lane. We know that track design at this location is at a preliminary stage and the location of the cross-over not fixed. The Promoter in a written response argues that moving the cross overs would create 'bunching' of trains due to a fast approach speed. We remain unconvinced of this argument which defies logic. Trains approaching cross-overs and stations should have their speed regulated appropriately. We believe that this solution would meet the original objection of Packington Estates relating to road closure, avoid the loss of some 13 hectares of arable land, retain access to farm holdings and save the Promoter several £million from construction and land acquisition, the cost of which is not yet specified by the Promoter. (2) In conclusion the Petitioners therefore seek an undertaking that a further review of this and other options for Diddington Lane presented to HS2 will be conducted in detail in co operation with the Petitioners and Solihull Council such that the needs of all stakeholders are met. We believe there is an urgent need to 'think outside the box' whilst remaining compliant with all design and safety standards.

3.2 Construction Camps

The Petitioners have been concerned that the amendments proposed by the Promoter for Diddington Lane would result in a significant increase in construction times, spoil and haul traffic at considerable detriment to the residents. Despite our recommendations which would have avoided significant and regular flooding of work camps no changes have been made to locations for the two Construction Compounds proposed for the River Blythe viaduct and the Shadowbrook under-bridge. Both compounds are shown to the west side of the new railway. All materials delivery to these sites is likely to be from the A452 to the east. Delivery movements will need to cross live construction sites in order to reach their respective compounds.

Having been invited, by the Chair Mr Robert Sym, to return to the Commons Select Committee should we be unsatisfied by any responses from HS2, we duly included this and other outstanding items in our Petition on AP2, as instructed by the Commons Bill Office. Regrettably, HS2 refused to respond since they insisted they were only required to respond to AP2 issues-a position we felt was an insult to the integrity of both the Select Committee and ourselves-and a denial of legitimate due process. Since the site of these compounds is located within the flood plain of the river and was flooded on 4 occasions during 2013/14 and twice during 2015/16, we respectfully suggest that the Promoter be instructed to take account of our local knowledge of the area and moves these compounds to a more suitable location east of the railway.

3.3 Haul Routes

As described in our Petition to the Commons Select Committee both Meriden Road and Diddington Lane are narrow, with the Patricks Bridge on Meriden Road requiring single lane crossing. Each is frequently used by pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders. No footpath exists on Diddington Lane, and on but one side of Meriden Road. There are inherent safety concerns. Your Petitioners believe that construction traffic should be able to use a combination of both the nearby A452 dual carriageway and the Trace of the new rail line as adequate routes, thereby removing the need to use residential roads except in very exceptional circumstances. Although the Promoter refused to respond as outlined earlier, the Petitioners now seek an undertaking from the Promoter that the use of residential roads will be restricted to the absolute minimum.

(3) 3.4 Spoil Dumps

The Petitioners note that there appears only one minor change to the locations for material stockpiles with the removal of one part of the stockpile immediately behind houses in Diddington Lane. The Petitioners find this unacceptable and a minimalist response to a legitimate concern. There remains an increased flood risk, with water logging to gardens where natural drainage is impeded, unacceptable visual intrusion, potential health risks and property blight. There are also large areas of land adjacent to the rear of Diddington Lane properties identified as 'land potentially required during construction'. We question the need for this large area of land now that a full length viaduct over the river Blythe has been agreed and the subsequent flood risk reduced.

The Promoter again declined to respond at our earlier appearance before the Commons Select Committee. The Petitioners therefore seek an undertaking that the proposed material stockpiles will be removed from areas adjacent to residential properties and that the Promoter update drawings to take account of latest development which allow the removal of safeguarded areas no longer required.

3.5 Relocation of Bickenhill Waste Recycling Centre (AP4)

Supplementary Environmental Statement 3 and Additional Provision 4 Environmental Statement relate to the proposed relocation and construction of a new Waste Recycling Centre (BWRC) on land approximately 200 metres to the east of the existing site on land originally earmarked for the A45/A45 Service Road over-bridges satellite compound and temporary stockpiles. The compound will be relocated and combined with the East Way loop satellite compound. A new Diddington Lane over-bridge satellite compound will be provided to the south-east of the existing Waste recycling Centre.

The Promoters state (para2.3.3) that 'consultation with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council {SMBC} and further consideration of construction and operational access issues at the existing facility concluded that the BWRC should be relocated. Para 2.3.2 states 'Highway works to the A45 and A45 Service Road would require a permanent minor realignment of the access to the BWRC, which would require the existing access to be raised to tie in with the raised A45 Service Road.'

Neither the Promoter nor SMBC had engaged in any consultation with the Parish Council, community organisations or residents of the Parish about the proposed relocation. Indeed the announcement came as a shock and revelation only upon publication of the AP4 documentation. No mention of this proposal was made by the Promoter even though they held and AP2 'exhibition' in the village on the 19h September-just one month before AP4 was published.

(4) Para 2.3.4 states that 'the new BWRC will be similar to the existing waste recycling centre but approximately 30-40% larger in area than the existing facility to meet modern standards.' Not only is it larger, but the new facility is to be built on Green Belt land to the south of the A45-land which has long been regarded as a 'red-line' for the Green Belt such that no development south of the A45 would be permitted.

It is clear from the proposals that the new BWRC is to be a permanent location. The southern boundary of the site juxtaposes with the proposed realignment of Diddington Lane. Residents are of the view that this poses an additional threat to the existing.rural and generally tranquil character of the lane in that a new access off Diddington Lane would be both feasible and arguably desirable to SMBC should the A45 become so congested as to make access from the A45 difficult and an alternative access be sought. This would be entirely unacceptable to the Parish Council and residents of Hampton-in-Arden.

An alternative brown field site has already been offered by the landowners, Packington Estates, barely one mile from the existing site, and on land already used for material recycling. We consider that this-or any other brown field site-would be an acceptable and appropriate alternative. However your Petitioners have studied the land use maps of the area and have identified a number of brown field sites north of the A45, including those adjacent to the East Way corridor which could readily be used as either permanent or temporary re-locations should it be proven necessary. This includes the site currently earmarked for incorporation with the A45 East Way Loop Satellite compound and material stockpile area. Indeed, since Compounds and stockpiles including spoil heaps are temporary in nature, the Petitioners submit that should it be necessary those facilities or stockpiles could be relocated on the area identified for the new BWRC, with the promise that land so affected would be returned to productive agricultural use and Green Belt designation once railway and road construction had ceased. It would also mitigate in part the additional (and permanent) impact on the Grade11 listed Diddington Hall and Farmhouse and Pasture Farmhouse, the effect of which is noted in Paras 3.1.16-24 as 'resulting in a different significant effect.'

The Petitioners have drawn to the attention of SMBC the commitments given to waste management operations in Policy P12 of the Solihull Local Plan and to the protection given to countryside and Green Belt in Policy P17. Policy P12 contains 16 points SMBC will follow when considering the suitability of sites for waste management facilities. These include the restoration of former mineral workings in the Borough (of which there are many), impacts on transport infrastructure, compatibility of waste management activities with neighbouring uses, availability of previously developed land, impact on the Green Belt taking account of National Policy and Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan, impact on the environment, water resources (the site drains readily into the River Blythe, an SSI), impact on biodiversity, historic environment and built heritage, and impact on amenity and health including visual intrusion, noise and vibration, litter, odour, vermin and bird attraction.

(5) Policy P17 states 'the Council will safeguard the 'best and most versatile' agricultural land and encourage the use of the remaining land for farming. Development affecting the 'best and most versatile land' will be permitted only if there is an overriding need for the development or new use and there is insufficient lower grade land available .... '.

The petitioners respectfully ask that HS2 and Solihull MBC give an undertaking that a review of access arrangements at the current site will be undertaken so that the Petitioners can be re-assured that a decision to relocate was not taken as the 'easy option', or indeed to provide 'betterment' of the current facility at the expense of the enjoyment by the local community of its heritage and environment. Should relocation prove the only viable option we seek an undertaking that a more suitable brown field site will be chosen using the guidelines set out by Solihull MBC in its Solihull Local Plan.

4 The Prayer

The Petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this Petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Petitioners remain, etc

Councillor Dr Gill Lewis, Chair, Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council

Councillor John Doidge, Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council

Date:

(6) To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 HL:267

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands} Bill

THE PETITION OF Mr JOE ELLIOTT M.B.E and Mrs GRACE ELLIOTT.

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your Petitioners are Mr Joe and Mrs Grace Elliott, who live 350 yards from the proposed line, inside a conservation area in the city of Coventry. Associated construction works for HS2 will extend to the front drive of Your Petitioners property, located at 166 Kenilworth Road, Coventry. HS2, and the associated preceding construction works, be visible from the rear of Your Petitioners property. Your Petitioners property is bordered by the green belt separating Kenilworth and Coventry and is exceptionally tranquil, meaning the relative changes caused by the construction of HS2 and its' operation will be severe. The line runs parallel to the house and there are only two other properties between your petitioners property and the line, in a very rural setting.

3. Your Petitioners' property is located on a road which will carry construction traffic and will have to be raised onto an elevated bridge to allow HS2 to pass under it, and HS2 Ltd also intend to divert the Canley Brook, which could lead to increased flood risk.

4. Your Petitioner Mr Elliott is a 72 year old pensioner, whilst Mrs Elliott is 58, and they live in a house which has been owned by Your Petitioners family since 1954. Your Petitioners had planned that by now they would have sold this property to live in a smaller, more manageable property, as six years ago Your Petitioners had decided they were to downsize in 2012. These plans included selling the property, buying a smaller house, and to using the excess money to by a pension for Mrs Elliott. Now, Your Petitioners are stuck in a property which Mr James Del Mar from national estate agents Knight Frank has described as 'unsellable'. Your Petitioners are now stuck in their home, with running costs outweighing the pension income of Your Petitioners, with almost all of their capital reserves exhausted. Your Petitioners' plans and lives have been on hold for over six years as a result of the plans for HS2, which has caused as significant amount of worry and stress. Your Petitioners are severely financially effected by HS2, but do not qualify for the compensation schemes on offer. This is exceptionally distressing for Your Petitioners.

5. Your petitioners feel that throughout the six year period, the promoter has never understood the petitioners problem, a state of affairs which is shared by many other people up and down the proposed route. We have consulted with a number of other estate agents, and whilst they have given us of hope of selling the property, it would

- 1 - be at a greatly reduced price.

6. Your petitioners believe it is patently unfair that homeowners who have clearly experienced a significant blight on their property due to HS2, do not qualify for Need to Sell and previously the Exceptional Hardship Scheme, because HS2 Ltd only buy properties when they decide the homeowner has a good enough reason to sell. Your petitioners, whilst wish ing to downsize, do not have a compelling need to sell under the criteria HS2 Ltd arbitrarily use. We believe the only factor which should be used in assessing the right to access compensation is whether or not HS2 has caused a blight which has devalued a property.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Signed

....- Date 15/'-t / 20 l

- 2 - HL: 268

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF FRANCA NILDA FUBINI

Declares that:

1. Your Petitioner The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

2. Your Petitioner is Franca Nilda Fubini the owner of a flat in Mornington Terrace, Camden Town, a quiet back street, which fronts on - without any screening - to the limits of land to be acquired or used for the proposed railway and works and will be specially and directly affected by the proposals of the Bill. Decades of noise, pollution, heavy traffic, loss of green areas and disruption will adversely affect hers and all the other properties in the street.

28 Mornington Terrace is a Georgian style, Grade II listed building and is part of the Camden Town Conservation Area. Mornington Terrace consists of approximately 90 properties set in a largely residential area with a coherent 19th Century streetscape and a significant view to Regents Park Conservation Area.

3. Your Petitioner's concerns

i. She has been resident in Mornington Terrace since 1985 when she bought the flat. She is Italian and has trained as psychotherapist and worked in UK since 1979. From 2006 work and family needs have brought her to Italy. She kept the flat for herself for a year, but then due to the extra costs of moving counties she let it and it has been let since then to the same tenant. The drop in her professional work due to the financial crisis and family needs have

2 brought her to an early forced retirement, without a substantial retirement scheme to back it up. She is 62 years old and not likely to increase her income in the years to come. The income from the rental of her flat has become a most important part of her sustainment. ii. Due to the uncertainty and disruption that construction activity on this scale causes, and the decades of works, she knows that it will become very difficult to let her property once the work starts and at the current price. Her tenant plans to move out by that time and the estate agents contacted have confirmed that both the rental and the selling price have already dropped dramatically. Regrettably, because it was never in her plans for the future, your petitioner in order to secure her source of sustainment is now forced to sell the flat. Your Petitioner fears her property will be unsalable because of the Proposed Scheme - or at the best, saleable with great difficulty at a much lower price than its present market value (as it has been for her neighbour). iii. She is not against the Bill in principle, nor to the development of the transport sector in UK, but she strongly objects to the unfairness of the cost paid by private citizenslike herself who happen to be in the way of HS2. Disruption, uncertainty and upheaval will be already big enough without having to pay for the loss of value of properties. She asks that a fair scheme of compensation should be put in action. The Need to Sell Scheme is not truly inclusive of the circumstances of the owners of the properties along the route of HS2 and certainly not of her circumstances. iv. Your Petitioner has also serious and substantial environmental concerns which she will list here. They regard first of all the proposals to demolish and reconstruct Mornington Street Bridge (Work No . 1/19) and the retaining wall between Park Village East and the proposed railway, excavations and removal of soil, the construction of the twin bored tunnel that will pass beneath the A4201 Parkway, between Mornington Terrace and Park Village East, utility trenching in the vicinity, and the creation and use of Mornington Street Sidings Satellite Compound and Carriage Shed and Park Village East Satellite Compound all of which are in close proximity to the house in Mornington Terrace where she has her flat. v. Your Petitioner believes that the proposals will adversely affect the amenity of the area both in the short term and long term and directly interfere with the value and enjoyment of the property. In particular the new retaining wall which is to be constructed between Park Village East and the proposed railway will be twice the height of the existing retaining wall. This will shut out a significant proportion of the natural light her property receives. vi. Further, your Petitioner believes that the noise levels - day as well as night - during the construction period will have a significantly

3 negative adverse effect on the possibility for anyone to enjoy and live peacefully in the flat. Night time works in particular may lead to sleep deprivation. The Promoter can reduce disturbance and disruption caused by the demolition and reconstruction of the Park Village East retaining wall, if the Promoter undertook to provide for a noise attenuation barrier, secondary glazing, restrict ion of night time working and, failing that, provision for temporary rehousing or compensation. vii. Your Petitioner requests the Promoter to undertake to carry out extensive mitigation measures before it commences demolition of the existing retaining wall , or any other construction activity. The Promoter has sent a letter of application for noise attenuation, but it is very vague and no firm commitment as to quality and results has been taken.

Construction Activity viii. The living conditions in your Petitioner's flat would be significantly and adversely affected by the construction activity consisting mainly of noise, vibration, pollution, traffic congestion, road and bridge closures that will last for at least a decade and for which there is proposed to be little relief during the construction period. I n particular, the demolition and reconstruction of Mornington Street Bridge and the demolition and construction of new retaining walls along all of the west side of the high speed railway between Mornington Street Bridge and the high speed tunnel portal. ix. The Promoter currently seeks to construct an overbridge satellite for the period 2016 to 2017 and sidings satellite compound for the period 2016-2027. Your Petitioner is concerned that, in respect of the latter compound, majority of works will be carried out outside core working hours in railway possessions. x. Your Petitioner requests that the construction compounds proposed to be opposite your Petitioner's property should be relocated to a less intrusive location. In the alternative, a number of mitigation measures should be undertaken prior to construction beginning. xi. Your Petitioner requests the duration of construction activity to be taken into account in any relief sought. The nuisance caused by construction activity will be ongoing for a considerable period of time and any relief granted should reflect the long term inconvenience caused. The relief should also apply throughout the construction period as well as after, in the event of their existing any ongoing side effects. xii. As numerous demolition works will be occurring within the conservation area, your Petitioner requests the Promoter to take care to ensure the preservation of surrounding buildings and where damage has occurred to make good the damage caused to the highest of standards.

4 xiii. Your Petitioner is concerned about dust and dirt and other airborne pollutants produced during the proposed works and would wish to see binding commitments imposed on the Promoter to require adherence to agreed measures to reduce dust and dirt and other pollutants below published thresholds, and to carry out additional mitigation if such pollutants nonetheless continue to be a nuisance. xiv. Your Petitioner is further concerned about air pollution and congestion arising from increased traffic to Euston during operation, as predicted in the Environmental Statement. The Promoter has extended the period in which Euston Station is being developed thereby extending the period of causing a detrimental effect. xv. There should be close and open cooperation with your Petitioner by the Promoter detailing all construction activity and discussing all schemes and methods of work that can be devised that will minimise any adverse impacts. Further, your Petition requests the prov1s1on of specific information, both about the scale of construction activity and the dates for the proposed mitigation measures above.

Noise and Vibration xvi. Mornington Terrace is set in a surprisingly quiet area, and enjoys the tranquillity mostly associated with the rural areas. The Proposed Scheme is very likely to disturb the amenity of the area as acknowledged by the Environmental Statement and the Additional Provision amending it. xvii. Mornington Terrace is forecast to experience noise levels higher than the noise insulation trigger levels as defined in the Draft Code, which will last throughout the construction phase to the operational phase. Volume 5 of the Additional Provision makes clear that your Petitioner's property will suffer construction noise levels during the day above 75dB (LpAeq, 12hr) and/or 3dB above baseline for a continuous periods, in some cases exceeding one month. The main source of noise impact will be close to Mornington Street Bridge, as will be the demolition and construction of new bridge piers, and utility trenching, and the demolition and reconstruction of the Park Village East retaining wall. xviii. The Promoter has stated that the compound opposite your Petitioners house will operate outside of core hours. The Promoter has also stated they wish to keep Euston Station operational to a maximum level. xix. Your Petitioner believes that the desire to keep Euston Station operational will lead to higher levels of night time works than currently anticipating, which will lead to adverse noise effects. Currently, the noise from the trains is not noticeable during the day and the evening. xx. Apart from the noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the HS2 railway and associated structures, the

5 Mornington Terrace area will be affected by construction vibration and simultaneous airborne noise impacts. The construction of Mornington Street Bridge and of the new bridge piers will involve night time works and considerable vibration effects. Your Petitioner will be adversely affected by such works which will make extremely difficult to live in her Property. xxi. 28 Mornington Terrace was constructed more than a century ago and is more likely to suffer from unstable structural properties. Prolonged construction vibration can result in subsidence and movement issues as well as aggravate the situation. Consequently, vibration limits should be put in place to reflect these dangers. Clear procedures should be set up for surveying and monitoring 28 Mornington Terrace as well as neighbouring properties for any vibration or damage caused. Such surveillance should be comprehensive, straightforward and last throughout the construction period and the operation of the railway. Furthermore, mechanism should be introduced whereby construction activity should be stopped immediately when vibration limits are exceeded or damage is likely to occur. xxii. Construction activities surrounding 28 Mornington Terrace are of a kind that will be exempt from the Core Working Hours; consequently construction activities will be allowed to occur 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This will be extremely disruptive to anybody li ving and working in your Petitioner's flat. xxiii. Your Petitioner submits and is supported by the Environmental Statement and the Additional Provision that the change in noise levels are li kely to affect the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life. (4.4.8 Operational Assessment SV-004-001, 8.4.41 of the Additional Provision) . Your Petitioner requests the installation of permanent acoustic glazing to her property to mitigate noise during construction and by the operation of the railway. If the acoustic glazing is found to be ineffective your Petitioner requests to be compensated during the construction periods. xxiv. Your Petitioner submits that the current noise does not model intermittent points at which the noise levels may be particularly high, instead the modelling looks at averages for noise levels (namely LAmax has not been modelled whereas LpAeq has). Your Petitioner is concerned that it is the LpAeq modelling that is being used to assess noise insulation and other mitigation mechanisms. xxv. Bearing in mind that 28 Mornington Terrace enjoys the quality of life enjoyed in rural areas, your Petitioner requests the provisions for acoustic glazing and re-housing to be set at a lower threshold than the conventional limits proposed relating to urban areas. xxvi. During the summer months, it is normal to open windows to gain access to ventilation. Your Petitioner submits this would be disruptive and troublesome, as in order to gain access to needed

6 ventilation one would be extremely disturbed by the sound of construction activity. Your Petitioner proposes that the Promoter supply her flat with indoor ventilation during the summer months and to ensure the acoustic glazing provided is of the highest quality so as to mitigate noise both when the windows are closed as well as when they are open. The property has very large sash windows with splayed reveals and internal shutters. This will make secondary glazing, blinds and mechanical ventilation difficult to install without destroying the internal qualities of the property. Secondary glazing on full height windows will be unwieldily to operate. Living with sealed windows, blinds and mechanical ventilation for ten years is an infringement to the quality of life in a house and is not a reasonable mitigation measure. It will also reduce the value of the property. xxvii. Your Petitioner asks that if a noise mitigation proposal suitable to the flat can not be found then HS2 will offer suitable alternative mitigation. xxviii. Your Petitioner asks that all noise insulation packages be designed and installed by specialists with Listed Buildings experience to suit the requirements of the property and its inhabitants. xxix. Your Petitioner asks that all alterations to the property are reversible and that HS2 commit to restore the properties to their prior condition when the HS2 construction works are complete, if this is asked for by the owners. xxx. However, your Petitioner would rather the noise and vibration levels to be avoided rather than remedied and would like the Promoter to justify any construction activities that cannot be done during Core Working Hours and the level of noise produced. The Promoter should ensure the quietest possible demolition and construction equipments and methods are to be used and to accordingly compensate your Petitioner. In the event, the Promoter is unable to justify the construction activities occurring outside the Core Working Hours, the Promoter should be compelled to carry out the construction works during the normal working hours and compensate your Petitioner. xxxi. Consequently, your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should be compelled to use best available techniques in the construction (and operation) of the railway and its associated works to ensure that the adverse effects caused by noise and vibration are minimised, for example the implementation of acoustic barriers. Furthermore, your Petitioner wishes to see strict construction standards set to which the Promoter must be made to comply.

xxxii. Your petitioner therefore requests an undertaking from the Promoter to help mitigate these adverse effects, including: a. Effective noise attenuation barriers; b. Secondary glazing;

7 c. Indoor ventilation; d. Restriction of 24 hour operation of compounds and construction, in particular in relation to night time works; e. Sanctions for violating the noise levels on a frequent basis. f . Compensation if the property becomes inhabitable. g. Compensation if the property is not sold at its market value

Landscape and Visual xxxiii. The views from Mornington Terrace have been designated as key views by the Environmental Statement, Landscape and Visual Assessment, Landscape Report, whereby the Petitioner enjoys significant view west to the Regent Park Conservation areas and views that have been described by the Report as illustrating the relationship between the city and green space. The Report admits that these views would be significantly affected by the construction works and will last with minor adverse effects. xxxiv. As previously mentioned the Park Village East retaining wall will be demolished and replaced with a new wall at a height of 35 metres. Consequently, your Petitioner's flat will lose the views and light currently enjoyable . Instead there would be a dominating wall that can only be described as an eyesore. Your Petitioner requests the Promoter to justify the new height, reduce it as much as possible and mitigate its effect by planting foliage around it. Where the Promoter cannot adequately justify the new height, your Petitioner requests the new wall to be built according to the current dimensions of the Park Village East retaining wall. xxxv. The Proposed Scheme will be only 10 meters away from your Petitioner1 s property with close and direct views of the construction works. To reduce the effect of these views the Environmental Statement proposes to plant trees and other plants to obscure the views. However, your Petitioner submits that visual impacts will not be adequately mitigated. xxxvi. Your Petitioner submits the important and panoramic views enjoyed from the flat's windows will be substituted with construction hoardings, cranes, and associated construction apparatus. This will result in a loss of amenity for which there are no mitigation options available. xxxvii. Your Petitioner requires green hoardings and screens should be utilised to minimise the effects of the loss of amenity. All hoardings and screens should be of the highest quality and should be well maintained throughout their use. xxxviii. Finally, your Petitioner requests that the loss of mature trees caused by the works is kept to a minimum.

Access xxxix. Properties at the beginning and end of Mornington Terrace, namely 9-12 and 58 Mornington Terrace may be compulsorily purchased.

8 Consequently, access to Mornington Terrace may be affected. This will be very disruptive as it restricts access to and from the Property. xi. Furthermore, the Environmental Statement and the Additional Provision submit that sections of Mornington Terrace will be closed to facilitate the utility works and the sewer diversion (Work No . 1/120) and, during the entire construction period of 2017 to 2020, the overbridge satellite compound (the Additional Provision, Table 6). xii. Your Petitioner is concerned that the demolition and replacement of Mornington Street Bridge will also mean that residents will not be able to gain vehicular access to and from the east, while those works are in progress with the consequence of being adversely affected by these road closures. xiii. During the construction phrase, it is estimated there will be up to 30 2 way trips by Heavy Goods Vehicles' (HGVs) per day at Mornington Terrace; this will result in an increase in danger for pedestrians and other road users. The Additional Provision states that there will also be up to 10 cars/LGVs. Both of of these will be suffered for a period of 14 months (Additional Provision, Table 26). The Promoter should endeavour to minimise the use of the roads, and instead use the rail network for construction activity. Where this is not possible the Promoter should justify the use of roads by HGVs. xliii. The Petitioner requests that where the HGVs have to be used, the Promoter should invest in using zero emission vehicles, train HGVs drivers in safe driving techniques, impose a speed restriction and finally invest in traffic management. xliv. The demolition and reconstruction of the late 19th Century, partly Grade II Listed Mornington Street Bridge also concern your Petitioner. Apart from the associated nuisance and disruption caused by the construction activity, which has already been mentioned, the Property will be severely affected by the closure of the bridge and access route to the west for the duration of the works. xiv. The demolition and reconstruction of the Mornington Street Bridge will last for 2 years. Consequently, it will not be possible to gain pedestrian access to and from the west for the duration of the bridge closure. xlvi. Suitable pedestrian routes should be put in place. Pedestrian facilities should be of good quality and adequate in scale to meet project demands. Pedestrian connections should be well lit at night, for general safety concerns. Furthermore, vehicular access should not be interrupted so as to allow for emergency vehicles, deliveries and other vehicles access. Where this is not possible alternative routes should be set up, and these routes should be of the shortest and quickest routes possible and be clearly signed.

9 xlvii. Your Petitioner submits that the demolition and replacement of the Mornington Street Bridge will cause a major adverse effect on the Petitioner as well as the local community and interruptions to access should be kept to a minimum. Your Petitioner is pleased to see that in the period after 2033, changes traffic flows will mean that there is no significant traffic flow, and therefore reduced significant noise effects, but your Petitioner's age is such that she may not live long enough to enjoy it; meanwhile the likelihood of losing the market value of her Property due to the adverse environmental conditions is a very immediate and serious matter of survival. xlviii. Mornington Street Bridge is used to access Regents Park and south to Albany Street, Marylebone and Great Portland Street. Your Petitioner submits where possible access to the Mornington Street Bridge should not be denied and any alternative pedestrian routes should provide improved access to Regents Park than currently available. xlix. Furthermore, any works carried out in relation to Mornington Street Bridge should be done with the utmost delicacy bearing in mind it is a heritage asset and should be treated as such.

Compensation I. Her flat in Mornington Terrace is your Petitioner's sole property and her principal financial asset. Your Petitioner had to take an early retirement from work for health and family reasons. The rental of her property is now a main source of sustainment. However, due to the uncertainty that construction activity on this scale causes, it will become impossible to let her property at the current value and equally to sell it at its market va lue because of the Proposed Scheme. The property is blighted. You r Petitioner would much prefer not to do it, but it seems that the future perspective is such that selling would be the only available choice to secure some kind of financial security. Ii. The only compensation currently available to all but a few Camden Cutting residents is the Need to Sell Scheme (NTSS). The rules for the NTSS are unfairly restrictive. Iii. Non-resident landlords owners are unfairly excluded from the scheme: disruption caused by construction works could severely undermine the rental value of properties and make lettings impossible. No compensation is offered by the NTIS scheme. Your Petitioner asks owners landlords to be included in the compensation scheme and in the Need to Sell Scheme I iii. In the NTIS scheme there is also an inequity between properties in rural and urban areas. The Promoters have assumed that residents in urban areas are used to the adverse affects of construction works and railway noise and are constantly immune to the noise levels. However, this is not the case at Mornington Terrace. As discussed Mornington Terrace enjoys the same quality of life as rural areas

10 and the loss of property value affects citizens in the rural areas as much as citizens in the urban ones. li v. Your Petitioner also notes that there are no adequate compensation schemes that cater for the likely loss of rent of her property during the disruption of the construction activity. Iv. Your Petitioner requests the Promoter to give full consideration to the effects of the Proposed Works and the pressures of construction activity on your Petitioner as well as the surrounding area and to ensure properties in the area are habitable during construction and when the HS2 trains begin to operate. The assessment criteria should be clear and open to scrutiny. The assessment should aim to determine if re-housing on a temporary or permanent basis is necessary and if it is not to set up effective reliefs to combat the adverse affects of construction activity. lvi. If 28 Mornington Terrace is found to be inhabitable and consequently unsalable or only saleable at a significant loss, your Petitioner requires the Promoter to fairly compensate her for the effects on the value of her property and to purchase her property at full market value including additional compensation. lvii. Further, your Petitioner has noted that new purchasers will not be protected by the current compensation schemes. If new purchasers will not qualify for compensation in the event they become adversely affected by the Proposed Scheme, then they will be discouraged from buying properties on Mornington Terrace. Consequently if there are no potential buyers then your Petitioner will be unable to sell her property. Your Petitioner requests that new purchasers should be able to gain the same relief as herself.

Conclusions lviii. Your Petitioner believes that, without adequate protection and mitigation, the impact of the works will cause your Petitioner' s property to become inhabitable, and unsalable during the construction phase. Protection and mitigation should be treated as a primary aim for the Promoter and a vital factor during the works. li x. Consequently, your Petitioner requests a scheme to be set up to be applicable throughout the construction phase, whereby persons specifically and directly affected by the construction works can be compensated and financially supported when it becomes difficult to sell or release capital from their homes, with clear trigger criteria provided in advance.

11 4. The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her in accordance with the rules and ·Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner* remains, etc.

Name: Franca Nilda Fubini . ....,....., Signature:

11-04-2016

12 signature of petitioner: HL: 269 name of petitioner (block capitals}:

To the House of Lords Session 201s-·15

PETITION againstthe

High Speed Rail (Loncton - west Midlands) em

THE PETITION OF MR SADIK AND 12 OTHERS - DELANCEY STUDIOS

Declares that:

1. The petitioner(s) is/are specia.Hy .and directly aclversely affected by the whole bill. · 2. Your petitioner(s) is/are /1R ZlfcK -Sl/'htK 3. Ml6 :5A Ct5:l.~l25f 4. M165 C (f;l (Ll:'5 f I s. ffK'!J f1. ft<,t51oN 6. Mt< s c. H61JJr1f 1. /1!<..~. v. fHtlttos s. Mt '?· Muf,1..,11,4 9. Mt~ K. M'W.$o}J M/55 c, ctrtfe!{ Mtz6 N· ~/'J 1 Mt.> _l> . &t1w6N MK . ~ , Hcot

Mt , A.. 5/f-rtJf 8 l. 3. Your petitioner's concerns are .MR SADIK AND 12 OTHERS - DELANCEY STUDIOS

1 MR. -Ztt-<-K Stul(..k .~ repre.sentdure &1f bW-llce.:i stvdt.c5

Ce.nMt.'5 r resttle.nt~ ~ssoclMLon wrlt:e_ or1 be.htL.lf of the u .stv,:l,u,s i( f:D e;:x_pre.~$ l:h~Lr d.i!>a>P'fort r~A.-f..lt.t1,1 tJie_ Co/1Stn1cl:'-of1 of H52,

1fi1.5 tJe.L~hbe1orhooel C#rYlfrtSUI~ of 5o1, octo1U1Mt.t..t11 sak ,u,tl lf1ftrft1 wh t) M:f... frvstn\,tul b!1 Che. dln,,nc tvid. hre.tthtM<'.Lrlfi l!j crresrofl :St..ble Lne:fld:ode.. of Ca.Ml~ rt.:pm5e:nbd:we.s to W-rus. this c~sve:. Lii Li::t. froper L'1Jhtt- _ _ _ ·. ______. _ . Jt is c.W..r tl,t.. furthcomu1~ lllCf'EASe Ul H<:rV t~, rellutt.ol\ Mi noLS~ wdl e;.::ceed. Ehe. £~ v. llll11t5, pucbU'Jj .v11de,,r SL~e

the. ft~Li.e. hul.th of tiuise: lt.tJlll1 ui Bit. CoMll\Q&.i:Jj· .--. /h~ 5ele_U; CcJrlt/'lltf::Cu So k hi1tVL ~ b {1.$tuJ frPffU''-;:J b tht.

VotLLS of Clundti\ ResL~U5 hut u.1st~ CAr1J.»ctd ·«-- slobk,n1 11 es-s

U\ orkr not to svccum h4

Wtth .the- Sill n,w tlW-ut1 Els. biu.rd_ ~U11, d: LS cl4,-~ .-.i.. bt.Ete.r

b&Le.c whic-h h....s U.Jt ·a.. mIA.t" k'., not Sc, m uc.h l.11 ler111 s of Yl1 '1f1~ hvt I.fl

!:he. fV\tJ'l.l. - s, WtkSf,e,,)._ l!S the !JS~c:'f- tax f"'jdS P!Dtl~ fd1' HS z. l::ht\X lo&l ~over11Metil:: S~ow M uwsd.t. etiricc.ri, p,r ~.,lM Hoos~ stoc( Biere.b:J fH1vlduij ewer .Js.r tctl~o1-l etel:wtttes

thq;.,t ~ re..l!)ri L11ve.st ll'lefl t l\e, w permute.:s 01 8t#=ls h h"QSLJI:I Si9CL.tt!:J,

Halth Mul.£1 tht. Li'l\(d'Xt H52. works .ve: 501.~ to ht1.-11e_ ort Tr«J1Sfurt

9 YtiuK pe.tdu,ner 1s Concems a.re.

l'.5 un Lfl'\~U\et. .ble, ob~A,tLr,ns Ccwiu7,,($ 6'CQ.,L et,;tci(_ ff:Jblu. tra.nsrPrt/

Sd1eol:s I em erj ew1c'.1 Se.rvu:e.s dl.i:(:IA.Oid ~ UN11/er:;lt!j c.,f~e. HG$ft.fu.L wtlL fll«,/:te.r ver~ ltttl.e... , 6:x.c.V'SeS wdL keq on .fl,wU1,:1 1,,1)/,iL{e._

hu..s!.tless tt.evme11 will U'n tuwe: ti, f tll everj flon:s'ei-1.s Lc:4,( f oru111,

A h~e... ShLJt u\ Li.f-t_ ex..pec.CA..tw1:s wdl.. Soor1 show tis u l:J ~) 5 tf lt h~n It ~j '!>ta,rtd llt.S the.. wef"'.St of VI f..£.ve.,,C('..$ ~ UI QI bcie..

1he. stvd.ui:s i,,~ect G, the.. Hsz 5c.ht.me. he.twee.11 Cvsb>n a..ncl tJU Oa.k CoMMM "'-6 a.. m.t.~c.ve. w;1..:Ste. of WIM~ lU!d UuSe of v~ h'!>f/"O porb.. .ot1al:e.. /I vl"!IMt Su/f-ert.vij

The petitioner(s) therefore ask(s) the House of Lords that (s)he/they, or someone representing her/him/them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on alf or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee whfch considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner(s) remain(s), etc.

Name: .. ~~.s:>..r.(H .... ~.<.... Signature ...

Name: ... C.b.-::1s.i:.

Signature ...... \>' ......

\. Namer!..@.(fi.1..i.t!A ..J:fJ .. ~ ..cv.(. Signature .. ______

Na me: Jt:k~.: ...V. ..fJt!.{h~-!?...... Signature ......

Name:G..~~S::...... Signature ....

Na me:.~:(... t?\~ .. D. .e&.J.S.

Name:~.l(b\ ...... ~~f.?.l~\\. .. Signature ...

N, ~ f~ ~ t!rt.A- 4 ~ Name:...... Signature.....

Name...... l>~K1Nt 5owt.N Signature. 10 (1/JI\ Name: ...... il4 . .

Signatures continuation sheet no ......

Name: .. l/.iGK .. S.ftP.:-.tK ...... Signature ......

Name: .~9!?!.N. .. S.~!YT...... Signature.

Name: ...... Signature ......

Name: ...... Signature ...... u •••••••••••••••••

Name: ...... ,u, Signature ......

Name: ...... Signature......

Name: ...... Signature ......

Name: ...... Signature......

Name: ...... 4"·····4· ...... Signature......

Name: ...... Signature......

Name: ...... Signature ......

11 HL: 270

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF SWEETLAND LTD, MED FOOD WHOLESALE LTD, WHITEROSE LAUNDRIES LTD. TOPS PIZZA LIMITED, PATISSERIE PATCH! LTD

Declares that:

1.1. The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Bill.

1.2. A Bill (hereinafter called "the Bill") has been introduced into and is now pending in your honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes". The project envisaged in the Bill is hereinafter referred to as "the Project".

1.3. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary Mcloughlin and supported by the Prime Minister.

1.4. The Bill is promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter called "the Promoter").

1.5. Clause 4( I) of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to compulsorily acquire so much of the land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase One purposes (i.e. for the purpose of or in connection with the works to be authorised by the Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Project").

1.6. Clauses 4(3) and 4(4) of the Bill apply the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 to the compulsory acquisition of any land to be authorised by the Bill. Clause 4(5) brings Schedule 6 of the Bill into effect which contains certain amendments to those two acts as they apply to any compulsory purchase. For the purposes of this Petition, Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 6 is relevant in that it ensures that the aggregate period of notice for entering land under either act is equalised at 3 months.

Summary

I .7. All your Petitioners as named above are small to medium-sized enterprises based in the Park Royal area. Together they directly employ in the region of 250 people and make a significant combined investment into the local economy. Specific details of your Petitioners are set out below. 1.8. As explained in this Petition, should the Project proceed as currently envisaged, your Petitioners' properties will be acquired, and your Petitioners will be forced to relocate.

1.9. Notwithstanding the fact that these are small to medium sized enterprises, your Petitioners' businesses and site requirements are complex. Your Petitioners are concerned that the notice and compensation provisions in the Bill are inadequate to enable their orderly relocation.

1. 10. If the Bill is allowed to pass into law as drafted, your Petitioners fear that their businesses are liable to be extinguished with resulting unnecessary, adverse and immediate socio-economic impacts.

1.11 . Your Petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Bill is amended to appropriately address their concerns as set out below.

Your Petitioners and their Premises

1.12. Your first petitioner is Sweetland Ltd (Company Registration 03354343) ("Sweetland").

1.13. Sweetland occupies IO School Road, Park Royal, London NW IO 6TD under a 15 year lease (Title number AGL2 I 3333) granted by the freeholder and founder of Sweetland, Mr Houssam Haddad, in 20 I 0. The property comprises an approximately I 0,000 sqft unit, which is predominantly used as a commercial fresh food bakery specialising in Middle Eastern baked goods. In addition, it accommodates a shop for sales to the public and a coffee shop.

1.14. Sweetland has a turnover currently of around £2.5 million, projected to double within the next three years. Sweetland employs on average around 55-60 staff, which increases in peak months to over 70 people. Nearly 20% of the staff have been with Sweetland for over I O years, 40% for 6 years and 75% for over 3 years. Most of the employees live locally.

1. 15. Sweetland have made significant investments in the Property in recent years, increasing the production floorspace with the addition of a mezzanine floor as well as adding the retail space and latterly a coffee shop. It has also recently substantially invested in upgrades to its facilities in order to secure British Retail Consortium certification.]

1. 16. The current customer base includes both commercial customers including central London restaurants, hotels, distributors and retailers, companies such as Middle East Airlines, Claridges Hotel, Harrods, British Airport Authority, Intercontinental Hotel and the Harley Street clinic as well a substantial base of retail customers travelling from·as far afield as Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Oxford. Sweetland has even supplied events at Parliament and also exports its products abroad. The company has ambitious growth plans which include introducing a range of products for diabetics, and franchising its coffee shop/ retail concept.

1.17. Sweetland estimate that it will need at least nine months to relocate its operations having identified an alternative site, so t 2 - 15 months minimum notice would be required to include 3 months to identify and acquire relocation premises. lt has confirmed that it does not have sufficient cash resources to fund the relocation itself.

1.18. Your second petitioner is Med Food Wholesale Ltd (Company Registration 06833764) (Med Food).

2 1.19. Med Food owns a 20 year leasehold interest in 9 Bethune Road, Park Royal, London NW IO 6NJ (Title Number AGL33243 I). The property comprises an approximately 8,000 sq ft unit used as Med Food's head office, for on-site processing and production and for trade and cash-and-carry sales.

1.20. Med Food is a family run import/export business specialising in Mediterranean fresh food, such as olives, anti pasti, nuts and confectionery. It has an average turnover in the region of £5million and employs 20 people rising to 25 at peak periods.

1.21. Med Food sources its fresh products from countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy, produces its own marinated and flavoured olives on-site, and sources products from within Park Royal, such as roasted nuts which are roasted and processed by its immediate Park Royal neighbour, Levantine and Golden Nuts, raw nuts from Pagarani International located just a block away and baklava from Sweetland. Med Food is a major supplier to specialist retailers serving central London's Turkish, Persian and Arabic communities and also exports food products directly to Ireland and Europe (Spain, Sweden, Norway).

1.22. Med Food recently invested £ 190,000 in upgrades and improvements to its other production operation located in Greenford in order to secure BRC (British Retail Consortium) Grade A certification. Further growth plans, including plans to purchase the freehold to 9 Bethune Road and to install a mezzanine floor have been put on hold due to the uncertainty created by HS2.

l .23. Med Food estimate that they need a minimum of 3 months in which to identify and acquire relocation premises and a further 3 months to relocate their operations after they have found an alternative location (i.e. a total of 6 months). Med Food also confirm that they do not have sufficient cash flow to support their relocation.

1.24. Your third petitioner is White Rose Laundries Ltd (Company Registration 2132368) {White Rose) . .

1.25. White Rose owns the freehold to 5/6 School Road, Park Royal, London NW l O 6TD (title"number AGL2 I 4187) comprising a unit of approximately l 0,000 sqft which is used in particular for commercial dry cleaning and commercial laundry processes for both retail and trade customers.

1.26. White Rose is a family dry cleaning, laundry and alteration business, serving trade and ·retail customers. It has a turnover of £3.1 million and employs 65 people, fifty of which are · located at their Park Royal premises with the remainder in their retail outlets. They became operational in March 2011 purchasing £900k of new machinery alone. The normal occupancy time of this type of installation is at least 25 years.

1.27. Aside from its Park Royal site, White Rose operates 3 branded receiving retail outlets, two of which are in the West End and a further outlet in Shepherds Bush all of which it services via the A40 from its Park Royal premises. It also operates an online business serving office and private clients in the West End and City of London. Their customer base has been established over 40 years, and includes Central London businesses and hotels, the Football Association at Wembley Stadium and a large number of independent dry cleaners and laundries for which White Rose is the sole supplier and 'walk-in' retail customers. White Rose also acts as the disaster recovery and overflow work site for a number of other commercial laundries in Park Royal

3 1.28. White Rose's Park Royal site houses specialist heavy machinery which is affixed to the fabric of the building. Their operation requires enhanced gas, electricity, water and waste provision, steam pipework. air lines, boilers and a reinforced fire rated barrier room. White Rose note that their utility providers took over a year from initially surveying their current site to installing the enhanced supplies.

1.29. Further growth and enhancement programmes have been put on hold pending certainty as to timing and any relocation arrangements resulting from proposed compulsory purchase of their site under the Order.

I .30. White Rose estimate that any relocation would take I 8 to 24 months' notice to relocate, including the minimum 3 - 6 months that would be required to identify and acquire the relocation property, in the immediate vicinity of the current site. This timetable is dictated by the need to book expert contractors to decommission, relocate and recommission their heavy plant and machinery, to accommodate surveys to ensure that the new premises are suitable to support heavy machinery, and to secure upgraded services from the utilities. White Rose have also confirmed that they do not have sufficient cash flow to fund a relocation from their own resources.

1.31 . Your fourth petitioner is Tops Pizza Limited (Company Registration 02229782} (Tops Pizza}.

1.32. Tops Pizza occupies 11 Bethune Road, Park Royal, London NW IO 6NJ, a unit of approximately 6,000 sq ft which it uses as its head offices, training centre, and distribution warehouse which it operates seven days a week. The facilities at I I Bethune Road include a test kitchen and franchisee training centre, walk-in chiller, freezer room, storage and distribution.

1.33. The Freehold of I I Bethune Road (title number AGL2249 IO} is owned by Forbic Limited (Co. Regn. No. 03888659). Both companies have the same directors. Tops Pizza leases the property from Forbic Ltd on a 15 year lease.

1.34. Tops Pizza is a takeaway and home delivery pizza company, operating over forty franchises across the UK. It uses its I I Bethune Road premises to service its direct franchisees as well as to supply products to .over three hundred other restaurateurs. The company directly employs twenty-five (25) staff on site.

1.35.· Tops Pizza estimates that a successful relocation of its operation would require 12 months' notice to include the minimum 3 months required in order to identify and acquire relocation premises. This period is required to install manufacturing equipment at the new premises, commission the facility, relocate its office, training and warehousing operations, and to notify its customers of the location change. Following that 12 month period, they also consider that both locations would need to operate in parallel for approximately three months to facilitate the hand ov~r. Tops Pizz:a confirms that it does not have sufficient cash flow to fund the relocation unaided from its own resources.

1.36. Your fifth petitioner is Patisserie Patchi Limited (Company Registration 02729483) (Patchi}.

1.37. Patchi owns the freehold of 12 School Road, Park Royal, London NW IO 6TD (tide number AGL224 I 4 I), which comprises a unit of approximately 12,000 sq ft which houses under a single roof, a factory, a restaurant kitchen and restaurant (including outdoor customer seating),

4 a wholesale operation and Patchi's head office. Patchi has a turnover of around £2m and employs over 50 people most of whom live locally.

1.38. Patchi is one of Europe's leading manufacturers and wholesale suppliers of baklawa, and Mediterranean handmade sweets and deserts. Founded in 1982, Patchi estimates their share of the UK market to be in the region of 66%, including the key central London clients of Harrods, Selfridges and Fortnum & Mason. Patchi also exports to Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain and France.

1.39. As a food manufacturer, Patchi's requires heavy machinery and its facilities need to be fitted out to meet the stringent health and hygiene licencing and certification requirements of both the industry and of its own clients. It is also a condition of supplying a number of its major clients, that it has at least 6 months record of successful production from a particular facility before it starts to supply those clients from that facility.

1.40. Particularly given the 6 month trading record demanded by a number of its key clients, Patchi estimates that it will take at least fifteen months' notice to fit out and fully commission a new facility including the time required to identify and acquire relocation premises. This includes time for relocating equipment and training new staff, as well as a period when both facilities will be in operation to enable a seamless transition of operations from one to the others. Patchi is unable to fund any such relocation unaided from its own resources.

The Properties as identi~ed in the Order

1.41. Your Petitioners' properties as described above have been allocated plot numbers 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 and 261 in Volume I .2 of the Project's Book of Reference (Greater London (Islington to Hillingdon)) (the Properties).

1.42. The Project proposes compulsorily acquiring the Properties in order to deliver Works Number I/ I and I/ 15 (the provision of a railway and a crossover box at Victoria Road (the Scheduled Works}} and to provide a worksite and access for construction.

Park Royal 1.43. Park Royal is the largest factory estate in Europe. It is strategically located to the immediate north the A40 (a major west-east artery giving access to central London) and to the immediate east (i.e. on the central London side of) the North Circular (the A406)). The North Acton central line tube station is approximately five minutes' walk to your Petitioners' premises and on-site and on street parking is available.

1.44. Park Royal hosts over 50 Mediterranean and Middle Eastern food related businesses including wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. It has developed a reputation as being at the heart of the UK specialist food industry and as a food destination in its own right, serving in particular the west of London.

I .45. All your Petitioners enjoy advantages from their current location; including:

1.45.1. premises that are affordable, of an appropriate size and within an area designated in planning terms as a Strategic Industrial Location and therefore appropriate for manufacturing, storage, distribution and retail uses;

5 1.45.2. ease of access from Park Royal to key markets in Central London (and the West End in particular). This helps to reduce transport costs and provides a competitive edge over other similar businesses located outside the A406;

1.45.3. ease of access for employees and for the general public;

1.45.4. with specific reference to Sweetland, Med Food, and Patchi, the benefits of co location with other Mediterranean and middle eastern food businesses. This allows your Petitioners to trade directly with other businesses located within half a mi le of their own premises, with resulting cost and time savings;

1.45.5. increased retail trade as the reputation of Park Royal (a direct result of the concentration of specialist food manufacturers and suppliers) attracts retail customers to the area. Your First Petitioner has noted that families visit the estate on Sundays to enjoy the restaurants and to purchase food products directly from the suppliers and manufacturers. On festival days it is not unusual to find queues outsider the premises;

1.46. Park Royal also falls within the administrative area of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (the OPDC). The OPDC Opportunity Area Planning Framework adopted by the Mayor of London on 4 November 2015 as strategic planning guidance for the area emphasises and seeks to protect the role of Park Royal as a strategic industrial location and as an employment location.

2. Your Petitioners' Concerns

2.1. Your Petitioners support the principle of the construction and operation of a high speed railway and associated development between London and the West Midlands. Your Petitioners seek to work together with the Promoter, the Government, HS2 Ltd and relevant local authorities to facilitate the provision of Phase I of HS2. Your Petitioners also seek to enter into an agreement with the Promoter to address their concerns.

2.2. Your Petitioners are, however, concerned ·about the provisions of the Bill as they may affect the Properties. For this reason, and having regard to the more detailed particulars referred to below, your Petitioners object to the Bill and its provisions as set out in this Petition and they allege and are prepared to prove that they and their property, rights and interests are injuriously and prejudicially affected by the Bill for the reasons (amongst others) set out below.

2.3. Your Petitioners have not been provided with full justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting their Properties and are not satisfied that it is necessary or appropriate for their Properties to be acquired either at all or in the manner or to the extent proposed.

2.4. Furthermore and without prejudice to the above argument, your Petitioners have been made aware that they have a duty to minimise the adverse financial impacts of any proposed compulsory purchase and that in order to do so, they may need to relocate their businesses.

2.5. With the advent of HS2, it has become increasingly difficult and unaffordable to relocate within Park Royal. Any relocation may therefore by definition involve a move away from Park Royal. Property of this type is extremely scarce, not least as a result of the large numbers of businesses that have to relocate as a result of HS2.

6 2.6. For those of your Petitioners who operate food businesses, any relocation away from Park Royal will remove the benefits of being located within an established and well recognised specialist food centre, with associated loss of retail and trade sales, and an increase in overheads due to having to source products from a greater distance.

2.7. For all your petitioners an alternative location which is closer to Central London is likely to increase their occupation costs, while a location further from Central London will increase their transport costs. Relocation will, by definition, adversely impact your Petitioners' businesses.

2.8. Moreover, given the nature of your Petitioners' operations and the constrained financial environment within which small to medium sized enterprises operate.relocation involves significant risks to your Petitioners and without adequate notice of the need to relocate or advance compensation being made available to facilitate any relocation, may result in extinguishing their businesses.

2.9. Any such extinguishment resulting either from inadequate notice or inadequate advance compensation payments would result in the unnecessary loss of up to 250 jobs of your Petitioners' and their employees as well as the loss of investment within the local area which derives both from salaries paid by your Petitioners and from your Petitioners' own investments in growing their businesses. Your Petitioners do not have the resources to research adverse impacts on indirect employment related to their businesses (i.e. employment which is partially dependent on trade generated by your Petitioners' businesses), however, there is clearly potential for adverse impacts on employment in related businesses if your Petitioners are forced to extinguish their businesses. Your Petitioners humbly request that such indirect impacts are also taken into account.

2.10. Your Petitioners operate complex, albeit medium sized businesses. Your First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Petitioners operate food processing, catering and retailing businesses from the Premises. Such businesses must meet specific health and safety standards and (where relevant) satisfy BRC certification requirements. Your Third Petitioner, Whiterose, has specific requirements in terms of the quality and capacity of the services to its facilities, the ability of the facilities to support heavy machinery, and must meet stringent fire safety requirements.

· 2.1 I . The operational requirements of your Petitioners' businesses limit the choice of relocation premises, increase the cost of acquiring alternative premises, and will involve an extended fit out and testing period to ensure that any new location meets the required safety and certification standards.

2.12. The operations of all your Petitioners involve a significant element of manufacture or processing which involves substantial heavy machinery. Relocation will require such equipment to be removed and reinstalled. This will take a significant time and costs as the equipment is decommissioned, demounted, transported, reinstalled, tested, recommissioned and manufacture or processing restarted.

2.13. Unless an alternative location has already been established and is able to trade, the period of decommissioning your Petitioners' current operations, and re-establishing those operations elsewhere, will involve a break in trade. During that period, not only will your Petitioners incur the costs of funding the relocation, but will also not receive any trade income. While such financial losses may be amenable to remedy through compensation, your Petitioners are concerned that any break in their operations will also lead to the loss of customers, as their current customers turn to other suppliers to meet their needs. There is a clear risk that once lost, such customers will not be recovered. Such an impact on your Petitioners' businesses is not

7 easily addressed through the compensation regime, and given the finely balanced finances of an SME, could eventually cause your Petitioners' businesses to be extinguished.

2.14. SMEs of this nature are not normally in a position to fund relocations from cash reserves. It inevitably takes considerable planning and the financial support of banking finance often secured against the original property asset. Bridging finance would normally be required to enable a new property to be acquired, the business to relocate and the original property to then be sold. In this case it is not clear when the affected buildings will be compulsory acquired and HS2 is under no obligation to disclose its valuation of the property until after it takes possession, requiring the move to be undertaken at considerable risk. In such a climate, the necessary finance will be extremely difficult if not impossible to secure, leaving your Petitioners without required financial support.

Adequacy ofthe Notice Period

2.15. As outlined above, the Bill envisages a three month notice period (by way of Clause 4 and Schedule 6) before HS2 take possession of the Premises. For the reasons explained above, your Petitioners consider that such a short period would not be adequate to allow them to identify a suitable alternative location for their businesses and to make an orderly relocation without so damaging their businesses that their businesses will inevitably be extinguished.

2.16. The inadequacy of this period is implicitly recognised in the Secretary of State's guidance on this notice period as set out in Information Paper C? (Business relocation). This states that the Secretary of State or his nominated undertaker will provide more than three months' notice of entry onto land which is to be compulsorily acquired "where this is reasonably practicable".

2.17. However, your Petitioners remain concerned that this policy for mulation gives the Secretary of State and his nominated undertaker a very great degree of discretion in deciding how much notice to give to your Petitioners. This degree of discretion is a matter of concern to your Petitioners. Specifically, your Petitioners have discussed their potential relocations with HS2 and sought reassurances from HS2 regarding the period of notice that they will be given. To date, HS2 has refused to provide any reassurances or to enter into any binding commitments that they will provide more than three months' notice of entry to your Petitioners" land. Indeed, HS2 have specifically stated to a number of your Petitioners that they expect to give them only three months' notice. They are fully aware that this could result in Petitioners' businesses being extinguished.

2.18. Notice of a proposed amendment to the Bill, promoted by Dr Rupa Huq, Mrs Cheryl Gillan and Mr Andy Slaughter and given reference NC 26 ("Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses") was published on 2 I March 20 I 6. Your Petitioners support this proposed amendment, although they consider that it does not provide a sufficient incentive to any nominated undertaker to properly engage in negotiations.

2.19. Your Petitioners humbly submit that the provisions with regard to the period of notice which the Secretary of State or his nominated undertaker are required to give of their intention to acquire land for the purposes of the Project in the Bill are entirely inadequate to enable an orderly relocation of your Petitioners' operations without putting those businesses at a real risk of extinguishment.

Timing and adequacy of compensation arrangements

8 2.20. As a separate issue to the notice period for any relocation, your Petitioners are concerned that the Bill imposes no statutory duties on either the Secretary of State or on his nominee to provide financial support (make advance compensation payments} to facilitate the smooth relocation of businesses. In particular, there is no obligation either that advance compensation is made available or to ensure that any such compensation is of an appropriate amount to facilitate an orderly relocation. Whilst it is accepted the requisite compensation will have to be paid by HS2 in due course, by delaying its availability to your Petitioners until after possession is taken, HS2's cashflow will be the sole beneficiary of this arrangement to the detriment of your Petitioners; with currently zero interest due on eventual payments to your Petitioners.

2.21. For the reasons described above, your Petitioners as SMEs are unlikely to be able to fund any relocation from their current cash flows. Once more, if the Secretary of State or HS2 either refuse to pay advanced compensation to facilitate relocation or do not pay sufficient advance compensation to facilitate relocation, your Petitioners are concerned that they will be forced to extinguish their businesses with the related and unnecessary loss of jobs and investment.

2.22. Guidance on advance payments is provided in Information Paper C7 (Business Relocation) which states that:

"As a discretionary measure ... financial support may be offered in advance of taking possession to enable a business' relocation". Such discretionary payments may comprise "up to 90% of the nominated undertaker's estimate of the compensation, to support cash flow". The availability and amount of any such advance payment is "dependent on the circumstances of the individual cases and subject to the negotiation of suitable terms ... ".

2.23. Again, your Petitioners are concerned at the very wide degree of discretion that this gives to the Secretary of State or his nominated undertaker. Above all, the above policy guidance provides no certainty to your Petitioners as to the timing or amount of any advance compensation.

2.24. Although the issue of advanced compensation is addressed in passing in the proposed amendment reference NC26 referred to above, as that amendment is drafted, the duty to make advance payments is only triggered where there is a breakdown of negotiations on the negotiation period. This leaves open the possibility of 'salami slicing' the two issues, so that agreement is reached on the notice period, but HS2 then has no obligation to agree advance payments in order to facilitate an orderly relocation. For the reasons explained in this petition, any failure to make adequate finance available to facilitate relocation is likely to have severe adverse impacts on your Petitioners' viability, potentially lead to their extinguishment, and result in lost jobs and investment.

2.25. A number of your petitioners have discussed with their banks the possibility of securing loans to fund their relocation. Inevitably, your Petitioners' banks are reluctant to lend money where both the security and ability to repay the loan is uncertain, specifically:

2.25.1. your Petitioners' banks are unwilling to secure any lending against your Petitioners' current premises given that such premises are li kely to be compulsorily purchased;

2.25.2. your Petitioners' banks are equally unwilling to secure any lending against any proposed compensation given that the precise amount of compensation and the

9 date of its payment is uncertain and will remain so until after possession has been taken.

2.26. Your Petitioners are therefore caught in a 'Catch 22' situation: without any commitment from HS2 as to the amount of and timing of any compensation, they are unable to secure interim funding from commercial sources to enable an orderly relocation. This merely increases the likelihood that your Petitioners will be unnecessarily forced to extinguish their businesses, with the resulting harm to the local area in terms of the lost jobs and investment. Such an outcome is clearly contrary to the Mayor's policies for the Park Royal area.

2.27. Your Petitioners humbly submit that the provisions with regard to compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition in the Bill as drafted are entirely inadequate to facilitate their orderly relocation.

Absence of Engagement

2.28. On becoming aware of the Project and its potential impact on the Properties, each of your Petitioners has sought to engage with the Promoter's nominated undertaker, HS2, with a view to obtaining certainty regarding an adequate period of notice and that adequate advance compensation will be paid to facilitate their orderly relocations. No firm assurances have been provided to date and HS2 have not been willing to enter into any binding agreements.

2.29. Most recently, Your Petitioners have jointly instructed the surveyors Baker Rose Consulting to open negotiations with HS2. No response has been received from HS2 to correspondence from Baker Rose that sought to engage specifically on the need for extended notice periods and on the availability of pre-possession funding support (advanced compensation).

2.30. Your Petitioners are concerned that there is no duty on the Secretary of State in the published Information Papers equivalent to the Government's recently reiterated policy (Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Orders (etc) (DCLG October 2015)) requiring other public authorities to only use compulsory purchase powers as 11 a last resort" and to "demonstrate [to the confirming Secretary of State] that they have taken reasonable steps to acquire all of the land and rights included in the Order by agreement".

2.31. Your Petitioners request that the Promoter be required to engage in immediate and meaningful negotiations with your Petitioners to facilitate their orderly relocation, and that the Promoter be subject to binding obligations within the Bill with regard to the minimum reasonable notice periods for entry to land and to adequate advance compensation payments to facilitate the orderly relocation of small to medium enterprises.

2.32. In the absence of any meaningful engagement with HS2, your Petitioners will seek to promote amendments to the Bill to provide the requested certainty of notice periods and advance compensation.

2.33. In the light of the above, Your Petitioners reserve the right to raise the above matters and any further m_atters of concern relating to the substance of the Bill and this Petition that may arise from any further discussions with HS2, or from any further proposed amendments to the Bill or from any guidance to the exercise of the Powers conferred by the Bill.

3. The prayer

10 The Petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Peti~ers remain, etc. /I

Signed

Agpnt foi:_t:b.i Petitioners

Simon Kelly Associate on behalf of DAC Beachcroft LLP

3 Hardman Street Manchester M33HF

15 April 2016

11 To the House of Lords Session 20 15- 16 HL: 271

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF AGUEDA FURTADO

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioner

Your petitioner is Agueda Furtado. I am a tenant of the London Borough of Camden and have lived in my current accommodation for the past 17 yea rs. I live with my 10 yr-old daughter and 17 yr-old niece. I am a foster carer for young children under three years old and also work part time.

I take an active part in supporting my community and have run play sessions for the younger ch ildren living on Ampthill and am a committee member of Ampthill Square TRA. I am very content and settled living in the friendly community on Ampthill Square.

My flat is situated on t he seventeenth floor of Gillfoot tower block which is widely accepted to be the most adversely impacted block on the estate due to its proximity to a range of major construction works lasting many years

3. Your petitioner's concerns include:

I fully agree with all issues ra ised in the petition submitted by Ampthill Square TRA to your Lordships' house on behalf of all residents resident on the estate.

Due to the position of my flat in relation to the proposed HS2 works I have additional specific concerns which are outlined be low.

Proximity to demolition and construction:

In addition to all the many adverse impacts faced by the entire community on Ampthll Square, those of us living in Gillfoot tower block are just a few meters away from where Hampstead Road Bridge crosses the railway cutting. Works will be carried out underneath out homes.

The height of the roadway on Hampstead Road Bridge is going to be demolished and made much longer and thee road way will be raised. To reach the highest point of the bridge it requires what I think of as a sort of flyover outside my flat a few metres from my flat. Not only are we facing disruption from bridge works but there is a plan to knock ground anchors into the railway wall which will go under the tower bloc to strengthen it and as well as that some sort of reinforcement called barrette walls are being dug into the ground. I have no idea what this will mean as nobody has explained any of this to me but it sounds very noisy and disruptive.

All the demolition and construction around the bridges is added to major works in the cutting itself from where even more noise and pile-driving will come. All the works will cause many types

- 1 - of pollution and night working will cause sleepless nights. ,.

Adding all these things together makes me feel that it will not be possible for my family to enjoy a reasonable quality of life.

Health and education concerns: I am most concerned about the impact on my children, their education, emotional and physical health. Surely the Promoter has a duty of care to my children and their rights to a safe environment, good and optimal development, proper conditions to study in a safe home environment.

I am very concerned about their future and how HS2 will impact negatively on their lives when their home environment will be surrounded by noise, dust and air pollution as well as difficulties with accessing their home. When I think of all the problems we face and the very rea l risks to the health and well-being of my family I am afraid for their future, and how will they be able to concentrate in school following disturbed nights. It is likely that once disturbed the children may not go back to sleep. Fifteen years of construction represents destruction of their childhood.

Hs2 Ltd have shown a lack of concern with the plight of families on Ampthill, particularly Gillfoot where we live being so close to years of major disruption which HS2 Ltd describe as significant adverse impacts ..

Habitability: For the sake of my childrens' health and education, I ask for reassurance that my family will be moved to another flat in the area if disruption is not mitigated enough for us to enjoy our home and not dread having to return to it because of all the problems. I do not want to move away from the community and environment I know, where my daughter goes to school and where I work so that if I do have to move I want the option to come back to the home I love if I do not settle somewhere else.

Access to the Community Hall:

It is also unclear whether the community will continue to have access to the hall. If the hall cannot be used because of difficulties with access or disruption from the construction works, this will have a negative effect on children who otherwise would attend classes and sessions that are both enjoyable and educations. Because of all the disruption we all face and especially children of all ages it is even more important that they are able to take part in activities such as those held in the hall and it is important that an alternative is made available ..

4. The Prayer

Your petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she or someone representing her in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Name:. Signature.

- 2 - To the House of Lords HL: 272 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF LINDA EAGER

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioner

The petitioner is Linda Eager, Flat 16 Calgarth, Ampthill Square, London NWl 2LA (leaseholder).

My grandparents were from the Euston area {Drummond Street) and so were my parents. My parents moved into Ampthill Square when it was first built and into property 16 Calgarth. They exercised the 'right to buy' of 16 Calgarth many years ago. They have passed away since and I have owned the property since 2009. I am 50 years of age and have lived there all my life.

The construction works will impact upon the Euston Station area for some 20 years. At the age of 50, I will be 70 when it is finished.

I have been a member of the Ampthill Square Tenants & Residence Association (ASTRA) for several years and I fully support the contents of the petition of the ASTRA.

3. Your petitioner's concerns are

In addition I have the following concerns: i) Trenches - large trenches are planned to run through Ampthill Square to bring gas, water, electric sup plies to Euston Station while the works are being carried out. On th~ plans that HS2 have drawn up, one of these trenches will actually run through my garden and very close to my flat. ii) Concerns of Financial Lose - I do not want to move. It has been my home all my life and I have family & friends in the area. However if I did consider moving the value of my flat would be blighted by the construction works and I would not be able to afford alternative accommodation in nearby areas. iii) Better Compensation Package - The area is a real neighbourhood and surprisingly quiet. We will suffer noisy, disruptive, round-the-clock construction but are not eligible for the compensation proposals offered to rural areas.

- 1 - 4. The prayer

Your petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bil l.

AND the petitioner remains, etc. /

Name: .. ..

Signature.

- 2 - To the House of Lords HL: 273 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - W est Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MARIE O'SHEA

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioner

Your petitioner is Marie O'Shea. I live with my partner in Dalehead tower block. My family have lived happily in our current home for the past 34 years as tenants of the London Borough of Camden. I am now retired having worked full time for many years but I play an active part in the community and am a committee member of Ampthill Square TRA.

Our property is situated on the tenth floor on the south-east corner of the building. As a result we are particularly vulnerable to construction from the proposed high speed railway.

3. Your petitioner's concerns include:

I fully endorse the contents and issue included in the petition submitted to your Lordships' house by Ampthill Square TRA on behalf of all residents resident on the estate.

Mainly due to our location on the estate and personal circumstances I have additional specific concerns which we outline below.

Proximity to demolition and construction:

Your petitioner resides some 15 metres distance from Hampstead Road Bridge and directly opposite Granby Terrace Bridge. Both bridges are to be demolished and Hampstead Road Bridge span is to be greatly expanded requiring raising the road to accommodate the significantly higher roadway with works literally yards away for at least six years.

Together with major works to the railway approach and cutting these will have a huge negative impact on our quality of life, involving as they do pile-driving, strengthening of the cutting wall with barrette walls and ground anchors, and constant working day and night. The impacts are expanded in the Ampthill Square TRA petition but cumulative impacts make me believe it will not be possible to stay in my home even with the proposed noise mitigation.

For these reasons I seek reassurance that should our quality of life become intolerable that we will be rehoused on either a temporary basis with the option to return or permanently to an alternative equivalent property that is agreeable to us.

Personal Health:

Both my partner and I have health problems which include limited mobility, diabetes and other chronic conditions exacerbated by stress. We are concerned about the impacts of both the

- 1 - demolition and construction including noise, dust and deteriorating air pollution this will cause and are anxious that strict monitoring will take place to protect our health.

We need the reassurance that enforcement of stringent regulation will minimise the problems we face for several decades in addition to the very extensive works in the vicinity.

Security:

We also have concerns that works will compromise the security of the estate which was installed to protect residents from multiple problems including rough sleeping in the blocks and drug dealing.

Severance and Care responsibilities:

The raising of the approach to Hampstead Road Bridge in the most recent design will require steps to reach the pavement and are likely to prove extremely difficult to cross to the other side of the road. The demolition of Granby Street Bridge will cause significant additional problems of severance.

My mother who is 87 years old lives close by on Regents Park estate. Arrangements were made seven years ago for her to be moved closer to me specifically so that I could assist in her support and care. At present I visit her several times a day via Granby Terrace Bridge which takes just a few minutes. Changes outlines above will result a more difficult and longer journey which is not only inconvenient but is a cause of worry if I needed to reach her in an emergency.

Vermin:

I have great concerns about a massive increase in rat infestation which particularly alarms me as I have an irrational fear of these pests. Therefore I want to reinforce the needs to monitor and control rats as identified in the Ampthill Square TRA petition.

4. The prayer

Your petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Name: ...... Signature....

- 2 - HL: 274 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF DAVID LINCOLN AND NICOLA JANE LINCOLN

Declares that:

l. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioner

Your petitioners are David Li ncoln and Nicola Jane Li ncoln. Our family has lived happily in our current home 12 Stockbeck, Ampthill Square estate for the past 44 years. We are tenants of the London Borough of Camden.

Our property is situated on the top two floors of a six-storey block of 12 maisonettes on the southern boundary of the estate within the fenced security area which offers us protection and reassurance from a litany of antisocial behaviour and rough sleepi ng that was prevalent prior to its construction as part of the major regeneration works com pleted in the last six years.. We enjoy the open aspect, greenery, mature trees and peaceful setting of the estate to the northern aspect and face the Royal Mail parcel depot which is situated on the opposite side of tree-lined Bamby Street which is the southern access road to Ampthill Square estate.

I, Dave, am now over retirement age but remain working part-time and my daughter, Nicola, works full time at the local pharmacy. Both Nicola and I have taken an active part in social activities to support ou r community and been committee members of the Ampthill Square TRA for a significant number of years. We manage the local TRA hall on behalf of the committee.

3. Your petitioner's concerns include:

We fully endorse the contents and all issue enumerated in the petition submitted to your Lordships' house on from the Ampthill Square TRA on behalf of all residents resident on the estate.

Mainly due to our location on the estate we have additional specific concerns which we outline below.

Proximity to demolition and construction compound

Your petitioners reside some 25 metres distance from the Royal Mail parcel depot currently screened with mature trees.

We are unclear about changing proposals for the site but think that demolition of the parcel depot will occur early in the programme and that it will be replaced by a large construction compound.

We are concerned about the impacts of both the demolition including noise, dust and deteriorating air pollution this will cause and are anxious that strict monitoring will take place to

- 1 - protect our health. My daughter currently suffers from long-term respiratory problems which are exacerbated by dust and air pollution.

In addition we face the construction of a large compound and associated disturbance to the quality of our lives with noise, HGVs and plant movement, light pollution being among the issues of concern.

We need the reassurance that enforcement of stringent regulation will minimise the problems we face for several decades in addition to the very extensive works to the adjacent station.

Access issues:

We were advised in the Environmental Statement that Bamby Street will be 'stopped up' without any explanation of how this will affect our day-today life in terms of ease of access, emergency access, service and delivery vehicles.

Disabled parking access:

Your petitioners is father of an adult son who has been seriously ill for many months following an accident and who will remain disabled. We will need the ability to access a disabled parking space close to our home in order to support him and assist in his rehabilitation and care.

Security:

We have only recently become aware that the HS2 Promoter is intending to take land forming a small garden area between our housing block and the secure perimeter fence. We totally object to this land being taken and our security and amenity and that of our neighbours being compromised.

Access to the Community Hall:

It is also unclear whether the community will continue to have access to the hall that they have occupied for many years - perhaps since the estate was built in the 1960s. Clearly if access cannot be maintained and/or if disruption is deemed too great for normal activities to take place, we cannot receive any income from hiring out the facility. Indeed we believe we have lost our long-term tenants of the office space in large part because of uncertainty about the future due to HS2. Neither will we have a space large enough to accommodate estate meetings and activities. Clearly if this should be the case our community will require a replacement facility.

- 2 - 4. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

,,...._ I '

Name: .... Signature

Name: ~gnature..

- 3 - To the House of Lords HL: 275 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail {London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF

Declares that:

1. The petitioner(s) is/are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

2. Your petitioner(s) is/are

.~t\.\ 3. Your petitioner's concerns are 4. The prayer

The petitioner(s) therefore ask(s) the House of Lords that (s)he/they, or someone representing her/him/them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner(s) remain(s), etc.

Name. Signature

Name: ...... Signature ......

Name: ...... :...... Signature ......

Name: ...... Signature ......

Name: ...... Signature......

House of Lords Private Bill Office House of Lords London House of Lords Private Bill SWlA OPW Office: phone: 020 7219 2468 Lords HS2 Bill Team fax: 020 7219 2571 email: [email protected]

You can email a pdf scanned copy of your signed petition, and post the original, or just post the original, or take it in person to committee room 2A in the committee room corridor of the main houses of parliament between 1 Dam & Spm on weekdays. Leave time to get through security. You can check the information online: http://www. parliament. uk/business/bills-and-legislation/current bills/hybrid-bills/ Deposit your petition between 1 Dam Thursday 24 March and Spm Monday 18th April 2016, with a £20 fee. HL: 276

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF FIONA MCGUIRE AND JONATHAN DUNCAN

Declares that:

1 The petitioners are specia lly and directly adverse ly affected by the whole Bill.

2 Your petitioners

Your Petitioners are a married couple who have lived on the quiet residential street of Mornington Terrace, Camden since 1999 and have two young boys currently aged four and six years. Your Petitioners are the owners of a house on the street, which is divided into two flats, the upper three floors in which they live and the ground floor/ basement flat, which is rented out to paying tenants on consecutive short term leases.

Your Petitioners' property is located directly opposite to and within 100 metres of the proposed HS2 station approach into Euston (below Park Village East). This is a section of railway line known as the Camden Cutting and on which there will be ten years of construction work. The planned construction work includes the demolition of the 12 metre high, 3 metre thick retaining wall running the length of Park Village East, which is anticipated to take 12 months. Your petitioners' live 40 metres from the listed Mornington Street bridge, which is also due to be demolished and prior to being rebuilt, will require a temporary bridge to be constructed directly in front of your Petitioners' property and secu red using 'ground anchors' under your Petitioners' property.

3 Your petitioner's concerns

Introduction as to how your Petitioners are directly and specially affected by both the construction and operational phases of HS2:

Your Petitioners strongly object to the proposal to site the terminus of HS2 at Euston station, due to the scale of disruption this will cause to the entire Camden area and specifically the Camden cutting, in the immediate vicinity of their property. The local area is extremely quiet, which is su rprising given its densely populated urban setting. There is very little road traffic on Mornington Terrace and minimal noise, especially during the evenings and weekends. Train noise is not currently problematic and never so in the evening as the existing train services do not run through the night. 2

4 The construction of HS2 will have a devastating effect on the lives of your Petitioners and their children, due to massive increases to local road traffic, including hundreds of HGV's a day and resulting congestion; increased pollution levels, air, light, noise and ground borne vibration; loss of local green/ open spaces and children's play areas and the erosion of the local community, due to the compulsory purchase and demolition of housing and local amenities.

5 Your Petitioners would like to propose that given the current level of overcrowding at Euston; the ill thought through HS2 proposal for the new station and the fact that Euston has no link to International travel networks via any London Airports, further consideration be given to making Old Oak Common the terminus for HS2, which with Crossrail, will make onward journeys into London and beyond faster than from Euston and crucially will spare Camden from becoming a construction site for a minimum of ten years.

6 Construction and Associated Traffic:

Your Petitioners are extremely concerned that the construction work, incl uding tunnelling, which will take place w ithin 100 metres of the Petitioners' property, combined w ith the location of numerous satellite construction co mpounds in t he immediate area (including one on the Petitioners' street adjacent to their property), will re sult in unprecedented amounts of traffic on the Borough's roads, both construction vehicles (including huge numbers of HGV's) day and night and other traffic diverted onto local roads, through residential areas. Thi s traffic congestion w ill severely impact on your Petitioners and their children's peaceful enjoyment of their property; will increase air pollution throughout the Camden area (which is already dangerously high) and make once quiet local roads un safe for both cyclist s and pedestrians. As dedicated cycling co mmuters and parent s of school age children who walk and cycl e to school, this is a genuinely t errifying prospect.

7 The location of the Mornington Terrace 'street level' sate ll ite construction compound should be re-assessed t o minimise t he size of the compound and t he period of t ime it is required to be operational. Th e presence of this compound in such a quiet resi dential street, along with the associat ed construction vehicles and equipment required to service the compound, will severely increase noise levels, particula rly noise 'peaks' which are more likely to cause disturbances to sleep. In addition, this compound will considerably reduce the amount of on-street parking available to loca l residents.

8 Your Petitioners ask that construction traffic be minimised by the use of rail haulage as an alternative means to supply and service the needs of the construction sites and most crucially that spoil resulting from the construction activity be removed by rail rather than road . This may impact on the traditional rail services to and from 3

Euston during the period of construction, but it is a reasonable proposal that commuters share in the burden of the construction of HS2 'for the greater good', as Camden residents are also required to do.

9 Any Construction vehicles required to be used should be confined to major roads in the Borough, using only minor roads where absolutely necessary and avoiding residential roads to minimise disturbance and the threat to the safety of local residents, particularly children. Your Petitioners also request that outside of core working hours the use of HGV construction t ra ffic, be minimised.

10 You r Petitioners ask that Drivers of HGV and other construction vehicles be specifically trained in road safety; be required to drive at low speeds and construction vehicles be fitted with up-to-date safety devices to minimise the likelihood of road traffic accidents, particularly at busy junctions and on roads without dedicated cycle lanes.

11 In addition, your Petitioners ask that additional safety measures be put into place to protect cyclists and pedestrians from construction traffic, including the provision of additional cycle paths and pedestrian walkways within the Camden area.

12 Your Petitioners ask that no demolition should be undertaken in the Camden and Euston area, be that of housing or infrastructure, including bridges and retaining walls, until there is a fully integrated plan for the new Euston station.

13 Noise Pollution, Vibration and Night-time working:

As previously stated, your Petitioners live within 100 metres of the proposed HS2 deep cutting route beneath Park Village East through to Euston and a few metres from the existing Victorian Mornington Street Bridge, which is due to be demolished and rebuilt during the construction phase of the HS2 project. Mornington Street Bridge is to be temporarily replaced by a pedestrian and cycle bridge situated immediately in front of your Petitioners' property (which is also due to be constructed and subsequently demolished during the construction phase). Much of this construction work requires heavy machinery, which is inherently noisy. This work will result in huge amounts of construction traffic and other traffic diverted onto local roads.

14 The cumulative effect of the construction work - tunnelling, excavation, bridge construction and demolition involving pile driving and the resulting train and road haulage, will cause a significant increase to local noise levels and will introduce high levels of unmitigated subterranean vibration to the area surrounding your Petitioners' home, which will be experienced both internally and externally to your Petitioners' property.

15 The proposed bill indicates that the majority of this work can be undertaken outside of core working hours, which given the surprisingly tranquil environment in which your Petitioners and their children live, will greatly impact on their quality of 4

life and w ill rob them of the fundamental right to quiet enjoyment of their property.

16 As stated previously, currently your Petitioners do not experience any disturbance from the traditional train service during the night, as the current train services do not run 24 hours a day. The only disturbance cu rrently suffered is during rare periods of track maintenance, w hich for operational reasons are usually undertaken during the night, using heavy machinery operated and supported by teams of rail staff. Your Petitioners' local area is usually extremely quiet, but the railway cutting is of such a shape and design that noise pollution from track maintenance reverberates up and down Mornington Terrace and often results in broken sleep for your Petitioners' entire family.

17 The levels of noise and vibration currently experienced when maintaining the existing traditional rail track are insignificant compared to what your Petitioners will be exposed to during the construction phase of HS2 . Given the nature, duration and permitted operating hours of the planned HS2 construction work in the residential area in which your Petitioners live, it is anticipated that your Petitioners' family will suffer regular broken sleep for the duration of the construction phase (which based on the published HS2 schedule is likely to be ten years). This will have a devastating effect on your Petitioners' home-life and careers and an even more profound and long lasting effect on your Petitioners' children, including their academic development.

18 In order to mitigate this potentially devastating effect on your Petitioners' lives, they request that the following measures be applied to the operating procedures of HS2.

A) The traditional train service schedule should be amended to maximise the amount of construction work which can be undertaken during core working hours, thereby minimising the levels of disturbance to local residents.

B) Current 'usual' levels of noise and vibration experienced during periods when no maintenance work is taking place on traditional tracks, should be recorded to provide baseline data against which the impact of HS2, both during construction and once operational, can be measured.

C) Noise pollution levels during the construction phase to be kept to an absolute minimum using effective barriers and be monitored throughout the construction and operational phases of HS2 . This data should be shared regularly (on a monthly basis as a minimum) with local residents and not just with London Borough of Camden as is currently being proposed.

D) All contractors working on the project should be subject to significant financial penalties if maximum noise levels and/ or authorised hours of working are breached.

E) Establish an approved and published formal process through which local complaints of disturbance can be addressed in real time, independent of the 5 contractors undertaking the construction work, as your Petitioners anticipate that Camden Council's Noise Abatement Department will have no day to day jurisdiction over the HS2 operational policies and procedures. This should include a helpline in operation 24 hours a day during the construction phase, enabling local re side nts to report concerns and disturbances relating to HS2. There should also be an agreed and appropriate timeframe to respond to complaints, which if exceeded, financial penalties should be levied on HS2 and their Nominated Undertakers.

During the current period of preparation work undertaken for HS2 which has been on-going since the early part of 2016, the Nominated Undertaker, Network Rai l, has caused disturbance outside core working hours to local residents throughout Mornington Terrace on many occasions. On each occasion your Petitioner has contacted the Network Rail helpline to be told that they will respond to the complaint within an authorised response period of 20 days.

F) Bespoke noise insulation (and effective ventilation systems) should be designed and installed in all properties affected by noise pollution re sulting from the HS2 construction phase and such measures should be in place prior to commencement of any potentially noisy HS2 work in the Camden Cutting area. The cost of such installation, removal and property reinstatement should be borne entirely by HS2. These measures must provide effective noise mitigation for all types of property, including period, listed and new-build, to protect local residents and schools from increased noise pollution, which would otherwise affect their usual day to day activities, including studying/ working, relaxing at home and sleeping.

G) Effective ventilation systems should also be provided which will be essential during the Summer months, when all windows and doors will need to be kept closed in order to provide effective noise insulation.

H) Appropriate acoustic screening and sound baffling methods must be utilised around all construction sites, including satellite construction compounds, to effectively dampen the noise pollution caused by the construction activity, be that generated by construction machinery, vehicles or workers.

Network Rail, HS2's Nominated Undertaker currently working in the Camden Cutting area, has provided written assurances that they will utilise best practice to minimise unnecessary disturbance by using noise barriers during the HS2 preparatory work. However sound barriers have not been in evidence on any of the many occasions since January 2016 when HS2 preparatory work has been undertaken in the Camden Cutting outside working hours. This has caused great disturbance to local residents.

I) Where significant increases to noise pollution and vibration are anticipated which would materially impact on the quality of life, including sleep disturbance, e.g. during the demolition of the Mornington Street Bridge and the 6

Park Village East retaining wall, your Petitioners ask that local residents be awarded personal mitigation funds well in advance of commencement of the specific works, in order to obtain alternative accommodation for the duration of the planned works.

19 During the operational phase of HS2 your Petitioners are concerned that they will continue to suffer the effects of increased noise pollution and subterranean vibration caused by the speed, frequency and design of the high-speed trains. You r Petitioners request t hat suitable barri ers to noise and subterranean vibration be incorporated int o the design of the t rains, tracks and architecture of the site, in order to protect local residents from the permanent adverse effects of locating the High Speed network within an open cutting in a high density residential area.

20 Compensation: South Camden and Euston are densely popu lated urban areas which will be subjected to the most devastating effects of the HS2 project - loss or devaluation of local residential property; huge increases in traffic with resulting road congestion; pollution and negative impacts on local public transport; reduced amenities for the community including community services and green open spaces. Yet local residents, probably those most directly and materially affected by the project in the entire country, have been offered a compensation package which is grossly inferior to that offered to rural communities along the route of HS2, effectively leaving the majority of people without access to any compensation.

21 Your Petitioners will suffer material financial hardship as a result of the HS2 project and yet despite your Pet itioners' property directly facing the planned construction site which is 100 metres away, unlike those living considerably further from the planned works in rural communities, your Petitioners do not currently qualify for any form of compensation, be that specific payments during a period of highly disruptive work (including the placing of ground anchors directly beneath their property); a grant to cover the cost of double or triple glazing; or the purchase of your Petitioners' property by the Government for its full pre-HS2 market value.

The reason cited by HS2 for the lack of compensation available to local residents, is that compensation is not awarded for disturbance caused by construction, which is considered temporary. The construction which will be undertaken in the Camden Cutting area is anticipated to last ten years. The construction of the new Euston station, which will impact greatly on the whole of Camden, is planned to be completed by 2033. With an ingoing anticipated construction period of period of 15 years, your Petitioners would argue that this disturbance is not temporary.

22 For the next 15 years your Petitioners' property will be severely devalued by the 7

construction work being undertaken locally. Should your Petitioners' quality of life be sufficiently eroded to require them to permanently vacate their property, it will be an enormous challenge to find a buyer, given that the planned HS2 construction work will be identified on all local searches. If a potential purchaser can be found, it is extremely unlikely that they will be willing to pay full market value for the home which your Petitioners have spent years and many thousands of pounds refurbishing and had hoped to live in for the rest of their lives and ultimately pass on to their children, but which they are forced to sell as a result of their property being on the edge of a major construction site for many years.

23 Your Petitioners also own the residential property which occupies the bottom two floors of the same house. Since purchasing this property as a long-term pension investment, your Petitioners have used a local letting agent to rent the property to a series of professional tenants on short term leases. The Letting agent has advised your Petitioners that it is likely that the rental value of the property will be severely diminished (if not eroded entirely) due to the proximity of the property to 10 years of HS2 construction work.

24 Yo ur Petitioners should be compensated for any loss of rental income during the local construction phase. If rental income is entirely eroded due to the lack of tenants willing to live so close to the biggest construction site in Europe, your Petitioners will be unable to cover the mortgage payments on their rental property. Should your Petitioners be forced to sell this property as a result of long-term loss of rental income, it is highly likely that the property will not attain pre-HS2 market value. The net result will be material financial loss for your Petitioners which will impact on their pension arrangements and this loss should be compensation by HS2 .

25 Given all of the issues detailed in this petition, your Petitioners request that the current compensation proposals offered to those affected by the HS2 project are amended to ensure that they do not discriminate against urban citizens and that al l parties affected by the project, be they in an urban or rural environment and be they owner occupiers, tenants or landlords, be assessed on equal terms and treated fairly.

26 Air Pollution:

During both the construction and operational ph ases of HS2 there will be an increase in pollution within Camden. The tunnelling work beneath Park Village East, the demolition of both Mornington Street Bridge and the 12 metre high retaining wall at Park Village Ea st will produce masses of dust pollution, which could at worst be harmful to health and at best detrimentally impact on the quality of life of your Petitioners and their children. The considerable increase in road traffic, including huge numbers of HGVs (anticipated to be up to 470 per 8

day on local roads) will also adversely affect local air quality. Children have a larger lung su rface area to body weight ratio than adults. Their lungs, immune system and brain develop through ea rly childhood and are much more susceptible to the effects of air pollution. Children also spend more time outdoors both during and after school, so they have greater exposure to air pollution.

27 As parents of school age children, your Petitioners ask that the following measures are put into place to mitigate the risks posed to the local community by worsening air pollution.

A) Construction traffic is routed away from residential roads, local schools, ch ildren's centres and play areas.

B) All construction vehicles to be low, or zero emission.

C) Pollution monitoring to be undertaken throughout the Borough during both the construction and operational phases of HS2 .

D) Adequate air filtration systems be provided for those properties affected by air pollution, including re sidential properties, schools and children's centres.

E) i) Planted hoardings to be used wherever possible to combat air pollution.

ii ) The existing trees that run along the entire length of Mornington Terrace on the side of the road adjacent to the existing railway lines, be retained to preserve as much green space as possi ble, to help offset ai r pollution during the co nstruction and operational phases of HS2.

iii) Co nsi deration sho uld also be given to the proposal to create a 'living walkway' above the Hi gh Speed line within the Camden Cutting. This measure will offset some of the air pollution ca used by the High Speed trains during the operational phase, replace some of the Borough's green open spaces permanently lost to the construction of HS2 and improve the landscape character and view of the wider cutting resulting from the construction work. 9

28 The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bi ll.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

, Fiona McGuire Jonathan Duncan

1 14 h April 2016 HL: 277 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail {London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF MR JACKSON TOMS-LIMB AND MS LOUISE TIBBITTS

Declares t hat:

1. The petitioners are special ly and directly adversely affected by the whole bil l.

Your Petitioners

2. Your petitioners are Jackson Toms-Limb and Louise Tibbitts (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners); we are owner-occupiers ( owning both leasehold on our individual flat, as well as share of freehold for our building) of Flat 3, 1 Mornington Crescent.

3. Since moving into the property (as first-time buyers) in April 2010, your petitioners have enjoyed the unique qualities of the local area: benefiting from the close proximity to central London, with easy walking access into the central shopping district; as well as the local amenities of the Mornington Crescent area and of Camden more broadly; enjoying regular walks up to The Regents Park, passing alongside the railway cutting (hereinafter referred to as The Cutting) and often remarking on it's relative sense of peace, quiet, openness and light, not often found in central London.

4. Your petitioners' home is sited on the junction between Mornington Crescent and Hampstead Road, with the back garden directly looking onto the Cutting that forms the approach into Euston Station to the south. Indeed, the rear wall of the garden is actually the eastern retaining wall for the Cutting.

5. Built in the 1780s, 1 Mornington Crescent has stood on this site since before the railway first came into Euston Station, and was once occupied by George Cruikshank. This building is grade II listed and forms the start of a terrace of 4-storey Georgian townhouses that became Mornington Crescent. This is very much in keeping with the rest of the Cutting area - with Conservation Areas on both sides of the Cutting, as well as listed heritage assets including the bridges across the Cutting and the Retaining Walls within.

- 2 - 6. We believe this sense of high-quality and heritage architecture, combined with the qualities of the local environment as described already above, would normally make this property much-sought after were it not for the impacts of the High-S peed 2 (Hereinafter referred to as HS2) project on the immediate environs, and as such your Petitioners believe their rights and interests are injuriously affected by the Bill .

7. Your petitioners lodged a Petition against the Bill to the House of Commons and appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee in December 2015. None of the matters raised then have been resolved, indeed some of the assurances given to London Borough of Camden Council (hereinafter referred to as 'LBC'), and the manner in which these have been taken forwards since December 2015, have led to further uncertainty for residents of the neighbourhood. Therefore your petitioners now raise those issues again as well as further issues set out below.

Your Petitioner's concerns and How Your Petitioners are Directly and Specially affected by HS2

8. The plans for HS2 as included in the Bill, describe a number of works in immediate proximity to your Petitioners' home, surrounding us for 10 years:

(a) Demolition of 12 metre high Park Village East (PVE) retaining walls (b) Reconstruction of PVE retaining wa lls at a height of 35 metres high above HS2 track level plus 15 metres below existing track level (c) Deep excavation and construction of new retaining walls within the Cutting (d) Construction of a high speed rail dive under box about 30m deep (e) Demolition and reconstruction of the existing Line X conventional rail cross-over (f) Phased demolition and reconstruction over eight years of Hampstead Road Bridge 4.8 metres higher and about 220 metres long (about twice the existing length) (g) Demolition and reconstruction of Mornington Street Bridge (h) Demolition and reconstruction of Granby Terrace Bridge (i) Demolition of the Cutting Carriage Shed (j) Demolition of 220 homes (k) Construction of two concrete portal boxes (I) Reception of tunnel boring machines (m) Construction of three ventilation/intervention buildings adjacent to the Cutting (n) Works on the classic railway tracks, signalling and other systems ( o) Installation of new tracks, gantries, signals etc (p) Construction compounds throughout the neighbourhood, including immediately behind the petitioner's property for 10 years (q) Utility works in many neighbourhood streets

- 3 - (r) HGV construction traffic along both residential streets and main roads for years, including Mornington Crescent (s) Mornington Crescent (junction with Hampstead Road) to be blocked for normal road access and surrounded by hoarding adjacent to our house (t) Years of 'significant noise' and months of 'significant vibration'

On Mitigation and Enforcement

9. The cumulative impacts of the works as described in the Environmental Statement (hereinafter referred to as ES) include noise, dust, vibration, and pollution. The ES recognises there are residual significant negative impacts, i.e. even after the proposed mitigation, there will still be significant impacts.

10. The nature of the works described above means that almost all of it will be exempt from normal working hours (simply to avoid disruption to National Rail), set out in the Code of Construction Practice (hereinafter referred to as CoCP), allowing the Nominated Undertaker to proceed with 24 hour working, 7 days a week.

11. The mitigation measures proposed (none of which are guaranteed) in the ES and CoCP, include secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation, but only once impacts reach dire levels: 85db for 40 days in a period of 6 months. The Health and Safety Executive requires ear defenders to be worn in a place of work which has this level of noise.

12. We ask that the CoCP be amended such that night-time working is only allowed for technical reasons (e.g. concrete to be continuously poured over 24 hours), not for cost or programme reasons (delays).

13. HS2's noise insulation policy requires noise to be reduced to below SOAEL level (Significant Observable Adverse Effect Level), but to provide full mitigation over long periods and allow adequate sleep we ask that the CoCP be amended such that the noise insulation mitigation should be set at LOAEL level (Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level).

14. We do not believe a secondary pane of glass will be enough to counter what is effectively the equivalent of a motorway with constant heavy traffic running directly outside our home. Additionally we do not agree with having to aesthetically compromise and potentially damage our (Listed) property because HS2 cannot mitigate the impacts of construction any other way. Your petitioners therefore ask that appropriate mitigation measures must be agreed on a case by case basis, that are respectful and sympathetic to the historical and aesthetic nature of the properties (both internal and external), and that HS2 ensure all planning approvals are granted as needed to support the agreed measures.

15. Your petitioners are aware of the many assurances given to LBC, however we note that most of these were simply agreements for studies of

- 4 - work by HS2 and other project parties, and the sharing of this work with LBC. The community has not been engaged in these studies, nor been party to the progress or outcomes of this work, and as such can take no comfort from these assurances - effectively there has been no relief of any of the issues raised to the House of Commons Select Committee, despite the passing of some 4 months. We ask this House to instruct HS2 to engage meaningfully with the community on these studies, and for HS2 to conclude these studies timeously such that, should the outcome warrant further presentation, your petitioners reserve the right to appear before this House after these studies are concluded.

16. The further assurances given to LBC were more 'process-related' - how the two parties would work together, rather than actually improving or adding to the mitigation to be offered. As such, again, the community and your petitioners cannot take any comfort from these assurances.

17. We are aware of assurances given to Camden Council that confirm that the Local Authority retains its powers and obligations under section 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In theory this allows Camden Council to determine lower noise thresholds for noise insulation and re housing. In practice this is not adequate as it provides no clarity to residents on whether or how this power will be used over the extensive period of works. Instead it makes residents reliant on Camden Council, a body with conflicted interests. We suggest that it is appropriate that Parliament makes a clear determination on this as part of the legislative process.

18. Further, Hybrid Bill Clause 19: Subsections (1), (2) and (4) deem planning permission under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be granted for development authorised by the Bill. Schedule 16 sets out conditions which apply to t he planning permission granted by clause 19. Under paragraph 26 (1) of Schedule 16 the Secretary of State can issue statutory guidance to planning authorities about the exercise of their functions within Schedule 16. Where a building (other than a temporary building) is to be constructed, altered or extended under the Bill, paragraph 2 requires this to be done in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the relevant planning authority. Under paragraph 2(7), conditions the Local Authority may seek to impose on the contractor also require the agreement of the nominated undertaker.

19. The net effect is that the local authority, while managing the approval process and monitoring, may impose conditions on approval of detailed plans and specifications only with the agreement of the nominated undertaker. In summary, HS2 can do what it wants and the Local Authority has no effective control. We ask that the provisions in sub-paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 16 quoted above be removed from the Bill and that the Local Authority retains the powers it normally has under the Town and Country Planning Act.

20. The CoCP and the Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMPs) are the documents which control how work will be undertaken. The mitigation

- 5 - described by HS2 in these draft documents is too uncertain for us to have enough surety - the texts contain phrases like 'Best Practicable Means' ('BPM') and 'Reasonable Endeavours', or simply leave any commitment to documents such as LEMPs which will only be produced after the last chance we as individual petitioners will have to raise our concerns with this Committee.

21. BPM, per section 72 of Control of Pollution Act 1974, is described as "reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications."

22. Our concern is that when, inevitably, the project is ru nning late or over budget, that this will give the Nominated Undertaker the excuse for why they cannot adequately mitigate the impacts on the community.

23. There is precedent for where BPM has been claimed despite the significant negative impact on the community: In September 2015, the BBC reported on the metro works in Newcastle where contractors also said they'd 'done their best' but residents suffered through 4 continuous months of night-time noise. And within our own neighbourhood, we already have ongoing HS2 investigatory works by Network Rail in the Cutting. Letters have been sent to residents stating that BPM will be employed to reduce the nuisance and yet residents have suffered through many sleep-disturbed nights and daytime noise caused by pile-driving - and these are just investigatory works! Despite neighbours ra ising complaints to Network Rail, HS2 and LBC, the works and the disturbance continues.

24. For these reasons, we ask t ha t the normal planning powers are retained by LBC, such that they do not need the agreement of the Nominated Undertaker to restrict working practices as part of permissions, and therefore can provide meaningful mitigation to the impacts imposed on the community.

25. Further, we support other petitioners requests for an Independent Adjudicator to be appointed, not reporting to HS2, to hold HS2 accountable to the assurances given, and also to the CoCP, LEMPs and 561 Planning permissions that will manage the works. An alternative would be for HS2 to provide funding to LBC for additional environmental officers to ensure ongoing monitoring of the works and enforcement of all mitigation measures.

On Compensation

26. As stated previously, the ES documents the residual significant negative impacts that remain for Camden, even after the proposed mitigation is factored in. By HS2's own planning principals, where you can't mitigate you shou ld compensate. This has not been followed through in Camden.

27. The logic that Camden is busy and urban and therefore 'used to noise and disturbance' simply does not stand up to the fact that the Euston HS2

- 6 - works will be one of the largest construction sites in Europe, with a duration and intensity never seen before in a residential urban environment.

28. In spite of the scale of the work, the duration and the anti-social impact, compensation is extremely limited. Except under the very limited circumstances of the Need to Sell Scheme, residents are not being offered any protection against the fall in value of their homes during the lengthy construction period, making moving home impossible. For those staying in their homes throughout the construction phase there is no compensation provided, in spite of the acknowledged un-mitigated significant adverse environmental impacts.

29. Further, the Promoter posits another principle of infrastructure construction is that impacted residents must be prepared to bear some level of 'temporary' disturbance for the wider public good. We would suggest that 10 years is not temporary (not even taking into account the further phases of HS2 works at Euston which extend this to over 18 years works within SOOm of your petitioners home).

30. The ES also notes some of the permanent detrimental effects HS2 will bring to the local area. These include (but are not limited to):

(a) a permanent increase in traffic on all surrounding streets (b) the use of Hampstead Road as part of the taxi route to support the new station further increasing the likelihood of traffic jams ( c) the resulting increases in danger to pedestrians, noise and pollution this will cause (d) the rebuilt Hampstead Road Bridge as a 6m higher eye-sore, designed more like an industrial zone structure than anything fitting for residential city-centre architecture

31. We ask that a compensation scheme is designed for Camden that recognises the duration and intensity of the construction works, as well as the permanent negative effects we will suffer. This should be of at least equivalence to those schemes offered to the rural protection zone, but should be drawn up specifically for Camden. We agree with the final report of the House of Commons Select Committee in stating that "Camden is exceptional, and needs special treatment" (para 237).

32. The current compensation schemes (even if they were replicated and made available to Camden) do not go far enough to meet resident's needs. There is insufficient coverage of all the impacts suffered and they are too restrictive in how they are provided: There is no scheme that compensates for the loss of amenity for those residents who wish to stay in the area - all available schemes require residents to sell their properties and thus change their life plans because of HS2. Further, the schemes on ly cover resident homeowners, not the many small landlords in t he Camden area . In most cases these are owners who have moved out of the area but wish to keep a

- 7 - foothold in this currently-desirable part of central London, so rent out their property while they do not live there.

33. As the area will suffer residual significant negative impacts it is likely that tenants will either move away or negotiate a significantly lower rent, which could lead to the landlord suffering a loss due to rental income not covering monthly costs such as mortgage payments and service charges. We do understand that the Government should not be protecting people's 'profit', but we do not feel it is appropriate for people to suffer a loss beca use of a government proj ect. Th e House of Commons Select Committee also recognised our ca se that it is a perfectly normal and acceptable means of investment for individ uals, often to support current or future pension income for retirement.

34. We ask that the compensation schemes made available for Camden should include landlords as well as resident-homeowners, and that compensation should be made available without requiring owners (whether resident or landlord) to be forced to sell their property. For landlords this cou ld be li mited to coveri ng any shortfall in income to cover costs only (not profits), and for residents this would be the equivalent of the rural support zone payments that recognise the temporary and permanent loss of amenity that residents of Camden will suffer due to HS2.

On the design for Euston and the Cutting/Approach

35. The latest plans for Euston represent half the station at twice the cost and twice the time to complete, and do not deliver on the aspirations of the Higgins Report of April 2014 to produce a 'world-class' Euston station. The station will still be an HS2 'bolt-on' to the western side of the existing station, with no planned or funded works to repair the classic station. The budget has gone up, the duration and negative impact of the works has gone up, and yet t he output is worse.

36. Any scheme that does not provide the full design for the whole station is a half-finished scheme and requires more time to complete before any full assessment of the costs and benefits, including impacts on local community, can be properly rendered.

37. For this reason, your petitioners support asks by LBC and local community groups such as Euston Area Action Group and Camden Cutting Group, that no construction work should begin in Camden until a complete plan for Euston Station and the approach through the Cutting has been developed, incorporating all phases of HS2, classic station redevelopment and Crossrail 2. Alternatively, Old Oak Common could be developed as a temporary London terminus for the high-speed section of the line, to allow time for a comprehensive and well considered design to be done for Euston and its approach and for many of the issues raised in this petition to be resolved.

38. Your petitioners are also aware that there are further design studies for certain structures that have yet to be completed. These include Hampstead

8 Road Bridge, which is planned to be raised by Sm - this is too high and does not fit with the surrounding pavements and houses. We ask that this House supports our request for a more sympathetic design for both Hampstead Road Bridge and the connected Granby Terrace Bridge, a better design that sees a road bridge as a road for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers not just a bridge over a railway: Hampstead Road Bridge should be lower and less impactful on surroundings. Granby Terrace Bridge should be a single structure along it's whole length and fit with surroundings, also providing like-for-like replacement with parking spaces.

On support for other local petitioners

39. Finally we note our support for the petitions of other local petitioners, who have raised issues not covered above to avoid duplication. This especially includes the Camden Cutting Group who most closely represent your petitioners and have extensively detailed both the impacts and the proposed mitigating asks to resolve many of the issues facing our community.

The Prayer

40. The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Name: Mr Jackson Toms-Limb

Name: Ms Louise Tibbitts

Date: 15th April 2016

- 9 - HL: 278 To the House of Lords Session 2015- 16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF CARA AND GEORGE PENNOCK

Declares that:

I. The petitioners and their young family are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole of the Bill.

II. You r petitioners are owners of a property in Delancey Street (hereinafter referred to as 'Your Petitioners'), which they occupy together with their two sons, aged six and four. Your Petitioners purchased the house (number 26) in February 2010 w ith a view to it being their family home for at least such time until their children became adults. Their children currently attend Northbridge House pre-prep school and plan to attend the prep school, situated at the junction of Delancey Street and Parkway, from the age of seven.

Delancey Street consists of around 200 properties and the resident population is over 400. It is over 90% residential with residents living in privately owned or rented single dwellings or flats. There are also a handful of council owned properties. The residents are primarily the elderly and families with young children, taking advantage of the proximity to Regent's Park, the amenities in Camden Town, and many schools. Many of the properties are listed and therefore do not have double glazed windows. The Victorian properties were built on very shallow foundations.

The Street is a pleasantly curved road of early and late Victorian 4/5 storey terraced houses which abut t he pavements. It is situated at the centre of a unique Camden community that coexists with the existing railway cutting, which is locat ed at the top end of Delancey Street/Parkway/Mornington Te rrace (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cutting'), and the areas w here t he HS2 constru ction works will be taking place and where 5 compounds are going to be erected.

The Street also has a number of small businesses, such as a Portuguese delicatessen (No 40) and a specialist coffee shop (No 11) which have been there for decades and are very much part of the local community.

Northbridge House Prep School is located at the Cutting, at the top of Delancey Street. This is attended by 300 girl and boy pupils aged between 7 and 13. Significant concerns have already been raised within the school by the potential damage caused to the school by the noise and disruption of the planned works. In particular, the risk of damage to the pupils' future health by the proximity of their playgrounds to the Cutting and the works, is a cause for huge concern. There is already considerable speculation that the School will need to relocate itself as a resu lt of the noise and pollution, causing immense damage to the pupils' education and wellbeing and to their families. Your Petitioners chose to buy their house on Delancey Street because of their desire for their children to attend the School. If the planned works proceed, it seems very likely that their children's schooling and health will be significantly and negatively impacted.

Delancey Street is a one-way route, running East to West and acts as a main thorough fare. In additions, it has two bus routes, the C2 and 274 and has two bus stops.

Generally, the traffic running freely in the Street, however, a two-way contra flow cycle route is planned for the Street and is due to be built at the end of 2016. This will narrow the road to a single lane and mean that buses will have to stop at the bus stop in the middle of the road thus creating tail-backs of traffic. The air pollution in the road is already over the legal limit.

Ill. Your Petitioners' property w ill not be demolished as a result of the Bill but Your Petitioners will be directly and specially affected. Your Petitioners' properties are located within a very close range from the proposed construction works within the Cutting and Portal.

We feel devastated that even at this stage of the petitioning process, we and the other residents of Delancey Street will still be left with a significant negative impact from 10 years or more of construction and its associated issues. Any assurances given to Camden Council and mitigation on such issues as noise insulation do not take away the overall significant Adverse Effects of the scheme on the lives of all residents' on Delancey Street.

We have chosen at significant expense t o acquire a property on Delancey Street as an ideal place to bring up our young family. We object to the Bill on the grounds that our property, our family's health, our children' s future school and our way of live will be significantly damaged by the proposed works, which are planned to last for the greater part of our children's childhood.

List ed below are our concerns:

I. DURATION AND EXTENT OF THE HS2 PROJECT

At present the Euston St ation is planned to be constructed in two stages meaning that HS2 works will not be com pleted at Euston until 2033 as compared to 2026 in the origin al ES. SES2 AP3 Non- technical summary Table 2. Your Petitioners are opposed to the duration and extent of works because of the decades of disruption and blight it will bring to Delancey Street and our surrounding area. 18 years of construction constitutes a 'long time'. According to the Health Impact Assessment SES2. This cannot be considered a temporary scheme but a permanent one. A scheme that will outlive many of the elderly residents of Delancey Street and which will not be completed until our young children become adults.

The co nstruction work to be carried out in the Cutting at the top of Del ancey Street will be at least 10 years' worth of heavy, noisy and disruptive work. It will include extensive excavation, demolition, piling work and structural work. (According to Construction Phasing Maps CT.20.005/6/7/8.) Although we have been told that within this time frame, there will be busier peak periods of 24 months, 30 months for example. According to the Construction Phasing Maps, shows that this work will be continuous between 2016 and 2026.

II. CONSTRUCTION COMPOUNDS

To accommodate the extra work (reintroducing Line X) in the Cutting, an additional construction satellite compound, Park Vi ll age East (North), will be required (SES2 and AP3 Vol 2-5.2.43). This new compound will be meters away from Delancey Street and the Street will be used as one of the main HGV routes to this compound. There will be 4 satellite compounds built within close proximity of Your Petitioner Residents' Street.

Ill. TEM PORARY AND PERMANENT SIGNIFICNAT ADVERSE TRAFFIC EFFECTS

SES and AP3 5.3.79 vol 2 states Delancey Street will be effected with temporary and permanent significant major/moderate adverse traffic effects. (TR-03-001.) . Table 28 predicts a 30% increase in daily traffic flows in the Street for both vehicles and HGVs. There appear to be various reasons for this:

Construction route. Within the revised SES and AP3, Delancey Street has been designated a major construction route, to service the Park Village East (North) compound (7 years with a busy period of 14 months}, Park Village East (11 years and 24 months busy period) as well as the Mornington Terrace Sidings (12 years and 14 months busy period) and Mornington Street Bridge Compound (5 years and 14 months busy period). According to the SES, the vehicle trips generated between all 4 compounds will be between 30-36 vehicles and 270-426 HGVs (Table 26). It is unclear whether these busy peak periods will overlap or which years they will be.

AP3 assumes the worst case that all excavated material will be transported by road. CFAl Table 7 estimated a total of 3,444,929 (tonnes) of construction, demolition and excavated material CFA 1 Table as opposed to 2,815,319 tonnes in the Bill scheme. It is estimated that there will be over 800 HGV movements per day during the busiest months.

Diversion route. The Street will be used as a diversion route and permanent closure and reconfiguration of roads during Construction Stage A and Bl and after the Operation of the new Station in 2041. This includes the Street being used as a diversion route for Mornington Terrace during various periods during Construction (5.3.79) As stated in Table 44 SES Vol 2 there will be a significant major adverse increase of more than 10% in traffic from 2041.

Traffic Flows and queuing. Traffic flows and queuing in Delancey Street will be further compounded by the following junctions: Delancey/Parkway (major significant adverse impact 2 years). This means traffic flows at the junction will be beyond or very close to capacity with the revised scheme and the increases in traffic due to the revised scheme will be such as to substantially increase queues and delays on a routine basis at peak times (15.4.50). Oval Road/Gloucester Avenue (major significant adverse impacts); Parkway/Prince Albert Road (minor significant adverse impacts). All these junctions are closely linked and all traffic joining these junctions from the north/east heading south/west come from Delancey Street. Currently, any minor change to signalling at any of these junctions has a profound impact on the queuing on the Street so much so that the traffic can become gridlocked and tail back beyond Bayham Street. There is no Mitigation for this because as SES Vol 2 states 15.4.80 adaptive control of the signalised highway junctions is less effective where there is a substantial overall net increase in traffic through the junction.

Albert Street North, Albany Street, Parkway, Camden High Street, Arlington Road are destined to be major construction routes with moderate/major adverse traffic effects. Delancey Street is hemmed in by these roads - traffic all around will be at a standstill.

Permanent Traffic

An increase of 10% traffic is forecast for the Street after 2041 due to the operation of Euston Station and the new reconfiguration of roads, including the permanent closure of some roads. Table 44 SES Vol 2. The expanded Station will require more taxis and station servicing vehicles which will impact traffic volumes on the Street.

The road network around Delancey Street is very fragile. any alterations, however small has a huge impact on all neighbouring roads, causing havoc for traffic. pedestrians. cycl ists and residents.

IV. UTILITY W ORKS

During the construction phase Delancey Street will have utility works for possibly 6 months of more. This will create extra traffic flow problems on the Street. The utility works will be taking place in very close proximity to the properties such as ours, which abut the pavements - leading to disruption from noise vibration within the houses and limited access to pavements. In addition, car parking will be sus pended - restricting the places available. This will be compounded by suspension of residents' parking bays in neighbouring streets.

V. CONSTRUCTION NOISE

14.3.19 Ta ble 19 indicates that day and night time noise during Stage A of construction w ill have a significant adverse effect for up to 12 months on up to 25 properties. Currently only one block of terraced houses on the north side of Delancey Street are pred icted to be eligible for noise insulation, but that falls short of many other properties that are just as close to the construction works in the cutting.

However Your Petitioners argue that noise assessments have not been carried out thoroughly enough in the Street - and have not taken into account the physicality of the street. The tall 4/5 storey terraced houses abut the pavements and curve around narrow sections of the road which create a tunnel-effect. Noise bounces off the facades of the houses and creates an enhanced echo-y sound. This will exacerbate the noise in the street. There are some open gaps between the road and backs of houses where noise penetrates and should be accounted for when assessing noise levels. For example, our house faces a large gap between houses, which will act as a corridor for noise and dirt.

We do not believe that the noise assessments carried out to date are reliable. Although noise insulation packages are being considered in one of the assurances to the Council, we have concerns about the quality of insulation, who gets it, and how it can be fitted to homes in a way that leaves them habitable and the noise insulation effective.

VI. TRAFFIC NOISE

There is no mention of traffic noise in the ES or SES. The 30% increase in heavy traffic will crease more noise. There is no barrier or protection from noise penetrating the interior of the properties especially as the listed properties do not have sou nd insulation. Living with constant noise is very disturbing and impacts on a sense of wellbeing. The current level of noise from traffic is usually tolerable but we are worried that increased noise levels will become unbearable. As stated in Notley et al's report from the UK National Noise Attitude Survey, 2012, around 30% of those who hear road traffic noise report being moderately, very or extremely bothered, annoyed or disturbed whereas about 2% of those who hear noise from trains report this same level of disturbance. (4.1. HIA)

VII. CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS

The ES Vol 5 Draft Code of construction Practice CT-003-000 sections 5.2.6 to 5.2.10 allows much of the work in the neighbourhood will be exempt from normal working hour restrictions and to take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is unacceptable. Residents needs t o have some time during the weeks that is exempt from work, noise and traffic. Our children and our family need to have some times in the week when there will quiet and the chance to relax without the house being impacted by the noise and vibrations of large HGVs.

VIII. AIR POLLUTION

New Evidence. During the month of August 2014 Air monitoring was carried out in Delancey Street, funded and analysed by Mapping for Change. The results were very alarming - 100-120 mg/m3. Although this is just a snap shot at a given point in time, the results are considered to be +/- 20% accurate. The month during which monitoring took place also_represents a period during which less vehicles were on the road due to the summer holiday period. In addition, pollution is lower during summer months than in winter months.

Yours Petitioners cannot accept any higher levels of pollution. Knowingly, exposing residents, some very vu lnerable (such as our ch ildren), to increased pollution in an already overly polluted Street, cannot be ethically, morally or legally acceptable. No mitigation has been proposed despite the fact that air pollution levels in the Street already exceed the European guidelines. The assurances given to Camden regarding Air Quality monitoring and producing evidence annually is not sufficient - as that would allow air quality to worsen at least one year before any mitigation is put into place.

IX. DUST EMISSIONS

No significant effects relating to dust emissions were predicted in the SES2 and AP3 ES, and the probable short term nature, the intensity and extent of ex posure to the adverse effects of construction dust are considered to be low. However, Your Petitioners would like to raise the issue of dust emissions from the utility works and also from the HGV's carrying concrete and other materials.

X. VIB RATION

Given that Delancey Street is now a designated lorry construction route, Your Petitioners are concern ed that the vibrations experienced will be even greater than first feared. With 30% increase in HGV's - this is likely to have a profound impact on the fabric of the houses, most of which are built with shallow foundations, and on the peace and quiet felt within the houses. There is also concern that the construction works will cause vibration to the nearest properties.

We have already suffered from vibration from heavy vehicles and from uneven road surfaces. Air bourne vibration and ground borune vibration have been on-going issues for us. Some residents have had to move to the back bedrooms of their houses to sleep. XI. RESIDENTS CAR PARKING

No mention has been made in the original ES or revised SES regarding residents' car parking. We know that Mornington Terrace and Park Village East are to lose their parking bays due to construction works, and yet HS2 have not allocated additional parking. Th is may mean added pressure on neighbouring residential parking bays including Delancey Street. In addition, the Street will lose parking bays temporarily due to the utility works.

XII. LOSS OF AMENITY

As stated in the SES Vol 2 8.4.43 and the Non-Technical, Delancey Street will experience MAJOR ADVERSE TEMPORARY ISOLATION due to access restrictions, major adverse amenity effects, due to noise and visual effects, HGV movements, and air quality. Th is is unacceptable for Your Petitioners given the duration of the works. It will make living in the Street unbearable. It will make moving around the area, either by foot, bike, public transport or by car very hazardous and/or restricted .

XIII. BLIGHTED PROPERTY VALUES

The duration and intensity of the construction works at the cutting and the use of Delancey Street as a construction route will devalue the Properties on the Street. Who would want to buy a property on this Street which will be hemmed in by 10 years or more of traffic jams, construction works and increased levels of traffic? The new development, Solstice House, at the top end of Delancey Street which overlooks the cutting, has only sold two apartments since it was first marketed la st year.

XIV. ADVERSE IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

Residents on Parkway and Delancey Street are predicted to 'experience in-combination effects from a significant increase in HGV movements, significant noise effects and significant air quality effects. The combination of these effects, which are expected to combine for up to 18 months, w ill have a major adverse effect on the amenity of residents which is significant '{8.4.43 SES Vol 2). Your Petitioners are concerned that the estimate of 25 properties over 18 months is not a good indication of the impact on the whole of the Street. It is the full length of the Street which is designated a major construction route. It is over half the Street which will have utility works. The traffic queuing and gridlock will tail back to the start of the Street {based on previous experience of road works within the Street and at the top junctions). The air pollution is over the legal limit in the whole of the Street. The noise and vibration from the increased traffic and HGVs will impact the whole of the Street. The loss of amenities will be felt by all residents on the Street. Your Petitioners do not feel the ES or the revised SES takes into account the commensurate and cumulative effects of the Scheme.

XV. LI KELY RESIDUAL SIGN IFI CANT EFF ECTS

Your Petitioners' Street is classified in the SES2 and AP3 ES Vol 2 -CFAl Euston Station and Approach as having LIKELY RESIDUAL SIG NIF ICAN T EFFECTS FROM TRAFFIC, NOISE, AND LOSS OF AMENITY. This means t hat after any mitigation has been put into place, there remains a 'significant effect' on Delancey Street.

XVI. COMPENSATION

There is no extension or new compensation funds ava ilab le for Urban householders other than the Need to Sell Scheme which requires a householder to have a 'need' i.e. ill health, loss of job, in order for HS2 to buy the property. But this is only after a certain length of time of the house being on the open market. It is very limited and restrictive. This scheme does not look after residents who simply want to move and who cannot afford the luxury of selling their main asset at a knock down price. This, in effect, would be taking investment and capital worth away from Your Petitioners. Given the duration of the Scheme, Your Petitioners will not necessarily reap any benefits from the operation of HS2 and the new Euston Station.

This scheme is not a temporary scheme - it is likely to continue for most of our children's childhood.

CAMDEN CUTTING GROUP PETITION Your Petitioners supports the petition of Camden Cutting Group and all the details and requests within it. However, we have some particular requests pertaining to our concerns: MITIGATION REQUEST

A. DEVELOPMENT OF EUSTON STATION AND THE ROUTE INTO LONDON

Given the exceptionally high costs of the current proposal, t he immense damage and disruption to Camden residents and the failure to achieve the much needed comprehensive redevelopment of Euston, we request:

Government should commission a detailed technical, economic and social analysis of HS2 \ltd.'s current proposals and of the alternative options for the route into Euston. In particular, a temporary half for HS2 at Old Oak Common should be required, while more detailed plans for Euston are considered .

Any option chosen should provide for a new Euston Station that is built within the existing footprint, thus avoiding the need to expand the west of the station by a third.

(i) Traffic and Transport

This is our biggest problem and we cannot se e how any mitigation such as traffic calming, t raffic light phasing will elevate t he congestion problems therefore we request that:

Ideally that Delancey Street not to be used as a construction route and instead the major strategic roads such as Euston Road are used especially (as seems likely) if Delancey Street becomes a cycle route.

That the maximum possible removal or spoil and delivery of concrete and other materials are transported by rail and/or canal.

We underst and t hat concret e will be delivered from t he Kin gs Cross plant t o Park Village East using Delancey Street as the main route - and we ask t hat specific investigation is ca rried int o the use of the ca nal for this.

The London Zoo car park should not be used as a holding area for construction Lorries. It would bring years of HGV traffic t hrough Ca mden and will add intolerable pressure to the junctions at the top of Parkway.

Your Petitioners asks that an assessment and mitigation of accident black-spots is done by HS2 on the dangerous junction of Delancey Street/Arlington road.

(ii) Permanent Traffic The road system should be designed to minimise traffic increases on any residential roads including Delancey Street due to HS2.

{iii) Noise and Vibration

In a variety of instances, we believe the noise modelling fails to take account of the specific local environment and is insufficiently precise. In other cases the modelling is based on inaccurate or inadequate baseline noise data. Your Petitioners believe that the whole of the street should be thoroughly monitored and assessed for both construction and traffic noise and vibration - given the close proximity to the Cutting and that an extra 30% increase in traffic is forecast to use the Street.

Therefore Your Petitioners request that:

HS2 commit to reassessing their noise assessment methodology, modelling and mitigation further so that the effects of both construction works and traffic noise are mitigated for properties on Delancey Street.

given the exceptional nature and duration of the HS2 construction project (10 to 18 years or more) that acceptable noise limits follow standards for permanent conditions, not those for typical construction works

Noise thresholds for rehousing and/or secondary glazing should be lowered in order to take into account construction utility and traffic noise, so that more than 25 residences are included. This is too narrow a margin, where, in areas of the street lower down from the junction of Albert Street and Delancey Street, there will be excess, invidious and continuous noise of the ilk that will impact on the lifestyle of Your Petitioners' quality of life all the time, day and night for a significant period of time.

Noise insulation should be considered for the backs of the properties due to the 'open spaces' between the road and the backs of properties.

Vibration from construction traffic be assessed in the Street because of the shallow foundations of the properties and due to their very close proximity to the road (1 or 2 metres away from the road).

Pre and post su rveys should be provided by HS2 Ltd to all properties on De lancey Street that are situated directly next to the road or are in close proximity to the Construction works in the Cutting.

There is a need for speed controls on HGVs and other traffic on construction routes, but there is also a need to reduce vibration which could be exacerbated by road tables (due to be built as part of the cycle lane design). We ask that HS2 bring forward an appropriate solution that meets both these requirements and for this solution to be in place before use by any construction traffic. (iv) Air quality

In addition to the assurances on Air quality given to Camden we request that:

All HS2 and related vehicles are powered by Euro VI within Camden - rather than just HG Vs.

That this applies to vehicles working on associated works such as the building of the new school and residential properties.

The SES2 and AP3 outline adverse effects of N02 on Delancey Street, therefore Your Petitioners ask that a full and scientifically rigorous system of air-quality measurement along the whole of the Street prior to and during the construction is implemented. Air pollution levels must not be increased.

Annual and be-annual reviews are too little too late - for immediate impacts to be mitigated we therefore ask for monthly reviews that are made public.

Action packages for Delancey Street should include - reducing or stopping the street being used as a construction route -

Weekly washing down of the pavements in the whole of the street due to dust from concrete deliveries and associated construction traffic and works.

That the Cutting area including Delancey Street and Parkway are included in the Central Activity Zone so that all Non-road Mobile machinery used in the cutting is powered by the latest best practice standards of IV rather than 1118 (or IIIA with approved DPF).

(v) Enforcement

There is concern that already HS2 works and subcontractors working in and around t he Cutting are not abiding t o agreements and are ca using nuisance to local residents such as leaving engines running outside homes. There seems very little ability t o sort out problems as they ha ppen - so our fear is that this w ill be esacerbated once the full sca le works begin. Therefore we request:

That an local enforcement officer is available 24 hours a day 7 days a week for residents to contact if and when they have concerns or problems. An officer with enforceable powers to stop the work whilst the problems are sorted out to the satisfaction of the local community.

That penalties charges are placed on HS2 or their subcontractors for breaching any assurance or code of construction practice agreement.

that an independent Statutory Adjudicator be appointed with the power to ensure any legal commitments entered into by HS2 are met in practice, including assurances, undertakings, and policies in HS2 information papers.

(vi) Community Engagement

There has been a complete lack of community engagement since the House of Commons hearings. Even prior to then, engagement seems to mean information sharing. Your Petitioners consider that there should be a proper understanding of the Street and impacts on it of Scheme's construction work. To that end, your Petitioner proposes the following:

Regular meetings with between residents of the Street and HS2 officers prior and during construction on a weekly basis to update on the progress of the scheme and to discuss any problems likely to arise.

B. COMPENSATION

Your Petitioners believe that even after any mitigation measures, they will face 'residual significant adverse effects' from traffic congestion, poorer air quality and noise. This scheme is not a short term one, but a long-term one which will not benefit any of us in the foreseeable future - unless we are still alive to travel up North on the HS2 line.

It is unfair to expect us to live in a blighted area - where selling our home will become very difficult, especially at the market value. It w ill restrict a freedom of choice and could mean a loss of money. What young family is going to choose to live on Delancey Street for the duration of these works ?

Therefore we request:

For a fair compensation in ord er to ensure that we have a sense of security in t he knowledge that ou r rights, properties an d ability to see our house at t he market value, whenever we choose to, are protected. There should be equivalent schemes available in urban areas as are offered in rura l areas.

We favour a Property bond scheme whereby market value is secured.

The Need to Sell Scheme should be modified so it isn't so restrictive in the requirements to show a compelling reason to sell. Also, we ask that the rule that requires homeowners to accept a 15% loss on the value of their property to be dropped.

IV. The petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Com mittee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

MRS CARA PENNOCK Signed:

MR GEORGE PENNOCK Signed:

CONTACT DETAILS FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Mrs Cara Pennock and Mr George Pennock 26 Delancey Street London NWl 7HN

Daytime phone: 07834 854 940 I 07930 958 926 Email address: [email protected] / [email protected] HL: 279 To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Cllr Patricia Callaghan, Cllr Richard Cotton, Cllr Lazzaro Pietragnoli (Camden Town with Primrose Hill ward in the London Borough of Camden)

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2.1 Your Petitioners are the democratically elected Councillors for the Camden Town with Primrose Hill ward in the London Borough of Camden for the period 2010- 2014; your Petitioners live in the area affected by the provision of the Bill (Patricia Callaghan at 63 Chalcot Road , NW1 , Richard Cotton at 129 Weavers Way, NW1 and Lazzaro Pietragnoli at 14a Manley Street, NW1 ), and they have been duly elected to represent the residents of this area in the Council: they hold regular surgeries for their constituents each Friday of the month and the first Saturday of each month in locations that are directly affected by the Bill (Castlehaven Community Centre, Primrose Hill Community Centre, the Pirate Castle in Oval road , the Methodist Church in Buck Street and Primrose Hill Community Library) and they receive representation by residents and businesses in the area against the Bill. The ward of Camden Town with Primrose Hill that your Petitioners have been elected to represent is specially and directly affected by the Bill , as the new railway will enter their ward underneath the junction between Parkway and Regent's Park Road and will run underneath Gloucester Avenue and King Henry's Road. THe construction site in Juniper Crescent is in your Petitioners' ward , as are many of the roads that wi ll be used by construction traffic during the con struction of the Scheme as proposed to be amended by AP3.

2.2 In the last two years, yo ur Petitioners organised public meetings with their constituents to discuss the Scheme, both with and without representatives of the Promoters, and although your Petitioners did not petition against the Bill as deposited, they decided to submit this petition as the amendments introduced by AP3, taken together with the description of the revised construction programme in the Supplementary Environmental Statement that accompanies it ("SES3") will mean that the construction works which will affect your Petitioners will be carried on over a much longer period, · making the situation worse for your Petitioners and for the area they represent.

2.3 Your Petitioners and their interests are injuriously affected by the provisions of AP3, to which your Petitioners object for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

3.1 Traffic The Environmental Statement does not contain realistic assessment of the consequences of the construction plans for the area. Many construction routes will pass through Camden Town, causing additional traffic on roads already affected by a very high level of vehicles (Camden Street, Camden High Street and Parkway). In addition, the closure of Adelaide Road for the construction of the vent, and the subsequent increase in construction traffic, will create long prolonged chaos and gridlocks in some of the alternative routes in the Petitioners' ward (Haverstock Hill, Primrose Hill Road). Your Petitioners fears that construction traffic and road closures, in particular in the area at the top of Parkway, will have a detrimental effect on the whole ward (not only the immediate area south of Primrose Hill, but in Camden Town as well). Your Petitioners are worried that the ES does not take into serious account the impact of the construction traffic on cyclists and pedestrians - many of the routes identified for construction traffic (and also those nearby that are expected to see an increase in traffic because of the general congestion caused by the construction traffic) are used by local resident to walk and cycle. Your petitioners request you to examine the Promoter's plan for the traffic management and to explore an alternative scheme for the removal of spoil and the provision of construction materials by rail.

3.2 Pollution Your Petitioners are really worried for the increase in air pollution that the co nstruction period will cause, and pray your honourable House that measures are put in place to protect the health of those living and working in all the areas that will be affected by the worsening quality of the air.

3.4 Juniper Crescent Your Petitioners deplore the use of the land at the back of Juniper Crescent (and the addition of further land in the AP3, table 8 section 5) as a construction site and express concerns for the access route to that land, which will be shared by the construction traffic and resident in Juniper Crescent, customers of the Morrisons supermarket, buses, users of the Morrison car parking and also (in the initial part) customers of one of the few petrol stations in Camden Town. Your Petitioners ask your honourable House that the Promoter should provide detailed plans of traffic management for that specific access route.

3.5Zoo Car Park Your Petitioners deplore the use of the Zoo Car Park as a holding area for the Promoter's HGV vehicles and express concerns for the increase in traffic that this solution may cause; they underline also the negative impact that this solution is going to have for the Zoo and London Zoological Society.

3.6Gloucester Avenue Your Petitioners fully endorse the proposal presented by the Gloucester Avenue Association for an alternative alignment of the tunnels.

3.?Darwin Court Your Petitioners fully endorse the representation by the Darwin Court Residents' and Leaseholders' Association, and ask you to provide compensation for the residents and leaseholders of Darwin Court.

3.8 North Bridge House School. Your Petitioners ask you to provide protection from traffic and air pollution for the children, their parents and the staff of North Bridge House School.

3.9Cecil Sharp House Your Petitioners and express concerns for the damages that the Promoter's work can cause to the activities of the English Folk Dance and Song Society, at Cecil Sharp House; your petitioners ask therefore to ensure that the highest standard of sound and vibration insulation are applied in order to minimise the impact of the Promoter's activities on the full and enjoyable use of Cecil Sharp House.

3. 10 Friends of Regent's Park and Primrose Hill Yo ur Petitioners ask you to ensure that those natural areas are protected by construction traffic and not used as car park either by the Promoter or as an alternative for other parking areas taken by the Promoter itself.

3.11 Alternative Station Your Petitioners pray your honourable House to consider the prov1s1on of a temporary terminus at Old Oak Common, while the design for Euston is finalised and all the implications of constructing the new station are considered in great detail and with more attention.

3.12 Wider implication for the area Your Petitioners express deep concerns for the implications that the Promoter's plans have for people living, studying, working and visiting the area. Camden Town with Primrose Hill ward will be deeply and adversely affected by the construction phase of HS2, and, in addition to the specific points raised above, the consequences for the community in the area are very detrimental. Construction traffic in Camden High Street will have negative effect on Camden Market and on the business of the area; pupils at Primrose Hill School, St Paul's School, Cavendish School, North Bridge House School, Hawley Primary School, Haverstock School and their families will have to cope with the risks of the increased traffic and the consequences of a degenerated quality of the air; community centres (Primrose Hill Library, Castlehaven Community Centre), open spaces (Primrose Hill, Regent's Park), entrainement venues (Cecil Sharp House, the Roundhouse, the open air theatre), Camden Market, Camden High Street, Primrose Hill shops parade, and many individual residents will be all be affected by the cumulative impact of the construction works for a very long period, putting at risk not only their physical and mental health but also the opportunity for carrying on their normal lives and for achieving their personal and collective success. For this reason we request that if your honourable House is not able to consider the provision of an alternative temporary terminus at Old Oak Common (see 18), at least will be able to enforce a compensation scheme that will mitigate the effects of the Bill for all those affected ij their lives and their business by the Blight of HS2.

4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remains, etc. To the House of Lords Session 2015-16 HL: 280

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Dr Hilary Spencer and Mr Geoff Dawson

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

2. The petitioners - Dr Spencer and Mr Dawson (hereinafter referred to as "Your Petitioners") - are partners and joint residents of the house known as "35 Delancey St NW1 " which is less than a hundred yards from the proposed construction works within the Cutting and Portal. Dr Spencer has owned and lived in this house since 1968 and Mr Dawson since 2002.

In addition, Dr Spencer owns the basement flat known as "35A Delancey St" and the adjacent property which is split into 3 flats, known as "33A, 338 and 33C Delancey St". These four properties are each rented out to young couples who work or study in the area.

Your Petitioners are both old age pensioners, aged 68 and 72 respectively. Mr Dawson is diabetic and chronically asthmatic. Both are retired from gainful employment and depend on t he rents from the four flats mentioned above as a significant part of their income.

The two houses are over 200 years old and rather fragile, being 5 stories high with very sha llow foundations. They both suffer noticeable damage when the road outside becomes uneven for any reason and heavy lorries crossing the bumps cause serious movement and cracking to the upper floors. Both houses are Grade II listed and therefore do not have double glazing. The houses are situated on the south side of Delancey St and have not been offered noise mitigation measures, even though they will be equally affected by the noisy traffic coming up the street, and almost as affected by the site construction noises, as the north side will be.

We are very distressed that the proposed works and the consequent traffic increase up Delancey St. will severely affect our health (especially Mr Dawson's asthma, our property, our quiet enjoyment of the latter years of our life, and our income from the flats we let out.

3. Your Petitioners' concerns are:

House of Lords petition cmplate - 2 - DURATION AND EXTENT OF THE HS2 PROJECT

Current plans show HS2 works not being completed at Euston until 2033. Your Petitioners are opposed to the duration and extent of works because of the decades of disruption and blight it will bring to Delancey St and ou r surrounding area. 18 years of construction cannot be considered a temporary scheme, but rather a permanent one that will probably, alas, outlive Your Petitioners.

The construction work to be carried out only 80 yards from our home will be at least 10 years worth of heavy, noisy and disruptive work. It will include extensive excavation, demolition, piling work and structural work, continuously between 2016 and 2026.

CONSTRUCTION COMPOUNDS

To accommodate extra work in the Cutting, an additional construction satellite compound, Park Village East (North), will be required. This new compound will be meters away from the Street which will be used as one of the main HGV routes to the compound. There will thus be 4 satellite compounds built within close proximity of Your Petitioners' home.

SIGNIFICNAT ADVERSE TRAFFIC EFFECTS

SES and AP3 5.3.79 vol 2 states Delancey St will be affected with temporary and permanent significant adverse traffic effects. Table 28 predicts a 30°/o increase in da ily traffic flows in the Street for both vehicles and HGVs. There appear to be various reasons for this including: the declaration of Delancey St as a "major construction route" (in the busiest months, over 800 HGV movements per day are estimated for the Street); use of the Street as a diversion route; expected difficulties with traffic flows at the Street's several major junctions; and expected permanent traffic increases after 2041 caused by the operation of the new line and planned reconfiguration of roads in the area.

UTILITY WORKS

During the construct ion phase Delancey St will have utility works for an estimated 6 months or more. This will create significant extra problems on the Street. The utility works will be taki ng pl ace in very close proximity to our home, which abuts t he pavement, leading to noise vibration within t he house and limited access to the pavement.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

14.3.19 Table 19 indicates that day and night time noise during Stage A of const ruction will have a significant adverse effect for up to 12 mont hs on certain properties. Currently, only one block of houses (on the north side of Delancey St) is predicted to be eligible for noise insulation; thereby exclud ing You r Petitioners' houses, which are actually closer to the construction works in the cutting than some which are included.

Hou« or Lords peuuon tinplate - 3 - Your Petitioners argue that noise assessments have not been thoroughly carried out in the Street, and have not taken into account the physicality of the street. The 4/5 storey terraced houses abut the pavements and curve around narrow sections of the road which create a tunnel-effect. Noise bounces off the facades of the houses and creates an enhanced echo sound which will exacerbate the noise in the street. There are also some open gaps between the road and backs of houses where noise penetrates; this should be accounted for when assessing noise levels.

TRAFFIC NOISE

There is no mention of traffic noise in the ES or SES but the 30°/o increase in heavy traffic will create a great deal of noise. There is no barrier or protection from noise penetrating the interior of the properties, and these listed properties do not have sound insulation. Living with constant noise is very disturbing and impacts on a sense of wellbeing . The current level of noise from traffic is usually tolerable but Your Petitioners are worried that increased noise levels will become unbearable.

CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS

The ES Vol 5 Dra ft Code of construction Pra ct ice CT-003-000 sections 5.2.6 to 5.2.10 says much of the work in t he neighbourhood wil l be exempt from normal working hour restrictions and will take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is unacceptable. Elderly residents such as ourselves need to have some t ime during the night and at weekends that is exempt from work, noise and traffic.

AIR POLLUTION

Th e Street is a new location assessed for impacts on air quality as a result of SES 2 t raffic changes, and the results indicate there will be significan t temporary adverse effects due to increases in N02 concentrations This is a significant concern for Your Petitioners (one of whom suffers from severe asthma) beca use the air quality in the Street already exceeds t he EU threshold and recommended safe limit. It is unrealistic to imagine that the increases would only be during some peak periods because (as mentioned above) the Street is destined to become a major construction and diversion route for the duration of the Scheme and beyond. Any increase in air pollution could be fatal to Your Petitioner and is therefore unacceptable. Knowingly exposing vulnerable residents to increased pollution in an already overly polluted street cannot be ethically, morally or legally right. No mitigation has been proposed despite the fact that air pollution levels

House of Lords pd1t1on cmpl.:u~ - 4 - in the Street already exceed the European guidelines. The assurances given so far regarding annual air quality monitoring are not sufficient as they would allow air quality to worsen for at least one year before any mitigation is put into place .

DUST EMISSIONS

No significant effects relating to dust em1ss1ons were predicted in the SES2 and AP3 ES, which considers the probable short term nature, the intensity and extent of exposure to the adverse effects of construction dust to be low. However, Your Petitioners would like to raise the issue of dust emissions from the utility works and from HGVs carrying materials such as concrete, particularly because of their health problems (asthma).

VIBRATION

Given that Delancey St is now a designated lorry construction route, Your Petitioners are concerned that the vibrations experienced will be even greater than first feared. The 30°/o increase in HGVs is likely to have a profound impact on the fabric of the houses and on the peace and quiet felt within them. There is also concern t hat the construction works will cause vibration to the nearest properties, such as Your Petitioners'.

LOSS OF AMENITY

As stated in the SES Vol 2 8.4.43, Delancey St wi ll experience major adverse temporary isolation due to access restrictions and major adverse amenity effects, due to noise and visual effects, HGV movements, and air quality. This is unacceptable for Your Petitioners given the duration of the works . It will make living in the Street unbearable and moving around the area, whether by foot, bike, public transport or car, very hazardous and/or restricted .

BLIGHTED PROPERTY VALUES AND RENTS

The duration and intensity of the construction works at the cutting and the use of Delancey St as a construction route will certainly devalue the properties on the Street. Who would wa nt to buy a property which will be hemmed in by 10 years or more of traffic jams, construction works and increased levels of traffic? In addition, Your Petitioners are concerned that their four rental flats will become unlettable - why would anyone chose to live here in these conditions? - or at least that the income they currently generate will be severely reduced.

Hou st of Lords petition empla1c - 5 - ADVERSE IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

Delancey St residents are predicted to 'experience in-combination effects from a significant increase in HGV movements, significant noise effects and significant air quality effects. The combination of these effects, which are expected to combine for up to 18 months, will have a major adverse effect on the amenity of residents which is significant '(8.4.43 SES Vol 2). Your Petitioners are concerned that the estimate of 25 properties over 18 months is an entirely false indication of the impact on the whole of the Street. It is the full length of the Street which is designated a major construction route. It is over half the Street which will have utility works. The traffic queuing and gridlock will tail back to the start of the Street (based on previous experience of road works within the Street and at the top junctions). The air pollution is over the legal limit in the whole of the Street. The noise and vibration from the increased traffic and HGVs will impact the whole of the Street. The loss of amenities will be felt by all residents on the Street. Your Petitioners do not feel the ES or the revised SES takes into account the commensurate and cumulative effects of the Scheme.

LIKELY RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

Your Petitioners' Street is classified in the SES2 and AP 3 ES Vol 2 -CFA1 Euston Station and Approach as having likely residual significant effects from traffic, noise and loss of amenity. This means that after any mitigation has been put into place, there will remain a 'significant effect' on Delancey Street.

COMPENSATION

There is no extension or new co mpensation funds available for urban householders other t han the Need to Sell Scheme which req uires a householder to have a defined ' need' such as ill health or loss of job, in order for HS2 to buy the property. But this is only after a certain length of time of the house being on the open market and is very limited and restrictive. It does not look after residents who simply want or need to move (for example, if they can no longer manage the stairs as they get older) and who cannot afford the luxury of selling their main asset at a knock down price. This, in effect, would be taking investment and capital worth away from Your Petitioners. Given the duration of the Scheme, Your Petitioners will not reap any benefits from the operation of HS2 and the new Euston Station. By the time the scheme is completed, they will be no longer able to travel or - more likely - be long dead.

House of Lords petition empla1c - 6 - HEALTH

The health of Your Petitioners is of a major concern given their age and current health levels, the duration and extent of the scheme, the traffic increases, and the predicted in air quality and noise levels. The problems of anxiety, stress, sleep disturbance, and social isolation due to the duration and extent of the Scheme are of great concern to Your Petitioners.

OTHER PETITIONS

Your Petitioners fully support the petitions of Camden Cutting Group and the Delancey Street Residents Association and all the details and requests within them. However, we have some extra particular requests pertaining to our concerns.

MITIGATION REQUEST

Noise and Vibration Your Petitioners believe that the whole of the street should be thoroughly monitored and assessed for construction and traffic noise and vibration, given the close proximity to the Cutting and the predicted 30°/o increase in traffic in the Street. Noise thresholds for rehousing and/or secondary glazing should be lowered in order to take into account construction, utility and traffic noise, so that more than the predicted 25 residences are included. In particular, areas of the street such as the south side, close to the location of the Construction Site, should be included and consideration should be given to excess, invidious and continuous noise that will impact Your Petitioners' quality of life day and night for a very significant period - possibly for the rest of our lives.

Health checks Your Petitioners request that those, such as ourselves, who have particular health problems, due to age or infirmity, be given a "health assessment" both before the start of the Scheme and at regular intervals thereafter, throughout the operation of the Scheme, to assess the impact of the works on our health. Further, we ask that, if the checks show that serious health issues are arising because of the works, mitigating action, such as re-housing, should be offered at that time.

Rent reviews Your Petitioners request that consideration be given to potential loss of income from rental properties blighted by the works and a compensation scheme be devised for those who may be affected in this way.

House of Lords pc1111on empla1c - 7 - 4. The prayer

AN D the Petitioners remain, etc.

DR HILARY SPENCER Signed :

MR GEOFF DAWSON

Signed:

House of Lords pcuuon tmpla1c - 8 - HL: 281 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF The Delancey Street Residents Association

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole of the Bill

2. Your petitioners comprise of a group of residents, the Delancey Street Residents' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Your Petitioners'). The Chair is Ms Catherine Colley of 32 Delancey Street, Camden, London, NWl 7NH; the Secretary is Mrs Griselda Brook of 17 to 19 Delancey Street and the Treasurer is Mrs Hilary Spencer of 35 Delancey Street.

Delancey Street consists of around 200 properties and the resident population is over 400. A resolution was passed in April 2016 allowing Catherine Colley to draft and deposit this petition. (Resolution letter attached.)

Your Petitioners have lived in the Street for varying periods of time, but most no less than 5 years and some elderly residents have lived here all their lives - over 70 years.

Your Petitioners are from varying socio-economic groups. The range includes working professionals, white and blue collar workers, manual workers, students, school and pre school age ch ildren, retired and/or elderly people.

Delancey Street is over 90% residential with residents living in privately owned or rented single dwellings or flats. There are also a handful of council owned properties. Many of the properties are listed and therefore do not have double glazed windows. The Victorian properties were built on very shallow foundations

The Street is a pleasantly curved road of early and late Victorian 4/5 storey terraced houses which ab ut the pavements. It is situated at the centre of a unique Camden community that coexists with the existing railway cutting, which is located at the top end of Delancey Street/Parkway/Mornington Terrace (hereinafter referred to as t he 'Cutting'), and the areas where the HS2 construction works will be taking place and where 5 compounds are going to be erected.

The Street is a one way route, running east to West and acts as a main thoroughfare. In additions, it has two bus routes, the C2 and 274 and has two bus stops.

Generally the traffic runs freely in the Street, however, a two-way contra flow cycle route is planned for the Street and is due to be built at the end of 2016. This will narrow the road to a single lane and mean that buses will have to stop at the bus stop in the middle of the road thus creating tail-backs of traffic. The air pollution in the road is already over the legal limit.

3. Your Petitioner residents' properties will not be demolished as a result of the Bill but Your Petitioner residents will be directly and specially affected. Your Petitioners' properties are located within a very close range from the proposed construction works within the Cutting and Portal. The closest residential property is approximately 18.9 metres from the side of the Cutting. All properties within the Street fall within 300 metres of the cutting.

We feel dismayed that even at this stage of the petitioning process, we on Delancey Street will still be left with a significant negative impact for 10 years or more from construction and its associated issues. Any assurances given to Camden Council and mitigation on such issues as noise insulation do not take away the overall significant Adverse Effects of the scheme on the lives of all residents' on Delancey Street.

Listed below are our concerns:

3.1 DURATION AND EXTENT OF THE HS2 PROJECT

At present the Euston Station is planned to be constructed in two stages meaning that HS2 works will not be completed at Euston until 2033 as compared to 2026 in the original ES. SES2 AP3 Non-technical summary Table 2. Your Petitioners are opposed to the duration and extent of works because of the decades of disruption and blight it will bring to Delancey Street and our surrounding area. 18 years of construction constitutes a 'long time'. According to the Health Impact Assessment SES2. This cannot be considered a temporary scheme but a permanent one. A scheme that will outlive many of the elderly residents of Delancey Street.

The construction work t o be carried out in t he Cutting at the top of Delancey Street will be 10 years worth of heavy, noisy and disruptive work. It will include extensive excavation, demolition, piling work and structural work. (According to Construction Phasing Maps CT.20.005/6/7/8.) Alt hough we have been told that within this time frame, there will be busier peak periods of 24 months, 30 months for exa mple. According to the Construction Phasing Maps, shows t hat this work will be continuous between 2016 and 2026. 3.2 CONSTRUCTION COMPOUNDS

To accommodate the extra work (reintroducing Line X) in the Cutting, an additional construction satellite compound, Park Village East (North), will be required (SES2 and AP3 Vol 2 - 5.2.43). This new compound will be meters away from Delancey Street and the Street will be used as one of the main HGV routes to this compound. There will be 4 satellite compounds built within close proximity of Your Petitioner Residents' Street.

3.3 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SIGNIFICNAT ADVERSE TRAFFIC EFFECTS

SES and AP3 5.3. 79 vol 2 states Delancey Street will be effected with temporary and permanent significant major/moderate adverse traffic effects. (TR-03-001.) . Table 28 predicts a 30% increase in daily traffic flows in the Street for both vehicles and HGVs. There appear to be various reasons for this:

Construction route. Within the revised SES and AP3, Delancey Street has been designated a major construction route, to service the Park Village East (North) compound (7 years with a busy period of 14 months), Park Village East (11 years and 24 months busy period) as well as the Mornington Terrace Sidings (12 years and 14 months busy period) and Mornington Street Bridge Compound (5 years and 14 months busy period). According to the SES, the vehicle trips generated between all 4 compounds will be between 30-36 vehicles and 270-426 HGVs (Table 26). It is unclear whether these busy peak periods will overlap or which years they will be.

Traffic Flows and queuing. Traffic flows and queuing in Delancey Street will be further compounded by the following junctions: De lancey/Parkway (major significant adverse impact 2 years). This means traffic flows at the junction will be beyond or very close to capacity with the revised scheme and the increases in traffic due to the revised scheme will be such as to substantially increase queues and delays on a routine basis at peak times (15.4.50). Oval Road/Gloucester Avenue (major significant adverse impacts); Parkway/Prince Albert Road (minor significant adverse impacts). All these junctions are close ly linked and all traffic joining these junctions from the north/east heading south/west come from Delancey Street. Currently, any minor change to signalling at any of these junctions has a profound impact on the queuing on the Street so much so that the traffic can become gridlocked and tail back beyond Bayham Street. There is no Mitigation for this because as SES Vol 2 states 15.4.80 adaptive control of the signalised highway junctions is less effective where there is a substantial overall net increase in traffic through the junction.

Permanent Traffic

The road network around Delancey Street is very fragile, any alterations, however small has a huge impact on all neighbouring roads, causing havoc for traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and residents.

3.4 UTILITY WORKS

During the construction phase Delancey Street will have utility works for possibly 6 months of more. This will create extra traffic flow problems on the Street. The utility works will be taking place in very close proximity to the properties, which abut the pavements - leading to disruption from noise vibration within the houses and limited access to pavements. In addition, car parking will be suspended - restricting the places available. This will be compounded by suspension of residents' parking bays in neighbouring streets.

3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE

14.3.19 Table 19 indicates that day and night time noise during Stage A of construction will have a significant adverse effect for up to 12 months on up to 25 properties (60 households). Currently only one block of terraced houses on the north side of Delancey Street are predicted to be eligible for noise insulation, but t hat falls short of many ot her properties t hat are j ust as close to t he construction works in t he cutting.

Your Pet itioners argue t hat noise assessments have not been ca rried out t horoughly enough in the Street - and have not taken into account t he physicality of t he street. The tall 4/5 storey terraced houses abut the pavements and curve around na rrow sections of the road which create a tunnel-effect. Noise bounces off the facades of the houses and creates an enhanced echo-y sound. This will exacerbate the noise in the street. There are some open gaps between the road and backs of houses where noise penetrates and should be accounted for when assessing noise levels.

We do not believe that the noise assessments carried out to date are reliable. Although noise insulation packages are being considered in one of the assurances to the Council, we have concerns about the specification of insulation, who gets it, and how it can be fitted to homes in a way that leaves them habitable and the noise insulation effective.

3.6 TRAFFIC NOISE

There is no mention of traffic noise in the ES or SES. The 30% increase in heavy traffic will produce more noise. There is no barrier or protection from noise penetrating the interior of the properties especially as the listed properties do not have sound insulation. Living with constant noise is very disturbing and impacts on a sense of wellbeing. The current level of noise from traffic is usually tolerable but we are worried that increased noise levels will become unbearable. As stated in Notley et al's report from the UK National Noise Attitude Survey, 2012, around 30% of those who hear road traffic noise report being moderately, very or extremely bothered, annoyed or disturbed whereas about 2% of those who hear noise from trains report this same leve l of disturbance. (4.1. HIA)

3.7 CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS

3.8 AIR POLLUTION

The Street is a new location assessed for impacts on air quality as a result of SES 2 traffic changes and the results indicate there will be significant temporary adverse effects due to increases in N02 concent rations during some peak periods of construction activity during Stage A of construction. (Non-technical summary pages 27). This is a significant concern for Your Petitioner Residents because t he Air quality in the Street already exceeds t he EU t hreshold and recommend ed safe limit of 40mg/m3. We do not believe t hat the increases would only be during some peak periods, because as we have demonstrated above, t he Street is destined to become a major construction and diversion route for the duration of the Scheme and beyond. Any increase in air pollution, however minor it is, will not be acceptable. New Evidence. During the month of July 2014 Air monitoring was carried out in Delancey Street, funded and analysed by Mapping for Change. The results were very alarming - 100-120 mg/m3. Although this is just a snap shot at a given point in time, the results are considered to be +/- 20% accurate. The month during which monitoring took place also represents a period during which less vehicles were on the road due to the summer holiday period. In addition, pollution is lower during summer months than in winter months.

Yours Petitioners cannot accept any higher levels of pollution. Knowingly, exposing residents, some very vulnerable, to increased pollution in an already overly polluted Street, cannot be ethically, morally or legally acceptable. No mitigation has been proposed despite the fact that air pollution levels in the Street already exceed the European guidelines. The assurances given to Camden regarding Air Quality monitoring and producing evidence annually is not sufficient - as that would allow air quality to worsen at least one year before any mitigation is put into place.

3.9 Contradictory Evidence given by HS2 on Traffic and Air Pollution on Delancey Street

During our Select Committee hearing, Mr Mould suggested that regardless of the figures in the SES and AP3, Delancey Street would only experience 40 extra HGV's during the busiest periods of construction and therefore the increase will hardly be noticed. However, we dispute this claim because it did not take into account all the other HS2 traffic and diverted traffic that will be using Delancey Street or the 30% increase identified in the ES. Mr Mould also suggested that air pollution increases would be minor. This contradicts all the projections and assessments made which indicate Significant Adverse Effects of Traffic, Noise and Air pollution.

3.10 DUST EMISSIONS

No significant effects relating to dust emissions were predicted in the SES2 and AP3 ES, and the probable short term nature, the intensity and extent of exposure to the adverse effects of construction dust are considered to be low. However, Your Petitioners would like to raise the issue of dust emissions from the utility works and also from the HGV's carrying concrete and other materials.

3.11 VIBRATION

Given that Delancey Street is now a designated lorry construction route, Your Petitioners are concerned that the vibrations experienced will be even greater than first feared. With 30% increase in HGV' s - this is likely to have a profound impact on the fabric of the houses, most of which are built with shallow foundations, and on the peace and quiet felt within the houses. There is also concern that the construction works will cause vibration to the nearest properties.

Residents have already suffered from vibration from heavy vehicles and from uneven road surfaces. Air bourne vibration and ground borune vibration have been on-going issues for us. Some residents have had to move to the back bedrooms of their houses to sleep.

3.12 RESIDENTS CAR PARKING

No mention has been made in the original ES or revised SES regarding residents' car parking. We know that Mornington Terrace and Park Village East are to lose their parking bays due to construction works, and yet HS2 have not allocated additional parking. This may mean added pressure on neighbouring residential parking bays including Delancey Street. In addition, the Street will lose parking bays temporarily due to the utility works.

3.13 ZOO CAR PARK

HS2 are planning to take over part of the Zoo Car Park, in Regents Park as a holding bay for their HGVs. This location is in close proximity to the complex junctions at the top of Parkway and this will cause extra untold congestion to this road network. This will impact the traffic congestion in Delancey Street as the majority of traffic from Delancey Street heads left into the top of Parkway and the junctions there.

3.14 LOSS OF AMENITY

As stated in the SES Vol 2 8.4.43 and the Non-Technical, Delancey Street will experience MAJOR ADVERSE TEMPORARY ISOLATION due to access restrictions, major adverse amenity effects, due to noise and visual effects, HGV movements, and air quality. This is unacceptable for Your Petitioners given the duration of the works. It will make living in the Street unbearable. It will make moving around the area, either by foot, bike, public t ransport or by car very hazardous and/or restricted.

3.15 BLIGHTED PROPERTY VALUES

The duration and intensity of t he construction works at the cutting and the use of Delancey Street as a construction route will devalue the Properties on the Street. Who would want to buy a property on this Street which will be hemmed in by 10 yea rs or more of traffic jams, construction works and increased levels of traffic? The new development, Solstice House, at the top end of Delancey Street which overlooks the cutting, has only sold two apartments since it was first marketed in 2014. Talking to Knight Frank Estate Agents, who are marketing this building; say that once the construction begins, values may very well be affected.

3.16 ADVERSE IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

Residents on Parkway and Delancey Street are predicted to 'experience in-combination effects from a significant increase in HGV movements, significant noise effects and significant air quality effects. The combination of these effects, which are expected to combine for up to 18 months, will have a major adverse effect on the amenity of residents which is significant '(8.4.43 SES Vol 2). Your Petitioners are concerned that the estimate of 25 properties over 18 months is not a good indication of the impact on the whole of the Street. It is the full length of the Street which is designated a major construction route. It is over half the Street which will have utility works. The traffic queuing and gridlock will tail back to the start of the Street (based on previous experience of road works within the Street and at the top junctions). The air pollution is over the legal limit in the whole of the Street. The noise and vibration from the increased traffic and HGVs will impact the whole of the Street. The loss of amenities will be felt by all residents on the Street. Your Petitioners do not feel the ES or the revised SES takes into account the commensurate and cumulative effects of the Scheme.

3.17 LIKELY RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

Your Petitioners' Street is classified in the SES2 and AP3 ES Vol 2 -CFAl Euston Station and Approach as having LIKELY RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS FROM TRAFFIC, NOISE, AND LOSS OF AMENITY. This means that after any mitigation has been put into place, there remains a 'significant effect' on Delancey Street.

3.18 COMPENSATION

There is no extension or new compensation funds available for Urban householders other t han t he Need to Sell Scheme which requires a householder to have a 'need' i.e. ill health, loss of job, in order for HS2 to buy the property. But this is only after a certain length of time of the house being on t he open market. It is very li mited and restrictive. This scheme does not look after residents who simply want to move and who ca nnot afford the luxury of selling their mai n asset at a knock down price. This, in effect, would be taking investment and capital worth away from Your Petitioners. Given the duration of the Scheme, Your Petitioners will not necessarily reap any benefits from the operation of HS2 and t he new Euston Station. For some Residents living on the Street, they will be long dead - or have moved away. This scheme is not a temporary scheme - it constitutes a life time for some of our more elderly residents who will face construction for the rest of their lives.

3.19 HEALTH

The health of Your Petitioners is of a major concern given the duration and extent of the scheme together with the traffic increases both temporary and permanent. We believe that the physical and mental welfare of residents will be compromised, especially for the more vulnerable members of the Street.

Air Quality is already dangerously high in the Street, this as we all know leads to life threatening diseases. We have several very vulnerable residents living in properties that do not currently qualify for noise insulation and ventilation. But even with this mitigation, stepping out onto the street with higher levels of pollution will compound residents' medical problems.

The problems of anxiety, stress, annoyance, sleep disturbance, social isolation due to the duration and extent of the Scheme are of great concern to Your petitioner especially for the more vulnerable residents: the elderly (some in their 80's and 90's), those with disabilities, those living on low incomes and young children. The Scheme to date has already caused anxiety and stress and sleeplessness for many residents. Long term anxiety can have devastating effects such as depression, high blood pressure, strokes, and other serious physical symptoms such as chronic back pain, migraines, and irritable bowel syndrome.

4. MITIGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Development of Euston Station and the Route into London

Given t he exceptionally high costs of the current proposal, t he immense damage and disruption t o Camden residents and t he failure to achieve the much needed comprehensive redevelopment of Euston, we request:

Government should commission a detailed technica l, economic and social analysis of HS2 ltd.'s current proposals and of t he altern ative options for t he route into Euston Station. Old Oak Common is developed as a temporary London terminus for the high speed section of the line to allow time for alternative proposals for the resolution of delivering HS2 services into central London to be properly assessed, and ultimately resulting in a well considered design for Euston Station and its approach to be developed within the existing station.

4.2 Traffic and Transport

This is our biggest problem and we cannot see how any mitigation such as traffic calming, traffic light phasing will elevate the congestion problems therefore we request that:

The maximum possible removal or spoil and delivery of concrete and other materials are transported by rail and/or canal. We are aware of the current study into this and await the results so we can comment more fully.

Ideally that Delancey Street not to be used as a construction route and instead the major strategic roads such as Euston Road are used especially if Delancey Street becomes a cycle route.

We understand that concrete will be delivered from the Kings Cross plant to Park Village East using Delancey Street as the main route - and we ask that specific investigation is carried into the use of the canal for this or for the concrete HGVs to use Euston Road and up Albany Street - which are wider streets.

The London Zoo car park should not be used as a holding area for construction Lorries. It would bring years of HGV traffic through Camden and will add intolerable pressure to the junctions at the top of Parkway which impacts Delancey Street.

Your Petitioners asks that an assessment and mitigation of accident black-spots is done by HS2 on the dangerous junction of Delancey Street/Arlington road.

We ask that if raised tables are built into the road due to the proposed cycle lanes, that they are dismantled before construction work begins so that the increased traffic and heavy vehicles do not cause further vibrat ion and noise as t hey go over the tables.

Permanent Traffic

The road system should be designed to minimise t raffic increases on any residential roads including Delancey Street due to HS2. 4.3 Noise and Vibration

Your Petitioners are very unclear about what specific noise assessments have taken place in the whole of Delancey Street taking account of the physicality of the street as well as combination effects of construction noise, utility works noise and HS2 traffic noise. We are concerned that any modelling carried out has been based on inaccurate or inadequate baseline noise data. The ES states that there will be significant adverse affects from noise.

Therefore Your Petitioners request that:

Your Petitioners are given an assessment detail as to why only 25 houses were assessed as eligible for Noise Insulation? Where have the baseline noise measurements been taken in regards to the whole stretch of Delancey Street?

Your petitioners would like to see that wider consideration be given to all properties on Delancey Street for an independent survey to assess whether the LOAEL trigger levels has either been reached already, or will be reached, courtesy of HS2 HGVs and other increased traffic as a result of the scheme.

Given the exceptional nature and duration of the HS2 construction project (10 to 18 years or more) that acceptable noise limits follow standards for permanent conditions, not those for typical construction works.

Noise insulation should be considered for the backs of the properties in Delancey Street due to the gaps in the terraces at the end of Mornington Terrace, and on the Corners of Albert Street/Delancey Street.

- Vibration from construction traffic is assessed in the Street because of the shallow foundations of the properties and due to their very close proximity to the road (1 or 2 metres away from the road).

Following the digging up of the road for utility works, that HS2 assure Your Petitioners' that the whole street will be resurfaced to a high standard rather than patched up. This is due to past problems with ai r-bourne vibration from patched up sections of t he road. We do not feel confident t hat Cam den t ransport Officers will enforce t his.

Pre an d post surveys should be provided by HS2 Ltd to all properties on Delancey Street t hat are situated directly next to t he road or are in close proximity to the Construction works in the Cutting.

- There is a need for speed controls on HGVs and other traffic on construction routes, but there is also a need to reduce vibration which could be exacerbated by road tables (due to be built as part of the cycle lane design). We ask that HS2 bring forward an appropriate solution that meets both these requirements and for this solution to be in place before use by any construction traffic.

4.4 Air quality

In addition to the assurances on Air quality given to Camden we request that:

All HS2 and related vehicles are powered by Euro VI within Camden - rather than just HGVs.

That this applies to vehicles working on associated works such as the building of the new school and residential properties.

The SES2 and AP3 outline adverse effects of N02 on Delancey Street, therefore Your Petitioners ask that a full and scientifically rigorous system of air-quality measurement along the whole of the St reet prior to and during t he construction is implemented . Air pollution levels must not be increased.

Annual and bi-annual reviews are too little too late - for immediate impacts to be mitigated we therefore ask for monthly reviews that are made public.

Action packages for Delancey Street should include - reducing or stopping the street being used as a construction route -

Weekly washing down of the pavements in the whole of the street due to dust from concrete deliveries and associated construction traffic and works.

Delancey Street will suffer from permanent increase in traffic once Euston Station is operational. We ask for all new taxi's to be powered electrically or are non-diesel and that there is an assurance from the Black Cab's association that engines are switched off when waiting in the taxi queue around the station. We would also ask that a limit is set on the number of taxis that will service the new station. Cu rrently there are far too many taxis waiting at Kings Cross and St Pancras.

4.5 Construction Working Hours

We would like to request t hat t he House of Lords Select Committee consider respite t imes of of non-working Saturdays or Sundays due to the extreme impacts on t he local community. There was reference to this in the House Of Commons Select Committee Report.: 4.6 Enforcement

There is concern that already HS2 works and subcontractors working in and around the Cutting are not abiding to agreements and are causing nuisance to local residents such as leaving engines running outside homes. There seems very little ability to sort out problems as they happen - so our fear is that this will be esacerbated once the full scale works begin. Therefore we request:

That penalties charges are placed on HS2 or their subcontractors for breaching any assurance or code of construction practice agreement.

4.7 Community Engagement

There has been a complete lack of community engagement since the House of Commons hearings. Even prior to then, engagement seems to mean information sharing. Your Petitioner considers that there should be a proper understanding of the Street and impacts on it of Scheme's construction work. To that end, your Petitioner proposes the following:

Regular meetings with HS2 officers prior and during construction on a weekly basis to update on t he progress of the scheme and to discuss any problems likely to arise such as patched up sections of the road that require resurfacing.

4.8 Compensation

Your Petitioners believe t hat even after any mitigation measures, Delancey Street residents will face 'residual significant adverse effects' from traffic congestion, poorer air quality and noise. This scheme is not a short term one, but a long-term one which will not benefit any of us in the foreseeable future - unless we are still alive to travel up North on the HS2 line. It is unfair to expect residents to live in a blighted area - where selling their homes will become very difficult, especially at the market value. It will restrict a freedom of choice and could mean a loss of money.

Therefore we request:

For a fair compensation in order to ensure that we have a sense of security in the knowledge that our rights, properties and ability to see our houses at the market value, whenever we choose to, are protected. There should be equivalent schemes available in urban areas as are offered in rural areas.

We favour a Property bond scheme whereby market values are secured.

The Need to Sell Scheme should be modified to make it less restrictive in the requirements to show a compelling reason to sell. Also, we ask that the rule that requires homeowners to accept a 15% loss on the value of their property to be dropped.

5. On these and all other matters, we share the concerns more fully set out in the petition by the Camden Cutting Group which represents our interests as well as those of other residents close to the Camden Cutting. We wish to be associated with their various ASKs.

6. The petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

7. AND the petitioners remains, etc.

NAM E: C AT\..\ERI.NE: CDLt.£-{ Signed: Ms Catherine Colley, Chair Delancey Street Residents' Assoc-- iation

Additional signatures:

Name: Signed: Name: (/.A;5.5!U I~ c.;~ Signed: HL: 282 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Catherine Colley and Philip Sharkey

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

Your Petitioners are a married couple who reside at 32 Delancey Street (the Street), Camden Town, London, NWl 7NH. Your petitioners' property is approx. 151.m from the cutting. (This measurement was taken by Your Petitioners with a professional surveyor's measuring wheel, and walking in a direct route from front door up diagonally across Delaney Street and through the garden of the Edinboro Castle Pub to the fencing to the Cutting.)

The Property, dated 1880's approx., is a 5 storey Victorian Terraced house. We purchased the freehold of this house in 1988 and have lived here ever since. Over the past 26 years, we have 'grown into' the house having had two children (now aged 22 and 19 years old) and both still living at home. Your Petitioners' son and daughter are students (both are under graduates).

Your Petitioners chose this property originally as it was an affordable freehold property with a back garden, well located to Your Petitioners work, walking distance to Regents Park and Primrose Hill, shops, transport systems. Your Petitioners family have lived happily in their house and have developed strong ties and have become actively involved to the local community. Regents Park, Primrose Hill and the Zoo have been a constant source of enjoyment to Your Petitioners. All of Your Petitioners family cycle, walk or take buses to and from local environs and the West End.

Your Petitioners still value living in this property and in this area because it continues to suits all the family's needs.

2. Your Petitioners' property will not be demolished as a result of the Bill but Your Petitioners will be directly and specially affected.

Your Petitioners' fully support the Camden Cutting Group Petition and Delancey Street Residents Association Petition and all the concerns and requests within them we endorse, but we have the following personal concerns and Mitigation Request: NOISE

Your Petitioners' property currently falls just a few metres outside the likely zone for noise insulation although it will be exposed both at the front and rear from construction noise at the Cutting for up to 10 years as well as increased noise from increased levels of HS2 traffic including HGVs. Delancey Street is planned to be a designated construction route. There is an open space between buildings on the corner of Delancey Street and Albert Street which means all noise can be heard at the rear of our property.

Extensive utility works are planned for the street which will begin right outside on the pavement adjacent to the front windows of Your Petitioners' home.

Your Petitioners' property abuts the pavement, which means there is no protection from the noise on the street. The property is situated in the narrower part of the street - where there is a tunnelling effect due to the tall terraces of houses of either side. When a noisy bus or lorry passes, an echoy sound bounces off the buildings and vibration can be felt especially at the top of the Property which is Your Petitioners' bedroom.

In addition, Your Petitioner has an office and part time consulting room for psychotherapy at the front of the house in the basement. This needs to be as peaceful an environment as possible for therapy sessions. This environment will be disturbed especially by the drilling and digging from the utility works as well as from the general increase in noise from both the traffic and construction works.

Your Petitioners are worried that the cumulative impact of noise generated from the HS2 scheme will mean: disrupted sleep, disrupted peace particularly during evenings, night t ime and weekends. In addition it will cause disrupted work for Your Petitioner's work which could lead to loss of earnings. For Your Petitioners' son and daughter - it will impact on their studying and concentration and potentially on their futures. The tranquillity of the back garden will also be lost. In effect, there will be nowhere to go to get away from the noise and disruption from the construction works and associated traffic.

AIR QUALITY

This is already at a highly dangerous and illegal level. This is something that concerns all the family and in particular Your Petitioners' son who is currently undertaking medical tests for breathing difficulties.

PARKIN G

The utility works in t he Street together with other neighbouring roads losing parking will result in an overall huge loss of residential parking.

BEING ABLE TO SELL OUR HOME

We love where we live and don't want to move at the moment, however, that doesn't mean that due to the high levels of disruption from HS2 or simply due to personal reasons, that Your Petitioners may not want to sell and move away before the end of construction.

We fear that our property will be blighted from the surrounding construction works, noise, air pollution and increased traffic.

Currently, we have no redress over this matter other than the very restrictive Need to Sell Scheme.

3. Your Petitioners' request that:

Their home is considered for noise insulation especially the front of the house.

Due consideration be given to the air quality on the street and that the levels do not exceed current levels.

If raised tables are built into the road as part of the cycle lanes, then these tables are dismantled before construction begins so the traffic and increased HGVs do not cause further vibration and extra banging noises as they go over the raised tables.

Fair compensation packages are given to residents such as us so we can be assured that the value of our property is not impacted; and that we can sell at the unblighted value if we want to move.

4. The petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remains, etc.

Catherine Colley Name :CP.r:r.~.R:r.t;}.s;... CDL~f Signature.

Philip Sharkey Name:...... f.Y.f.f:~.f ...?.ftdf.~( Signature. To the House of Lord HL: 283 Session 2015

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

The PETITION of Beaumont Walk Tenants and Residents Association

Declares that:

1 . The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioners are Beaumont Walk Tenants and Residents Association, an association of residents of Beaumont Walk estate, Adelaide Road, London NW3 4SW, established in 2005, across the road from the site of the proposed Adelaide road ventilation shaft.

3. Your petitioners concerns are:

Under Petition No.0184,AP20142,AP3072 London Borough of Camden - Assurances regarding Petition Issues, Section 10.5 - "Additional surveys and mitigation upon qualification" I recognise that The Nominated undertaker will commision surveys to determine whether certain additional properties, described in section 10.5, are significantly affected by noise to require noise insulation.

I note however that in the same document section 10.8,that where a property has not been identified at this stage, but can be demonstated that there are similar circumstances as outlined in the group of properties surveyed under section 10.5, that an independent survey be done and similar considerations be given.

We ask that Beaumont Walk, with its very close proximity to works and noise and site traffic, be considered for noise protection and addional glazing.

That lorry traffic for the Adelaide road site be restricted to after 7 am and no later than 8pm That the entrace to Beaumont Wlak estate be marked out of bounds to prevent it being used as a vehicular turn. We ask to be consulted in the greening of the access tunnel.

4. The prayer The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he*, or someone representing him* in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill. AND the petitioner* remains, etc. To the House of Lords Session 2015 - 2016 HL: 284

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ANGELA ANDERSEN

Declares that:

The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway. They include provision for the construction of works, highways and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. They include clauses which would disapply and modify various enactments relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries.

Your Petitioner

Your Petitioner is the owner of a property in Delancey Street. The property is a maisonette on the top 2 floors of number 54 which has been notified that it is eligible for sound insulation and ventilation to mitigate the noise of construction, day and night, for 10 or more years. This flat was purchased in 2003 for my daughter to live in, when her earning power was too small to allow her to live near by. My daughter has since got married and no longer lives in the property so I now rent the flat out to supplement my pension. If conditions deteriorate all round the property, with noise, vibrations, dirt and disrupted roads, I fear that the flat will become unusable. Should I wish to sell it who in their right mind would want to buy it? What compensation will I be entitled to, both for loss of income and/or capital value?

Your petitioners' concerns

I object to the Bill on the grounds that my property, my income and the lives of my tenants may be damaged by the proposed works in the following ways:

1 Damage to our Buildings

Delancey Street is less than 1OOm from the proposed HS2 route. It is lined on both sides (from numbers 9-139) by early Victorian Grade 2 listed buildings and lies within a Conservation Area. The buildings have little or no foundations and I have already experienced serious cracking and movement when the building next door to my property was demolished and rebuilt. This necessitated our family being rehoused for several months while our house was made safe and repaired. This illustrates how vulnerable our houses are. If our streets are to be used then HS2 should undertake to monitor all properties prior to construction and offer proper compensation to property owners for any repairs made necessary by vibration and excavation damage.

According to English Heritage there are 375,000 Grade 2 listed buildings in the UK representing just 1.8% of all residential homes so we need to protect these historic buildings. We contend that disturbance of the cellars and vibration caused by the works will damage these fragile homes. The prospect of increased noise, vibration and pollution causes us concern. Although this is a busy street during the day, at night it is relatively quiet, probably much quieter than HS2 engineers have estimated. We request that the present volume of traffic and decibel level should be independently monitored before any work starts. This will enable the increased levels to be acknowledged and evaluated.

Increases in Air Pollution

In Camden we are already at the upper limit of air pollution. Although HS2 argues that pollutants will be kept "as low a level as reasonably practicable" (S.4.4.1) it is a qualification that makes any commitment on their part meaningless. We fear that pollutants - specifically Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) will pose a genuine health risk to local residents. Since many of us are now pensioners this may well mean for the rest of our lives! There are also many families with young children in the street and several schools in the area. Any increase in pollution is unacceptable.

We have been told to expect an increase of 30% in traffic down our street. Now we have been told that the majority of the spoil will be removed by road . It is estimated that it would require 6 full train loads per day the equivalent of 800 lorry movements. This is an enormous amount of increased traffic, all in the HGVs. Apart from the pollution this will cause congestion and probable total standstill at busy times of the day since many of our one way roads are only one lane wide eg. Delancey Street, one of the roads scheduled for lorry runs. We would like to ensure that the spoil is removed by rail and that there is no increase in heavy goods vehicles. We would like an assurance that any vehicles that are used have zero emissions and conform to the latest European standard. Project materials should also be confined to rail delivery.

2 Increases in Noise Pollution

In our view the list of works permitted outside the Core Hours (s.2.4.9) is too broad and leaves scope for work to continue on a 24 hour basis. Clarification should be made which prohibits noise generating work close to residential areas (i.e. within 200m) outside the Core Hours and provision should be made for fines to be imposed if these hours are exceeded. We maintain that alterations to traffic flows, as diversions are created, in addition to traffic generated by the works themselves, will alter the quality of life in our quiet residential street. We want an independent assessment of the present traffic flow levels so that deterioration in the quality of our life can be objectively assessed.

Unfair Compensation

It is clear that there will be sustained damage to the local area for 10 -15 years, probably more like 20 - 30 years (the new plan for staged building of Euston Station estimates that it will not be finished until 2033). The compensation plans for Camden compared with those in rural areas are derisory. At present Delancey Street is a pleasant residential street - to claim urban dwellers are accustomed already to high levels of noise and dirt such that we will not notice the additional impact over years of HS2 construction is manifestly untrue and inaccurate. HS2 has shown no understanding of this area. Compensation should be assessed at the same level for the same loss wherever it occurs, rural or urban.

It is clear that the disruption and destruction caused by HS2 over a 15 - 30 year period cannot be termed 'temporary'.

In our area a substantial number of people are pensioners which means they will die or become too frail to remain in their houses for the proposed duration of the works i.e. 20-30 years. In the booklet entitled property compensation this states that if the property has not sold after 3 months on the market HS2 will buy it for the pre blight value. Does this really mean that they will send a cheque for two and a half million pounds to each of us, or our heirs, when this happens and has this been costed into the expenses? It says we will have to show a need to sell; does disablement, age or death meet these requirements? Do we need to get our property valued now or will past transactions suffice? Since anybody buying into the area with knowledge of the scheme i.e. after 2010 is not protected by any compensation we must already be blighted. Why does the compensation not go with the property rather than the person; in that way they would be easier to sell.

It seems we will suffer all the disruption caused in building this project, ruining the quality of our lives with no prospect of benefitting in any way because we will be dead by the time the scheme is finished .

3 New Designs for Euston Station

There are many different plans for Euston Station which have not been fully investigated. We have been alarmed by the suggestion that much of the spare land will be used for development in order to help finance the project. This so called 'land grab' of '35 acres' includes the loss of green areas, the destruction of a cemetery with up to 50,000 bodies (St James Church Yard) and many local amenities. The replacement of the green spaces as planned appears to consist of small piece meal areas, not a like for like provision of public spaces such as exist at the moment.

We are also concerned about the alteration to our social fabric. This area is densely populated and multicultural. It contains both social and non-social housing and many small businesses. It has taken generations to develop this harmonious and successful community. We object strongly to the description of the area by Sir David Higgins as "a deprived neighbourhood needing regeneration". This is blatantly untrue and suggests that he has never visited the area and simply views us as development land! Now it is proposed to drive an additional enormous train track through it which will not even fulfil the aim of the initial project i.e. to connect the North of England with HS1 and the rest of Europe. All of the disruption, noise, dirt, pollution and destruction to this area stems from the decision by HS2 to use Euston as the London terminus. Our Victorian forefathers knew that it was destructive to make large transport hubs in the centre of a thriving city and consequently the rail stations were all built to the North of Euston Road. Now the city has expanded and we have numerous businesses and residential areas living together in harmony. This has taken years to evolve and will not return in the same way after a generation of destruction in 30 years.

It has become normal in many cities to make the town centre pleasant by arranging for park and ride areas to keep traffic and transport hubs out of town. We need a more joined up plan to decide what we want for our city. For this reason we request that you stop the train at Old Oak Common while more detailed plans for Euston are worked out.

Reasons for the Destruction to our Neighbourhood

We have heard Simon Kirby saying that he expects one third or more passengers to alight at Old Oak Common so the train is expected to be a third to a half empty by the time it reaches Euston. Can the passenger numbers justify the cost of this part of the line? The only reason Mr Kirby gave for building this railway was to increase future capacity and create jobs. This is at a time when hospital beds are overflowing, healthcare budgets are unable to cope and schools are bursting without enough places to go round . We feel it is a very poor use of resources even for money allotted to the railway. The programme of electrification has been suspended through lack of money and the proposed HS3 line, connecting Liverpool to Hull via Manchester and Leeds, to aid our Northern neighbours is required much more urgently than yet another new line into London.

4 Consideration to the possible temporary total closure of Euston Station

Your petitioner would like you to consider a total shut down of Euston station so that a fully integrated building could be erected instead of the piece meal plans on offer at present. The station was rebuilt in the 1960s making it one of the youngest stations in the area. But the overhaul was a disaster. Please do not make the same mistake again. Closing the station would allow work to be carried out in normal working hours, residents to sleep, faster building and more integrated design of the station. It would also permit the present rail system to transport all materials, spoil and excavated waste thus decreasing pollution and traffic.

Summary of what your petitioner would like:

A. The railway to terminate at Old Oak Common. If not, to request a temporary halt for HS2 at Old Oak Common while more detailed plans for Euston are considered and the issues raised are resolved.

B. The spoil to be taken by rail and not road to reduce pollution and traffic.

C. A clearer explanation of the future compensation for our properties and how we would qualify in the event of illness or death.

D. A detailed explanation of where traffic will be diverted, particularly bus routes and access to bus stops. Trial closures of all roads and bridges that will be affected before work begins to assess the viability of transport routes and emergency traffic.

E. Objective readings of existing levels of pollution, noise and traffic flows 1n our street.

F. An agreed valuation of our properties prior to the commencement of work.

G. Your petitioner requests that a detailed cost benefit analysis be carried out concerning the pros and cons of bringing the railway into Euston Station rather terminating it at Old Oak Common.

H. Temporary Closure of Euston Station to allow normal building regulations with regard to noise, use of railway for materials and spoil and a unified integrated stationed to be built.

I. Camden appears doomed to suffer many, many years of destruction, pollution and noise from the construction of HS2. Your petitioner requests that positive and favourable action is taken to ensure that Camden remains a liveable place throughout the construction period.

5 The petitioner therefore ask the House of Lords that she, or someone representing her in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Angela Andersen

Date

6 To the House of Lords HL: 285 Session 2015 - 2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ANGELA ANDERSEN and ELSPETH HARRISON

Declares that:

1. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway. They include provision for the construction of works, highways and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. They include clauses which would disapply and modify various enactments relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries.

2. Your petitioner

Your Petitioners are owner occupiers of property in Albert Street numbers 118 and 127 respectively. Petitioner AA has lived in the same house since 1971 and petitioner EH has lived in the area for 4 7 years and in the present house since 1990.

3. Your petitioners' concerns

We object to the Bill on the grounds that our properties and our lives may be damaged by the proposed works in the following ways:

1 Damage to our Buildings

Albert Street is 1OOm from the proposed HS2 route and is lined on both sides (from numbers 9-139) by early Victorian Grade 2 listed buildings and lies within a Conservation Area. The buildings have little or no foundations and both of us have experienced serious cracking and movement when the buildings next door to us were built - one in 1975/6 when the Kings Fund built their new premises next to number 118, and the other in 1995-7 when the Jewish Museum was constructed. In both cases extensive repairs were required necessitating temporary rehousing. This illustrates how vulnerable our houses are. If our streets are to be used then HS2 should undertake to monitor all properties prior to construction and offer proper compensation to property owners for any repairs made necessary by vibration and excavation damage.

According to English Heritage there are 375,000 Grade 2 listed buildings in the UK representing just 1.8% of all residential homes so we need to protect these historic buildings. In Albert Street there are over 100 individual Grade 2 listed properties not the 12 suggested by HS2. We contend that disturbance of the cellars and vibration caused by the works will damage these fragile homes. The prospect of increased noise, vibration and pollution causes us concern. This street is at present quiet, probably much quieter than HS2 engineers estimate. We request that the present volume of traffic and decibel level should be independently monitored before any work starts. This will enable the increased levels to be acknowledged and evaluated.

Increases in Air Pollution

In Camden we are already at the upper limit of air pollution. Although HS2 argues that pollutants will be kept "as low a level as reasonably practicable" (S.4.4.1) it is a qualification that makes any commitment on their part meaningless. We fear that pollutants - specifically Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM 2.5) will pose a genuine health risk to local residents. Since we are now pensioners this may well mean for the rest of our lives! There are also many families with young children in the street and several schools in the area. Any increase in pollution is unacceptable.

We have been told to expect an increase of 30% in traffic down our street. Now we have been told that the majority of the spoil will be removed by road. It is estimated that it would require 6 full train loads per day the equivalent of 800 lorry movements. This is an enormous amount of increased traffic, all in the HGVs. Apart from the pollution this will cause congestion and probable total standstill at busy times of the day since many of our one way roads are only one lane wide eg. Delancey Street, one of the roads scheduled for lorry runs. We would like to ensure that the spoil is removed by rail and that there is no increase in heavy goods vehicles. We would like an assurance that any vehicles that are used have zero emissions and conform to the latest European standard. Project materials should also be confined to rail delivery

2 Increases in Noise Pollution

Unfair Compensation

It is clear that there will be sustained damage to the local area for 10 -15 years, probably more like 20 - 30 years (the new plan for staged building of Euston Station estimates that it will not be finished until 2033). The compensation plans for Camden compared with those in rural areas are derisory. At present Albert Street is a quiet, pleasant residential street - to claim urban dwellers are accustomed already to high levels of noise and dirt such that we will not notice the additional impact over years of HS2 construction is manifestly untrue and inaccurate. HS2 has shown no understanding of this area. Compensation should be assessed at the same level for the same loss wherever it occurs, rural or urban.

It is clear that the disruption and destruction caused by HS2 over a 15 - 30 year period cannot be termed 'temporary'.

In our street a substantial number of people are pensioners which means they will die or become too frail to remain in their houses for the proposed duration of the works i.e. 20-30 years. In the booklet entitled property compensation this states that if the property has not sold after 3 months on the market HS2 will buy it for the pre blight value. Does this really mean that they will send a cheque for two and a half million pounds to each of us, or our heirs, when this happens and has this been costed into the expenses? It says we will have to show a need to sell; does disablement, age or death meet these requirements? Do we need to get our property valued now or will past transactions suffice? Since anybody buying into the area with knowledge of the scheme i.e. after 2010 is not protected by any compensation we must already be blighted. Why does the compensation not go with the property rather than the person; in that way they would be easier to sell.

3 New Designs for Euston Station

Reasons for the Destruction to our Neighbourhood

We have heard Simon Kirby saying that he expects one third or more passengers to alight at Old Oak Common so the train is expected to be a third to a half empty by the time it reaches Euston. Can the passenger numbers justify the cost of this part of the line? The only reason Mr Kirby gave for building this railway was to increase future capacity and create jobs. This is at a time when hospital beds are overflowing, healthcare budgets are unable to cope and schools are bursting without enough places to go round . We feel it is a very poor use of resources even for money allotted to the railway, which needs electrification and the proposed HS3 line, connecting Liverpool to Hull via Manchester and Leeds, to aid our Northern neighbours is required much more urgently than yet another new line into London.

4 Summary of what we would like:

A. We would like the railway to terminate at Old Oak Common. If not to request a temporary halt for HS2 at Old Oak Common while more detailed plans for Euston are considered and the issues we have raised are resolved.

8. The spoil to be taken by rail and not road to reduce pollution and traffic.

C. A clearer explanation of the future compensation for our properties and how we would qualify in the event of illness or death.

E. Objective readings of existing levels of pollution, noise and traffic flows in our street.

F. An agreed valuation of our properties prior to the commencement of work.

G. We request that a detailed cost benefit analysis be carried out concerning the pros and cons of bringing the railway into Euston Station rather terminating it at Old Oak Common.

H. We would like you to consider a total shut down of Euston station so that a fully integrated building could be erected instead of the piece meal plans on offer at present. The station was rebuilt in the 1960s making it one of the youngest stations in the area. But the overhaul was a disaster. Please do not make the same mistake again. Closing the station would allow work to be carried out in normal working hours, residents to sleep, faster building and more integrated design of the station. It would also permit the present rail system to transport all materials, spoil and excavated waste to be transported by rail.

I. Camden appears doomed to suffer many, many years of destruction, pollution and noise from the construction of HS2. We request that positive and favourable action is taken to ensure that Camden remains a liveable place throughout the construction period.

5 The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that we, or someone representing us in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Angela Andersen Elspeth Harrison

Date

6 To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Maria Komodromou

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole bill.

2 Your petitioner is a retired lady of 7 6 years of age who is the owner occupier of 23 Delancey Street and has lived at this address for 72 years (since 1944) which has always been her home and her parents before her. She is hopeful that the next few years of her life would be a time, when she would be allowed to live in a stress free environment, without undue aggravation to her health from excessive pollution, noise etc and able to enjoy her surrounding, still feeling that being around the corner from Regents Park and living in Camden Town is the best of locations.

3. Your petitioner's concerns are: That this Bill affects your petitioner directly in that it will devastate her life in so many ways that it will become intolerable and unbearable denying her the rights to a reasonable peaceful existence.

The street is already a main route for traffic creating noise, congestion, pollution, and vibration caused when road works are not made good and levelled off properly leaving a hump in the road. It is hard to even imagine that it could sustain more of the same without damage being done to the homes and residents of the street.

Your petitioner has already suffered stress when the lathe and plaster ceiling in the ground floor front room collapsed and could have injured or killed anyone who might have been there at the time. This was a consequence of constant digging and drilling in the road, causing vibration and movement within the house. This was a frightening experience.

When the road was not levelled, your petitioner sleeping on the top floor was woken up by the house shaking and vibrating and feeling that an army was marching through the house. This was cause by the volume of heavy traffic early in the morning. Your petitioner will be living in constant fear that damage will be done to her house if more heavy vehicles are routed through Delancey Street.

The houses on Delancey Street and surrounding streets are on shallow foundations and have been affected by bombing during the war; two bombed sites, one on the comer of Delancey Street and Arlington Road originally housed a church and the other was on the comer of Albert Street and Momington Street. This has made the houses on these roads more vulnerable to such works as required in connection with HS2. House of Lords Petition Session 2015-20 16 2 Petition Against HS2

An ASK that HS2 puts in hand surveys and monitor all the above which can cause problems, damage and intolerable situations; and deal with them promptly andfairly. No survey seems to have been done, or any compensation offered to Delancey Street residents, with regard to damage that would occur because of substructure works, and the excessive amount of HGVs to be routed through the street, and the all the noise, vibration, pollution, disruption related which will cause the residents untold suffering and stress over a period of 20 years of HS2 construction works.

ASK that spoil be removed by rail or canal (both in close proximity) and not lorries - this being the solution that would have least impact on the residents and environment. The impact of hundreds ofHGVs being routed through Delancey Street will make life so stressful for so many on the street and cause so many problems.

ASK would be that no worsening of air quality from HS2 pollution in the use ofHGVs, and for HS2 to monitor and improve current levels which are already dangerously high. The current levels of air pollution is already so high that the dust is visually in the form of soot. Urgent monitoring is required as surely this affects the health of its residents. Your petitioner is fearful with regard to her health as she has already, on three different occasions, had breast cancer, the last one as recently as last year. And now suffers from arthritis, making life more difficult. It also has to be said that in the course of 30 years, on the petitioner's side of the street, a block of six houses - 3 residents have died of cancer. On the opposite side two have died with cancer and one has had breast cancer. It may seem a coincidence but with the pollution as high it is on this street, one has to wonder .

ASK that construction works be programmed that minimal disruption and duration of every aspect of the HS2 works:

ASK That timely information from HS2 enables genuine communication. HS2 has/ailed to do this.

ASK that HS2 address the problem of noise and vibration for all ofDelancey that will be affected and for all these households to be monitored and added to the list for noise insulation. HS2 has failed to address the noise problem to parts of Delancey Street which will also be affected. Sound travels not only through the air but through the ground and when piles and drilling works are activated it will affect most of the residents living in the immediate area. Noise. vibration etc for 24 hours will be so stressful and unbearable of which there will be health repercussions.

ASK mitigation/or 20 years of construction such as noise insulation to be applied to all Delancey Street households and agreed with each householder to be adequately monitored.

ASK would be that no temporary or permanent loss ofpublic green or opens spaces and an assurance these areas would be protected. With so much of Camden being demolished. uprooted. desecrated and destroyed which will take years to reinstate, at least the public and open spaces should be protected. House of Lords Petition Session 20 15-20 16 3 Petition Against HS2

ASK Delancey Street householders have been omitted with regard to urban compensation although they will be affected, and because of20 years construction works would not be able to get market value or sell their properties, this should be considered. (outside boundary line)

ASKfor independent costs and a technical assessment ofHS2 and alternative railway schemes and Old Oak Common costing to be calculated as per Lord's request.

ASK that Euston Station including HS2 and Cross rail 2 to be rebuilt in the same footprint and no additional railway scheme into Euston until local transport had capacity; also the integration ofthe Euston Station mainline redevelopment with local transport and coordination ofcivil works.

Your petitioner appreciates that she will not survive to the end of this project but feels that it will inevitably deny her, any expectations to a reasonable quality of life at the end of her years. The construction works related to HS2 to be endured over 20 years, will only exacerbate the fear, the stress, and the feeling that life will be unbearable and intolerable This will inevitably cause ill health both physically and mentally.

Your petitioner needs to say she feels that this scheme has not been properly thought out, although a great deal of money has been spent on expert advice. The cost of this scheme is not justified at the expense of the people who live in these areas and will be drastically affected. It feels that the voice of the people concerned has been ignored or just not listened to. The scheme is inadequate in its duty of care, it is immoral as it will cause so much devastation and destruction, and harm to so many people - depriving so many in Camden and elsewhere of their human rights to a reasonable life. I

3. Your petitioner's concerns are

Petition 1empla1e \.-4 Camden Civic Society .,...... , ..

4. The prayer

The petitioner(s) therefore ask(s) the House of Lords that (s)he/they, or someone representing her/him/them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner(s) remain(s), etc.

Name:...... Signature ......

House of Lords Private Bill Office House of Lords ; London House of Lords Private Bill SWlA OPW Office: phone: 020 7219 2468 Lords HS2 Bill Team fax: 020 7219 2571 email: [email protected]

Pcllllon lcmplatc , 4 Camden C1,1c Society 4 HL: 287

To the House of Lords Session 2015-2016

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Griselda Brook

Declares that:

I. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

2. Your petitioner

Your petitioner is the owner of a one-bedroomed basement flat in Delancey Street, which she has lived in since 1998. It has a small, secluded garden at the rear of the property. Your petitioner is retired and was anticipating peaceful enjoyment of her retirement. The bill may specially and directly affect both the prope1ty and the quality oflife of your petitioner.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

Your petitioner is concerned that she will be specially and directly affected by the Bill in that the passage of HGVs will cause continual noise by day, night and weekends which will adversely affect the quality of her life, causing sleep deprivation; that air quality will become even worse than it already is: that dust and ve1min will invade her flat and ruin her garden; that vibration from the passing of heavy traffic will affect the whole building, including her flat: that she wi ll have great difficulty in accessing her property, either on foot or by public or private transpo1t. and that emergency vehicle access to the prope1ty will be extremely difficult.

She would suggest that the alternative scheme for the line would be more acceptable. Delancey Street is not suitable. as a largely residential street. for the continual passage of heavy goods vehicles. Your petitioner asks for clear procedures for enforcement to be in place. 4. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Signature

Date To the House of Lords HL: 288 Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Russell Keith Grant and Nadine Margaret Hobson

Declares that

I. The petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole of the Bill

2. YOUR PETITIONERS

Your Petitioners are a married couple who reside with their daughter at 30, Delancey Street, Camden Town, London NW I 7NH. The property, dated I 820- I 830s approximately is a 5 story Terraced House. We purchased the freehold of this house in 1998 and have lived here ever since.

Your Petitioner (male) is a self-employed professional London Blue Badge London Tourist Guide who has been working full time since 1999. His office is based at 30,Delancey Street. The second Petitioner (female) is a Registered Osteopath who has been practising since 1978.

Your Petitioners chose this property originally as it was an affordable freehold property with a back garden, centrally located to Your Petitioners' places of work, walking distance to Regents Park and Primrose Hill, shops and transport systems. Being dog owners, Your Petitioners have valued greatly their close proximity to Regents Park and Primrose Hill. All of Your Petitioners family, walk, cycle and take local buses to and from local environs and the West End. Your Petitioners park their cars in the Residents' Parking Bays in and around Delancey Street. Your Petitioners have developed strong ties and are actively with the local community.

Your Petitioners property is situated in the middle of a beautiful curved street of residential four to five story terraced houses. Your Petitioners' house backs onto an oasis of greenery from their neighbouring gardens which not only creates an essential habitat for a wide variety of wildlife but an invaluable sense of tranquillity for local residents. Your Petitioners keen interest in gardening was recognised in 20~y their garden winning the Runner-Up prize in the Sunday Times newspaper's nationwide competition 'Britain's Best Back Garden'.

Your Petitioners still greatly value living in this property in this area as it currently fulfils all their family's needs. However, as two of Your Petitioners are now in their sixties, it is expected that their situation is likely to change over the next 5 to IO years. Although Your Petitioners are currently in good health and working full time, Your Petitioners envisage a time when they will wish or be compelled to downsize and move elsewhere.

Delancey Street is located in the centre of a unique Camden community and part of two Conservation residential areas. Given the proximity to Camden Lock market and the West End, Delancey Street is a surprisingly peaceful and authentic neighbourhood, mostly residential and consisting of historic buildings and small scale unique businesses. 3. YOUR PETITIONERS' CONCERNS

Your Petitioners' property will not be demolished as a result of your Bill, but Your Petitioners neighbourhood, lives and property will be directly and severely affected.

Your Petitioners' property is located with 153 metres of the line and construction footprint at the Cutting at the top end of Delancey Street which is now designated as a major construction and division route, not just for the construction phase but also once the new Euston Station is operational. Consequently, the following measures will impact of Your Petitioners lives and property:

We feel dismayed that even at this stage of the petitioning process, we on Delancey Street will still be left with a significant negative impact from IO years or more of construction and its associated issues. Any assurances given to Camden Council and mitigation on such issues as noise insulation do not take away the overall significant Adverse Effects of the scheme on the lives of all residents' on Delancey Street.

WHAT WE OBIECT TO IN THE BILL

We believe that the existing plans are wholly unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

The exceptionally high cost of the current proposal.

The immense damage and disruption to Camden, its residents and passengers using Euston over coming decades.

The failure to achieve the much needed comprehensive redevelopment of Euston.

Your Petitioners' support all of the objections and the asks raised in the petitions of both The Camden Cutting Group and The Delancey Residents' Association, of which we are members.

YOUR PETITIONERS ASK

We believe that a number of alternative schemes exist that would greatly reduce the duration and amount of demolition and disruption due to be caused in Camden by HS2. Therefore we ask the Select Committee to require that a truly independent technical assessment is made of HS2's scheme within Camden and of the various alternatives to it.

We ask the Select Committee to require that an independent cost-benefit analysis is made of these schemes, ensuring that this analysis includes the social cost of disruption to residents, the cost of delays to local transport users and the cost of fair compensation on the level available to residents outside the London area.

We ask that Old Oak Common is developed as a temporary London terminus for the high speed section of the line to allow time for alternative proposals for the resolution of delivering HS2 services into central London to be properly assessed, and ultimately resulting in a well considered design for Euston Station and its approach to be developed We ask that owing to the long timescale of the project. our home be considered eligible for the noise insulation scheme and that all secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation be designed and installed by specialists to suit the requirements of each individual property and its inhabitants.

Your Petitioners argue that noise assessments have not been carried out thoroughly enough in the Street and have not taken into account the physicality of the street. The tall 4/5 storey terraced houses abut the pavements and curve around narrow sections of the road which create a tunnel-effect from which there is no protection from the noise.

Your Petitioners' home is situated in the narrower part of the street where there is a tunnelling effect due to the tall terraces of houses of either side. When a noisy bus or lorry passes, an echo sound bounces off the buildings and vibration can be felt especially at the front of our house which is the location of our living quarters - our kitchen, living room and bedrooms.

Currently only one block of terraced houses on the north side of Delancey Street are predicted to be eligible for noise insulation, but that falls short of many other properties like ours that are just as close to the effect of the construction works in the cutting. Although our section of Delancey Street. and therefore our home, has not been identified as part of the noise insulation scheme, Your Petitioners think it should be. 4. The prayer

The petitioner(s) therefore ask(s) the House of Lords that (s)he/they, or someone representing her/him/them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner(s) remain(s), etc.

Name:...... !lAJss,;~ c;~Nt Signature.

Name: ... /}@1.A/ e. ..f {Q.NO.rf signature

5 To the House of Lords HL: 289 Session 2015-16

Petition against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF THE DRUMMOND STREET TENANTS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Declares that

The petitioners are specifically and directly adversely affected by the clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill, insofar as these relate to the construction works in and around Euston Station.

1. The Petitioners are the Drummond Street Tenants and Residents Association. The Association was formed in 2012 under the aegis of Camden Council, and its constitution formally approved. It represents the community living in Drummond Street, Cobourg Street, Starcross Street, North Gower Street and associated streets in the immediate vicinity. It is a small and distinct area immediately adjacent to Euston Station on the west side, with a multi-racial community, mostly living in social housing, and a mix of small businesses, particularly South Asian restaurants and food shops. Many families live here, including older people and small children. This means there are many people at home during the day. Part of Maria Fidelis School is on Starcross Street, as is the local mosque.

2 This is a settled community. Among the residents of the block nearest to the station are the following:

(a) Kathleen Ullah is 74. She has lived in the area for 50 years and in her current home for 31 years. She is a widow and in very poor health. She does not see how she can stay in the area with the construction site on her doorstep, and she may have to ask the council for a move, even though she has very strong connections with neighbours and local services.

(b) There are three generations of the Miah family, the older parents, three adult children, and the daughter's three children. The daughter is also a science teacher at Maria Fidelis School. She and her two brothers were born and have always lived in this flat. They feel that life may become intolerable, but any move would have to be very local because their whole lives are here.

(c) Sue Sommers is 67 and recently retired. She bought the flat and moved here in 1995. She is afraid that the noise, dirt and traffic may make staying here impossible.

(d) Mr Khan lives with his wife, daughter, mother and brother in the home he has lived in since the age of 4. He is Chair of the Drummond Street Tenants and Residents Association. He and his family have strong links to the area, and he says that although they would want to move away from the construction work, they would like to relocate within 500 yards. He has bought his own home, so he will only be able to do this if values are not blighted. (e) Mussie and Julie Kahsay have three young children and have lived in Cobourg Street for 5 years. The two older girls attend school locally. The family is very worried about the pollution and noise, and they may have to ask the Council for a move.

Impact of construction works

3 We are concerned in particular by the proposal to extend the western border of the station from Cardington/Melton Street to Cobourg Street. This will mean that the Drummond StreeUStarcross/Cobourg Street block of flats will be within about 5 metres of the border of an enormous construction site. Early years will be taken up with demolition of a number of local buildings, including a large Ibis hotel, and will be followed by work that includes significant deep excavations. It is understood that the works are scheduled to last until 2026, but could last until 2034. There is permission to work up to 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. More than 50 dwellings, according to HS2's own estimates, will suffer noise levels higher than the noise insulation trigger levels.

4 The extreme proximity of the site to a residential population means unacceptable levels of building noise, dirt, dust, vibration, loss of daylight, street congestion and diminished air quality for a period estimated at 19 years. This will put intolerable stress on local people, particularly those who are housebound, and young children, who will be expected to spend the whole of their childhood in this situation. We expect that residents will develop problems of psychological stress, and that their physical health will be affected. Those with existing respiratory problems will suffer particularly because of the impact on air quality.

5 In addition Drummond Street, which is small local street mostly serving local businesses, is to be used for heavy vehicle construction traffic. It is not clear how much this will involve bringing in building materials and removing spoil. This will add to the noise, vibration and pollution, in addition to a very serious loss of parking for both businesses and residents.

6 Local streets are to be subject to extensive utility works covering the range of services, which will add to local residents' difficulties and stress. Plans indicate trenches more than 3 metres wide and more than 3 metres deep for several years.

7 Other negative effects will be increased accident risk and the impacts on pedestrian journey times, vehicle movement and traffic flow, because of the double effect of the heavy works traffic and of closing off Drummond Street (for non-construction traffic) at the Cobourg Street intersection. We are also concerned about access for emergency vehicles to the eastern end of Drummond Street during construction work.

8 The effect on businesses is likely to be similarly adverse, with a huge impact on amenity and probable loss of trade. The small local businesses in Drummond Street cannot easily relocate and are unlikely ever to be replaced.

9 We consider that there has been insufficient regard taken by HS2 either to the impact of the construction work or to the impact of the completed station on the area. The Drummond Street area will experience some of the most severe and long-lasting impacts of the whole HS2 route. The Select Committee recognised that 'many (Camden) residents are going to have to put up with disturbance on a scale beyond the experience in most other locations'.

Impact of completed station

10 We also have concerns about the impact of the completed station on this small community. It is planned that Cobourg Street, currently a quiet side street, will eventually become the new side exit of the station and a through route to Hampstead Road. The new taxi rank will be located there. There is expected to be an increase in rail passenger numbers at the station of up to 46% in the mornings and 58% in the evenings by 2041 . This will have an enormous knock on effect on onward travel on foot, by LU, bus, train and taxi, some of which will spill over into our streets. Significant increases in road traffic quantities and noise are predicted, with the associated effects on air quality. The quietly busy, residential quality of the street will change forever.

11 We will lose St James' Gardens, which are to be swallowed up into the new site. This is the only green space in our immediate area for children's play and for quiet rest, and it will not be reinstated.

Mitigation sought

12 We ask that that the station plans be redesigned to keep the western station boundary within its existing footprint. This would constitute a major reprieve for the whole of our residential community, as well as for local traders. A number of proposals have been put forward for alternative plans, which your petitioners believe have been inadequately explored.

13 We ask that the Drummond Street area be considered a special case in terms of compensation arrangements. It is unjust that residents be expected to endure such levels of disruption for so long with no compensation at all. We support the Euston Action Group request for an independent commissioner to draw up and administer a fair compensation plan for Euston.

14 We ask that measures such as additional glazing and noise insulation should be installed well in advance of the start of works, including major utility works. Should it arise during the course of works that more residents are experiencing undue noise than those identified in the first round, there should be a process for their properties to be assessed and appropriate measures offered. We also ask that, in the case of the 19th century freehold properties in the area, packages sensitive to the age and character of each building be agreed individually.

15 HS2 accepts that there will be times when residents will need to be moved away temporarily. V\n'lere this is necessary it should, again, be planned and notified well in advance, and accommodation should be within a mile of people's homes.

16 We ask that HS2 be required to give an undertaking that working hours be restricted to normal daytime working hours except in very exceptional and limited cases, agreed with Camden Council, and that clear advance notice on working hours should be given at all times to all affected addresses during the construction work. 17 We ask that HS2 be required to commit to weekly local environmental management plan meetings which local residents and traders are able to attend, to resolve and discuss issues as they arise.

18 We ask that a community liaison officer be available by telephone at all times the site is operational, so that complaints of disturbance at unsocial hours can be dealt with immediately.

19 We ask that HS2 be required to undertake that pedestrian access to the station through the building site to the station is wide, well lit, well signposted and well designed, and covered by CC1V at all points, for the safety of those using it.

20 We ask that rail be used for the delivery of materials and removal of waste as far as possible, to reduce the physical impact on our residential streets of large volumes of construction vehicles, as well as the impact on residents. There is a particular concern that parts of Drummond Street have coal cellars and bomb damage and may suffer from the prolonged impacts of heavy vehicles.

21 We ask that access for delivery, emergency and private vehicles should be maintained throughout the works.

22 We ask that the new taxi rank be relocated underground, to lessen pollution and disturbance to properties on Cobourg Street.

23 We ask that HS2 undertake to ensure there is no loss of residents' parking in the area as a result of the works.

24 We ask that plans for green space and replacement tree planting for our immediate area be incorporated into the designs, to compensate for the loss of St James' s Gardens.

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that their representative in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Signed

Name: Sue Sommers 60 Cobourg Street, London NW1 2H B Representative for Drummond Street Tenants and Residents Association HL: 290

To the House of Lords Session 20 15-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (Lqndon -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF JOHN AND LOUISE FLETCHER

Declares that:

1. The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your Petitioners

Your Petitioners reside at 1 Glenridding, Ampthill Square Estate (hereinafter referred to as "the Estate"), a leasehold property. We moved to the Estate five and a half years ago having been attracted by the tranquillity of the Estate, the green spaces within the Estate, the security of the Estate, local amenities and the ease of access to Central London.

The following outlines a range of significant negative impacts facing residents both in the wider area and those faced by your Petitioners specifically.

3. Your petitioners concerns are

As residents on Ampthill Square Estate and members of the TRA we fully endorse the content, arguments and requests set out within the Petition submitted to your Honourable House by the AMPTHILL SQUARE TENANTS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION in the name of FRAN HERON on behalf of all residents and with our express approval.

In addition to those mentioned in the document referred to above we would like to draw the attention of your Honourable House to our following specific concerns.

We are concerned that, whilst our property will not be demolished as a result of the Bill, we are located within 200mt of the proposed expansion of Euston station, lOOmt from various construction compounds (including one on the Estate}, we are surrounded by main roads that will be used for the HGV traffic to and from the station and the Estate for the duration of the reconstruction, will be subject to considerable disruption on the Estate due to trenching work for utilities and are also 150mt from Hampstead Road Bridge which is due to be demolished and rebuilt under the Bill and will, accordingly, be surrounded by construction works for 18 years.

The Promoters of the Bill insist on Euston as the main London terminus for HS2, your Petitioners urge your Honourable House to instruct the Promoter to design a station within the current footprint of Euston station. We believe HS2 Ltd have not explored sufficiently in their own designs a plan to restrict expansion outside the confines of Euston Station and have failed to properly appraise such alternatives, including the Double-Deck Down design generated by concerned professionals from within the community. This would cut down on the amount of demolition required thereby reducing disruption to the community as well as a reduced quantity of spoil and the resultant removal which causes pollution,

1 noise, dust and reduced cost.

In addition, it has recently come to the attention of Your Petitioners that the Crossrail 2 project is planned to be undertaken whilst work is continuing on HS2 as amended by AP3 in the area. It is a matter of grave concern that there appears to be no integrated planning for the two projects and therefore the level of chaos inflicted on Camden in general and the Estate in particular is likely to be our worst nightmare!

Given the uncertainty with regard to future plans for Euston Station, your Petitioners urge your Honourable House to use Old Oak Common as the London terminus, at least on temporary basis, until properly costed and acceptable comprehensive (i.e. covering the Crossrail 2 development and the redevelopment of the conventional Euston station) plans for an alternative London terminus have been devised.

Your Petitioners urge your Honourable House to instruct the Promoter to require the new station design to remove the spoil and bring materials and equipment in by rail to the fullest extent possible to reduce the number of lorries on the roads and their resultant pollution, noise and traffic congestion.

As stated above, your Petitioners are located adjacent to the considerable demolition and construction work that will be undertaken in relation to the Bill in the area of the Estate. Therefore the tranquil lifestyle that attracted us to the Estate will cease for at least 18 years of demolition and construction at times, for 24 hours per day with the resultant noise, vibration, pollution and dirt, effectively surrounding us with continuous activity relating to the operations envisaged by the Bill.

The surrounding main roads will be clogged with over 700 lorries a day for the duration of this demolition and construction. Unless, as requested, HS2 Ltd. use rail as much as possible for delivery/removal.

The lorry movements will create significant additional air pollution (to say nothing of the contribution from the construction/destruction activities themselves) to add to the current poor air quality in the area (levels of particulate matter - PM2.5 - in the air in London are already understood to be the worst in Europe).

Your Petitioners request your Honourable House to require the Promoters to monitor the current level of noise, air and dust pollution and that this monitoring should be independently verified. Current air pollution levels breach EU legislation giving rise to potential health risk and no increase in pollution levels can or should be tolerated.

The planned activity in the Estate (construction compounds and trenching) means the Estate will itself become a construction site for much of the eighteen years envisaged which will further damage the tranquil atmosphere that is a significant attraction of the Estate and will also inevitably ruin the security of the Estate that has been painstakingly developed over a number of years (with access restricted to residents for the most part). As stated one of the proposed construction compounds is located on the Estate and lorries will be travelling to and from the compound resulting in traffic safety issues along with the increased noise, pollution and dirt previously mentioned.

Your Petitioners request that if, as a result of construction, utility diversion works or other actions by the Promoter, their utilities are cut off for an unacceptable period, the Promoters should make appropriate compensation for the associated hardship and inconvenience.

Your Petitioners do not own a car and are dependent upon pedestrian routes and public transportation. Your Petitioners are concerned about the effects of the increased traffic congestion, lorry movements and decreased access to public transportation on their ability to safely get around.

2 Your Petitioners request that sufficient bus routes and bus stops will remain on Eversholt Street and Hampstead Road to ensure convenient access to the public.

Your Petitioners request safe pedestrian access both on the Estate and on the surrounding roads with sufficient safe road crossing put in place with traffic signals to stop traffic.

The cumulative impact of the noise, dust, vibration, ventilation, air pollution, loss of safe access routes, loss of amenity and daylight, construction traffic, bridge closures, congestion and works being executed at anti-social times is a concern. Euston Road is understood to be one of the most polluted areas in Britain. HS2 Ltd have been requested to agree a methodology to assess whether homes will be rendered "unreasonable to continue to occupy", an objective "habitability test".

The demolition and construction activity will disturb populations of rats that currently live within the station area and pest control will thus become a major issue in the Estate during this period. Your Petitioners request that adequate pest control measures be put in place that allow for the prevention of the movement of significant rat populations during construction activities and these measures are monitored to ensure that health hazards are minimised.

Japanese Knotweed is present in and around the railway tracks. This will be disturbed during excavation and the spoil will be removed by lorry. Your Petitioners are concerned that this highly invasive and destructive plant will be spread through the Estate during this process and request that control measures are introduced to prevent the destructive spread of this plant.

Your Petitioners request that the Construction Code of Practice be rewritten to provide definite undertakings instead of non-committal general intentions. The Environmental Statement and Construction Code of Practice do not provide certainty of any effective mitigation for our neighbourhood, so, in the absence of any such definite undertakings as requested, fair compensation is required as an alternative.

Your Petitioners have requested that the Hampstead Road Bridge be redesigned to do away with the slip road and therefore the need for such a high and long bridge that is out of character with its surroundings and a hazard to both cyclists and pedestrians. A redesign is awaited from HS2 Ltd. and our concerns will not be allayed until we have seen a satisfactory revision.

Your Petitioners request that since the Promoter is bringing a major construction project into a dense residential area they need to take the noise assessment methodology, modelling and mitigation further so that the effects are minimised. Accurate and detailed construction noise modelling should be undertaken by HS2 Ltd. that reflects the complicated urban environment that surrounds the works. The AP3 noise modelling appears to be for a rural area where the sound attenuates parallel to the work. The Estate is effectively an open space surrounded by large buildings which act as an echo chamber: sounds appear to come from different directions and circulate and whispers are amplified. HS2 Ltd. should also be required to undertake the following actions in relation to noise mitigation: i. HS2 Ltd. justify as part of the Local Environmental Management Plan process, on a case by case basis, all work outside of the normal working hours. Where justification cannot be made to the satisfaction of all parties engaged in the Local Environment Plan process, the work must take place during normal working hours. ii. The following trigger levels are applied when the noise level predicted by the contractors exceeds the limit for five days in any fifteen consecutive days or twenty days in any six month period or thirty days in any twelve month period or forty days in any two year period. This still gives the potential of 360 days at a level of noise requiring ear defenders!

3 iii. In order to predict if rehousing will be necessary we ask that HS2 Ltd. undertakes accurate construction noise modelling to the satisfaction of LBC. It should take into account the specific nature of the Estate environment (large open space with hard sound reflective buildings and no mitigating features), the actual designs and construction techniques, equipment, programme and also traffic. iv. We ask that in addition to external noise monitoring, HS2 Ltd. monitor noise levels inside to ensure that levels, including levels inside properties that have secondary glazing, do not exceed the reasonable levels detailed below (vi). v. We ask that given the exceptional nature and duration of the HS2 construction project 18 years or more) that acceptable noise limits follow standards for permanent conditions, not those for typical construction works. vi. We ask that the limits for rehousing are lower in each category listed in Table 1 of the Environmental Statement Vol. 5 Draft Code of Construction Practice CT_003-000 and information paper E23 i.e. the limits for temporary rehousing should be:

a. 75dB during the day 0800-1800 on weekdays (instead of 85 dB);

b. 70dB during the day 0700-2200 Sunday (instead of 75 dB);

c. 65 dB at night 2200-0700 (same as proposed by HS2 Ltd.);

d. 70 dB at other times (instead of 75-80 dB.

While HS2 Ltd denies any intention of using compulsory purchase powers within the Estate, nevertheless your Petitioners would like to draw the attention of your Honourable House to the very significant potential financial losses which we would face should we wish to move and sell our leasehold during the construction of the station and subsequent development. If your Petitioners wish to sell their leasehold during the construction of the new station, they need to be guaranteed equivalent value at a non impacted market price+ 10%.

Your Petitioners are greatly concerned at HS2 Ltd's excessive reliance on 'where reasonably practicable' when referring to mitigation measures that might be employed. HS2 Ltd. are therefore not committed to any mitigation measures unless the assessment of "reasonably practical" is left to a fully independent assessor to establish in each instance or a definition that is acceptable to affected communities is defined prior to the commencement of operations. Your Petitioners ask your Honourable House to either appoint a fully independent assessor or clearly define the term 'reasonably practicable' and how it will apply in all instances where it has been used by HS2 Ltd.

Your Petitioners would welcome the opportunity of presenting evidence to the Hybrid Bill Select Committee appointed by your Honourable House and also we would be happy to arrange site visits to Ampthill Square Estate in order for the Select Committee to assess for themselves the extent of likely impacts.

There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect all residents living on the Ampthill Square Estate.

4 4. The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Name: John Fletcher

Signature ..

Name: Louise Fletcher

Signature

JOHN AND LOUISE FLETCHER l GLENRIDDING AMPTHILL SQUARE LONDON NW12JY Home: 0207 209 1802 Mobile: 07868 712608

5 HL: 291

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF: Affinity Water Limited

Declares that:

1 The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

Your petitioner

2 The petitioner is Affinity Water Limited, a company incorporated as private limited by shares and registered at Companies House under company number 2546950. The petitioner has been appointed by an Instrument of Appointment by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the water undertaker under section 6 of the Water Industry Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act") for part of the area in which the Bi ll shall have effect. The petitioner provides drinking water to a population of around 3.5 million customers in 1.6 million properties in the South East of England. As a water undertaker the petitioner has a general duty imposed by section 37 of the 1991 Act to provide water services together with other obligations imposed on water undertakers by that Act and other legislation.

3 The petitioner is specially and directly affected by the Bill in that it owns or has an interest in apparatus, in particular but not restricted to, pumping stations, water mains, and communication and power cables, laid within its statutory area ("Apparatus") for the purposes of carrying out its statutory duties and which fall within the lands to be compulsorily acquired. In addition to the Apparatus, which will be affected by the works, the petitioner owns or has an interest in properties ("Properties") which are subject to compulsory acquisition or use or are otherwise affected by the Bill. Additionally, the petitioner has an interest in the aquifers from which it draws its resources ("Aquifers").

4 The petitioner petitioned the First House (petition no. 474) on all concerns set out in this petition. The petitioner withdrew that petition on 25 January 2016 as negotiations between the promoter and the petitioner were at an advanced stage, and the terms of an agreement settling the petitioner's concerns had been agreed between the parties. However, the completion of the agreement has been delayed by the necessity of the promoter giving notice of its liabilities under the proposed agreement to Parliament in accordance with policy. A Departmental Minute from the Department for Transport was laid before Parliament for this purpose on 22 March 2016 and will stand for 14 parliamentary sitting days before the agreement may be completed. That date post-dates the close of the Second House petitioning period, and as such the petitioner makes this petition.

14232230.1 Your petitioner's concerns

Deterioration/diminution of water resources

5 Around 60% of the petitioner's water (up to 1150 megalitres per day, i.e. one billion 150 million litres) which is used to supply its central region's population of 3.2 million customers is abstracted from the aquifer via boreholes sunk into the chalk of the Chiltern Hills, providing high quality water that has been naturally filtered. The petitioner has significant concerns that the proposed railway passes close to six of its groundwater sources which will give rise to operational issues relating to water quality, quantity, and ground water levels. The petitioner and its customers could be severely affected as the proposed works have the potential to reduce the quality and/or quantity of water abstracted to the extent that supply could be entirely jeopardised. Due to the nature of the chalk and the fiss ures within it, it cannot be fully known prior to construction and operation what the effects on the sources wi ll be; as such substantial and careful monitoring will be imperative. The petitioner is required by the 199 1 Act to ensure as regards each sou rce that there is no deterioration in raw water quality and the Bill as currently drafted is insufficient to allow the petitioner to carry out its duties.

6 The petitioner has concerns that the promoter has not proposed adequate measures to prevent or respond to such effects on the aquifers which could be so severe as to render a source temporarily or permanently redundant. The petitioner is concerned that greater water pumping levels will be req uired to secure the same volume of water in the event that ground water levels drop as a result of the proposed works. This would entail significant additional costs to the petitioner's business. The petitioner is concerned that should any such effects occur, without sufficient mitigation measures in place, there would not be time to mobilise alternative water supplies and the reduction in water volumes could create a threat to the water supply resulting in a failure to deliver water to the petitioner's customers. In any event, alternative sources would only be secured with substantial difficu lty and at great cost.

7 The petitioner seeks full indemnity and compensation for all costs, loss and damage suffered due to any adverse effect on its water resources (including changes in water quality or quantity) caused by the proposed works and the proposed railway, and incurred by it in undertaking works to secure and monitor those sources.

Acquisition of the Properties

8 The petitioner will be substantially affected by the compulsory acquisition of the Properties. Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the petitioner is particularly concerned that the pumping station, offices, and premises in the London Borough of Ealing known as the Northolt Pumping Station is to be acquired as this site is an operational site relied on heavily by the petitioner in its servicing of the local area and its customers. The petitioner is concerned that there will not be sufficient notice given to secure an alternative site, and that in any event at present th ere are not any suitable alternative sites readily available.

Interference with the Apparatus

9 The petitioner has concerns that the powers conferred on the promoter will enable the promoter to interfere with and compromise the use of the Apparatus in the vicinity of the proposed works. The Apparatus will be substantially affected by the proposed railway and the proposed works. In particular, the route of th e proposed railway intersects with the petitioner's network at around

14232230.1 2 100 locations. The impacts wi ll be varied depending on the individual site but will include temporary closures and re-alignments of substantial trunk mains. The petiti oner believes. that any diversion of the Apparatus, whether temporary or permanent, should be along the best possible route in terms of minimising disruption and maintaining current standards of service to the petitioner's customers , local residents and businesses and the environment, and minimising operational cost and increasing general efficiency. The petitioner has concerns that where the proposed railway intersects with the petitioner's network, the petitioner will no longer retain rights to lay, repair or maintain the Apparatu s. The petitioner will therefore need to install supplementary apparatus or otherwise increase the current level of resilience of its current network in order to maintain current standards of service and minimise any unplanned failure of the Apparatus and subsequent disturbance to supply, and indeed the proposed railway. The petitioner seeks a commitment from the promoter that protocols will be put in place so that access can be gained and works can be undertaken efficiently should the Apparatus be compromised.

10 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect the petitioner and its rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect the petitioner.

The prayer

11 The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rul es and Standing Ord ers of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains , etc.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL LLP Parliamentary Agent for Affinity Water Limited

15 April 2016

14232230.1 3 HL: 292

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF:

BARWOOD LASALLE LAND NOMINEE 1 LIMITED

BARWOOD LASALLE LAND NOMINEE 2 LIMITED

Declares that:

1 Your Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by Clauses 1-22, 31-36, 44-50, 52-54, 60-64, 66-69 and Schedules 1-17 and 21-32 of the Bill.

2 Your Petitioners

2.1 Your Petitioners are Barwood LaSalle Land Nominee 1 Limited (Company Registration Number: 06439855) and Barwood LaSalle Land Nominee 2 Limited (Company Registration Number: 06439864) the reg istered office of both companies being One Curzon Street, London W1J 5HD.

2.2 Your Petitioners are owners of land which, in conjunction with other land, is being promoted for development to provide essential long-term employment opportunities, increased market and affordable housing and jobs in the area of Aylesbury Vale District Council in Buckinghamshire. They are owners of the land known as Fleet Marston Farm in Buckinghamshire which has been included in the Bill and in respect of which they have development ambitions.

2.3 The Bill would authorise the compulsory acquisition of certain interests in specific areas of land or property of your Petitioners. These include land parcels 15-21 and 23-26 in the Parish of Fleet Marston in the County of Buckinghamshire and land parcels 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 17 in the Parish of Waddesdon in the County of Buckinghamshire (the Property).

2.4 Your Petitioners have been in detailed discussions with the Promoter during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons with a view to reaching an ag reement sufficiently protecting you r Petitioners' development proposals, which accommodates the scheme.

2.5 It is your Petitioners' hope that the negotiations will lead to a position in which no land will need to be taken on either a permanent or temporary basis by the Promoter and that the mitigation sought by the Promoter will be carried out on land belonging to your Petitioners to the mutual satisfaction of both your Petitioners and the Promoter as well as to the satisfaction of Natural England.

3 Your Petitioners' concerns

3.1 Your Petitioners do not object in principle to the decision to construct the High Speed Rail Link nor to the proposed route of HS2 but do object to the proposed permanent or temporary acquisition of rights and interests in that part of their property which is included in the Bill.

3.2 Your Petitioners therefore allege that they and their property, rights and interest in their property would be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provision of the Bill if passed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill for these reasons, amongst others, set out below.

14231766.3 3.3 Your Petitioners' land is subject to compulsory acquisition under the Bill. Your Petitioners believe that the Promoter has provided no proper justification as to why these parcels of land are required , or req uired to the degree proposed.

3.4 Your Petitioners also object to the provision of Clause 48 of the Bill insofar as they may potentially be used to acquire compulsorily any of your Petitioners' property, or at least so much of the airspace, subsoil and undersurface or such new rights, under or over the property as the Promoter may require for the purposes set out in the Bill.

3.5 Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should demonstrate and be put to strict proof of the need for and desirability of the proposals in the Bill, as affecting your Petitioners' property interests, the powers for the compulsory acquisition of land or of interests in land, the power to construct works and the exercise of works and ancillary powers within the limits of deviation should be restricted in relation to your Petitioners' property interests to the extent (if any) to which they can be strictly justified so as to minimise or prevent interference with the Property and the potential for development. In particular, any interest in the Property acquired by the Promoter (in terms of the area over which it is to subsist, the form in which it is to take as law and any express or implied constraints which may be imposed upon the remainder of your Petitioners' property) should be strictly limited only to that which is absolutely necessary for the construction, safe operation and maintenance of the proposed works.

3.6 Your Petitioners therefore seek an assurance that the Secretary of State will acquire no greater amount of its land or interest in, on or over land than is absolutely necessary for the construction and operation of the works authorised by the Bill. Your Petitioners request that the Bill and the deposited plans be amended to exclude land that is not absolutely necessary, or that the Secretary of State be required to enter into legally binding agreements with your Petitioners that land that is not absolutely necessary will not be compulsorily acquired. In addition, your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended so that any land which is only required temporarily for construction purposes should be categorised as such for example by inclusion in Schedule 16 and not subject to permanent powers of acquisition.

3.7 Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter shou ld not have conferred upon it powers to acquire land permanently that it only requires temporarily and that the Promoter should therefore be put to strict proof as to the extent and nature of the powers sought in relation to your Petitioners' land and that land not required permanently should be returned expeditiously. Where it is possible for the Promoter to take an interest or right over the land rather than acquire it, the Promoter's powers should be constrained accordingly.

3.8 If your Petitioners' land is to be acquired, then your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended or the Promoter required to give sufficient notice before taking the land. The proposals in the Bill for the giving of notice are inadequate.

3.9 Your Petitioners are gravely concern ed about the impact of the proposed working site close to their site for the period set out in the Environmental Statement. Your Petitioners therefore seek an assurance that consultation will be carri ed out as to working practices prior to th e commencement of construction activity by the Promoters so as to mitigate any negative impact on your Petitioners' property.

3.10 Your Petitioners request that the area is unsuitable for a worksite but that if it has to be there, then the best means available for minimising noise, dust and/or vibrations both during construction and operation are utilised to your Petitioners' satisfaction.

3.11 Your Petitioners are concerned about the effects that construction traffic will have on the A41 road and your Petitioners therefore request that, during construction, the nominated undertaker should be required to maintain the quality of the A41 road, and after construction, the road must be returned to its proper size and character, and all damages repaired by the nominated undertaker.

3.12 Your Petitioners respectfully ask the honourable House to direct the Promoter to ensure your Petitioners are fairly compensated for effects on land value but also other returns to which th ey

14231766.3 2 would have been reasonably entitled, including loss of development value and the loss of the opportunity to develop land due to its temporary occupation so as to ensure all housing land to be fully compensated with all costs covered at (un-blighted) full market value. This includes but is not limited to any loss of potential development value, indexation and loss or rent.

3.13 Your Petitioners object to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfully submit that the Bill should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Limited, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works by considering their cumulative impact on communities. They also need to suggest necessary changes from the results of that review before works, design and construction strategies have been finalised or construction contractors employed.

3.14 In light of the above your Petitioners reserve the rig ht to raise the above matters and any further matters of concern relating to the substance of th e Bill and this Petition that may arise from continuing discussions, the preparation and publication of reports, any possible revisions that may be made to current work site proposals or any other matter relevant to our express concerns that may occur in due course and prior to representation before the Select Committee.

3. 15 Your Petitioners claim compensation for injurious affection as a result of th e diminution of the value of your Petitioners' property as a result of th e proposed works and the acquisition of temporary and permanent rights to your Petitioners' property.

3. 16 Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should be required to indemnify it from all claims and demands which may be made in consequence of the construction, use or maintenance of the works under th e Bill, or thei r failure or want of repair, or in consequence of any act or omission of the Promoter, his contractors or agents in carrying out the works under the Bill.

3.17 Your Petitioners submit th at provision should be made for the Promoter to repay to your Petitioners all proper costs, charges and expenses (including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct) reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a result of this Petition and in respect of professional advice required in agreeing any arra ngements as to the temporary of permanent acquisition of land.

3.18 For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioners respectfully submit that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above, should not be allowed to pass into the law.

3. 19 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bi ll which, if passed, into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights and interests and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners.

4 The prayer

Your Petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of th e House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND your Petitioners remain, etc.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL LLP Parliamentary Agent for: Barwood Lasalle Land Nominee 1 Limited and Barwood Lasalle Land Nominee 2 Limited

15 April 2016

14231766.3 3 HL: 293

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF DOUBLE 4 LIMITED

Declares that:

1 Your Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by Clauses 1, 2, 4 to 12, 15, 21 and 63 of the Bill.

2 Your Petitioners

2.1 Your Petitioners are Double 4 Limited who are a limited company whose business predominantly involves the supply of commercial storage space in shipping containers, parking for commercial lorries and other vehicles, tail lift and shutter repai rs, vehicle maintenance and servicing, and van racking. Your Petitioners operate a family business that has been trading for over 30 years. Your Petitioners' business employs 20 people.

2.2 Your Petitioners have an interest in various parts of the land situated at the Willesden Euroterminal site which is subject to compulsory acquisition or use under the Bill:

LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING

Parcels: 130, 142, 145, 146

Property: Site within the Willesden Euroterminal

Description: Storage area, commercial vehicle parking, car parks, workshop and offices

3 Your Petitioners' concerns

3.1 Your Petitioners oppose the Bill as the acquisition of the land at the scale currently proposed would affect the whole of your Petitioners' business operation. The likely consequence of the Bill would be the extinguishment of your Petitioners' business that has been built up over the past 30 years.

3.2 Your Petitioners submitted a petition against the Bill and subsequently appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee in January 2016. Your Petitioners gave evidence that the Promoter had not demonstrated that the whole of the Willesden Eu rote rminal site, including your Petitioners' interests, were required for the purposes set out in the Bill and the Environmental Statement.

14259386.1 3.3 Your Petitioners requested that the Select Committee require the Promoter to provide binding assurances to reduce the scale of land acquisition at the Willesden Euroterminal to allow part of your Petitioners ' business to remain on site.

3.4 In evidence before the Select Committee the Promoter undertook to complete the detailed work to assess the amount of material coming into the Willesden Euroterm inal site, the area required for storage and the height of the stockpile, amongst oth er matters, to see if the area of land acquired by the Promoter could be reduced to allow part of your Petitioners' business to remain on the site. The Promoter supplied a draft report to your Petitioners on 31 March 2016 for comment. Your Petitioners consider that the report is inadequate and does not contain the assessment work that the Promoter agreed to undertake. As a result, and pending the outcome of further negotiations with the Promoter, your Petitioners provide the detailed reasoning below to support its assertion that the Promoter should reduce the scale of acquisition to allow part of your Petitioners' business to remain on the Willesden Euroterminal site.

3.5 The Environmental Statement (Volume 2 para 2.4.63) stated that the whole of Willesden Euroterminal site wi ll cleared, and then used operationally by the Promoter for seven and a half years for the loading and removal of excavated material by rail. The compound will also be used for supplying bulk materials for the tunnelling work throughout London and materials for railway modification in the Euston area. The subsequent Supplementary Environmental Statement 2, Community Forum Area Report 1, states that the Promoter's use of the site will be periodically from 2016 to 2033. This proposal encompasses the whole of the land on which your Petitioners' business operates. Such occupation of the land by the Promoter would permanently terminate your Petitioners' use of the land.

3.6 Your Petitioners have occupied the site since 1999 under separate leases of between 5 and 1O years in length granted by DB Schenker who are the long leaseholder of the site. Your Petitioners have a good relationship with DB Schenker and anticipated remaining at the site under the current leases and th ereafter with th e benefit of renewed leases long into the future.

3.7 Part of plot 130 is used by your Petitioners to house 120 shipping containers that are leased out to over 60 customers for commercial storage. Your Petitioners lease 20 parking spaces for commercial lorry vehicles. Some of the site is leased to customers who have erected portacabins for business purposes. These are the most significant parts of your Petitioners' business. The site is of particular strategic importance to your Petitioners as it offers their customers (the majority of whom are local businesses operating within a two mile radius of the site) commercial storage space for vehicles and business goods in central London where such sites are in short supply. In addition, it has the advantage of being restriction free in terms of the conditions imposed by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). This makes the site highly desirable to your Petitioners' customers who hold VOSA operating licences, as they are not restricted to times of the day when they can use the site for parking their vehicles.

3.8 In addition, your Petitioners have a leasehold interest in plot 141 where your Petitioners' workshop, offices and parking for fifteen vehicles is located. This interest has not been listed in the Book of Reference. Finally part of plot 142 (wh ich is correctly referenced in the book of reference) is also used for the storage of commercial vehicles. The various business activities undertaken on these plots by your Petitioners are all linked with each other, and customers will often take advantage of additional services at the site. For example customers that lease parking spaces will also utilise the maintenance and servicing services provided in the workshop.

14259386.1 2 3.9 Your Petitioners have built up a successful business over 30 years with a great deal of good will based of repeat business from customers who have remained with your Petitioners for 15 - 20 years. If the Bill were allowed to pass this wou ld risk your Petitioners' livelihood.

3.10 Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should be required to formulate a proposal that would reduce the scale of the acquisition of your Petitioners' land, so as to ensure parts of the business could conti nue to operate from the site. The total area of the Willensden Euroterminal site is 21 acres and your Petitioner would only require an area of 2.5 acres in order to preserve significant parts of its business.

3.1 1 Your Petitioners submit that one such proposal would be that the Promoter would not acquire the land in plot 145 which is currently occupied by shipping containers (used for the storage business) and for the parking of commercial vehicles. Preserving that area for your Petitioners' business would ensure that, many of your Petitioners' customers would not be disrupted. It would mean that your Petitioners' operations that rely most on the benefits of the specific location of the site could continue. Your Petitioners submit that a new entrance cou ld be built to access the storage area of the site from Channel Gate Road.

3.12 By maintaining the storage area on the site, there wou ld be a significant additional benefit in that the containers would act a shield between the noise that the HS2 operations area will generate and the residential properties on Stephenson Street. Your Petitioners have an excellent relationship with the local residents based on many years of mutually accommodating behaviour and have had not complained about their business operations. The local residents who have formed the Island Triangle Residents Association provided a letter of support to be used as an exhibit in your Petitioners' appearance before the House of Commons Select Committee. Your Petitioners submit that leaving the storage containers in their current positions, where they cause little if any disturbance, would be a much preferable option to local residents than the noise of a construction conveyor.

3.13 If the Promoter was then required to provide alternative land locally for the relocation of your Petitioners' workshop and space for associated parking, then your Petitioners would be in a much better pos ition to maintain their business operations. The workshop and associated parking do not rely on the specific benefits of the Willesden Euroterminal site to the same extent as other parts of the business.

3. 14 Your Petitioners do not suggest that this is the only possible proposal that would allow their business operation to continue in part at the site, and submit the Promoter should be required to consider further reconfigurations or proposals that would have a similar effect.

3.15 If after completing the detailed assessment work of the site, the Promoter is unable submit a proposal that would reduce the land acquisition required to a point where your Petitioners were able to continue operations on the site, then the Promoter ought to provide binding commitments that they will make available alternative land for relocation that is no less amenable and suitable for your petitioner's business. This land must be within a two to three mile radius of the current location, as the nature of the storage business means that your Petitioners' customers will not wish to travel further than they currently do to access their stored property.

14259386.1 3 3.16 The Promoter should also provide a binding commitment to make available the appropriate logistical support to ensure that any relocation of your Petitioners' business assets, and its customers' stored property, takes place seamlessly and overnight. You r Petitioners' customers will not accept interim temporary measures for storage even for a matter of days.

4 The prayer

Your Petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accord ance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL LLP Parliamentary Agent for Double 4 Limited

15 April 2016

14259386.1 4 HL: 294

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF:

EUSTON ESTATE (GP) LIMITED EUSTON ESTATE (No.1) LIMITED BALFE LIMITED MICHAEL GROSS

Declares that:

1 Your Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by Clause numbers 1, 2, 4-12, 15- 21, 48, 53 and 63 of the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State for Transport Patrick Mcloughlin (the Promoter).

2 Your Petitioners

2.1 Your Petitioners have an interest in properties in the vicinity of the proposed railway and works, and will be directly affected by the proposals of the High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill (the Bill), including but not exclusive to its provisions for the compulsory acquisition of private property interests. In particular, the following four properties which are owned by your Petitioners on a leasehold basis through three leases (referred to collectively in this Petition as "the Properties"), are affected (the parcel numbers referred to below are as shown on the deposited plans for the Bill and described in the Book of Reference):

2.1.1 Grant Thornton House, Melton Street, Euston Square shown as part of plot number 29 on replacement sheet number 1-01 of the deposited plans in the London Borough of Camden, held on a head leasehold interest by Balfe Limited which is owned by Michael Gross;

2.1.2 One Euston Square (formerly 40 Melton Street) shown as part of plot number 29 on replacement sheet number 1-01 of the deposited plans in the London Borough of Camden, held on a head leasehold interest by Euston Estate (GP) Limited and Euston Estate (No.1) Limited for and on behalf of the Euston Estate Limited Partnership;

2.1.3 The Podium, 1 Eversholt Street, shown as part of plot number 29 on replacement sheet number 1-01 of the deposited plans in the London Borough of Camden, held on a head leasehold interest by Euston Estate (GP) Limited and Euston Estate (No.1) Limited for and on behalf of the Euston Estate Limited Partnership; and

2.1.4 The Tower, 1 Eversholt Street, shown as plot number 29a on replacement sheet number 1-01 of the deposited plans in the London Borough of Camden, held on the same head leasehold interest as the Podium.

14204961.2 3 Your Petitioners' concerns

3.1 Your Petitioners are supportive of the Bill in principle and seek to work together with the Promoter and the Government to facilitate the provision of the HS2 scheme.

3.2 Your Petitioners deposited a petition against the Bill and a petition against Additional Provision 3 in the House of Commons. In summary, the issues that were raised in the petitions and in evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee were:

3.2.1 The Bil l would allow the Promoter, on giving 28 days' notice, to choose to occupy temporarily the Podium until one year after the works have been completed, which is likely to be for a period of seventeen years and may be longer, rather than to acquire it outri ght.

3.2.2 The Podium and the Tower are as matter of fact, one building, and the Promoter's proposed use of the Podium would increase the impacts of the construction works on the Tower to the extent that it could not be occupied and used without causing significant, and potentially insuperable, inconvenie nce, and material detriment.

3.2.3 The effects of the construction works around Euston Station are likely to have a material adverse impact on the ability to make effective use of the Properties.

3.2.4 The compensation provisions for temporary possession under the Bill are inadequate to deal with compensation for a period of approximately seventeen years without causing unfairness and disadvantage to your Petitioners.

3.2.5 The Bill makes inadequate provision for comprehensive redevelopment of Euston and for Over Site Development (OSD) which is a significant loss of opportunity for redevelopment, jobs and economic benefit. If comprehensive redevelopment of Euston is to realistically take place, the Promoter will need to acquire the Properties as a whole .

3.2.6 As a consequence of the issues described above your Petitioners submitted that the Bill should be amended to require th e Promoter to acquire the Properties at the same time both to avoid unfairness and uncertainty to or for them and to ensure that cohesive and comprehensive redevelopment of Euston with the HS2, Cross rail 2 and Network Rail station schemes can realistically be achieved, allowing for maximum opportunities for growth and OSD.

3.3 Negotiations with the Promoter continued after your Petitioners' appearances before the House of Commons Select Committee in January 2016, and progress was made on some matters.

3.4 An agreement was completed on 24 March 2016 in regard to the application of compensation principles. This agreement alleviates to a certain degree concerns about the unfairness of inadequate compensation, but it does not alleviate the unfairness to your Petitioners caused by the uncertainty of a potential period of temporary possession of the Podium for 17 years.

3.5 In addition, the Promoter provided an undertaking to your Petitioners on 24 March 2016 confirming that the Promoter would use reasonable endeavours to progress the agreement by HM Treasury of any necessary business cases as quickly as possible in order to provide a decision by the Government by 1 May 2016 whether or not to acquire the entire leasehold

14204961.2 2 interests in the Properties. The undertaking also requires th e Promoter to use reasonable endeavours to reach agreement on compensation payable in line with any approved business case.

3.6 Pending the outcome of the Promoter's decision your Petitioners provide the detailed reasoning and evidence to support the assertion that the Properties should be pu rchased outright at paragraphs 3.7 to 3.19 below.

Effects of the Bill on your Petitioners' properties

3.7 The Supplementary Environmental Statement 2, Additional Provision 3 Environmental Statement and Community Forum Area report CFA1 ('the CFA Report') detail a construction programme for Euston station to be redeveloped. The CFA Report confirms that your Petitioners' properties, Grant Thornton House and One Euston Square, will be demolished.

3.8 The CFA Report states that the Podium will be used as the main construction compound for Euston station between 2016 and 2033, covering the seventeen year period for Stage A and Stage 81 of the construction programme. Paragraphs 5.3.94 - 5.3.98 of the CFA Report give further details as to how the Podium would be used as a strategic hub for core project management (including engineering, plan ning and construction delivery), commercial management and administrative staff for th e works. It is stated that the Podium may house up to 690 HS2 staff and may need to be refitted to provide better pedestrian access and facilities suitable for construction management.

3.9 The CFA Repo rt at para 5.3.95 desc rib es how th e Tower has also been included within the land required, to allow access and modification to building facilities and equipment that may be shared with the Podium. The Tower appears (as plot 29a) in Schedule 8 to the Bill in respect of wh ich only rights may be acquired.

The Podium and the Tower

3.10 The Bill does not provide any clarity as to whether the Podium would be acquired by the Promoter on a permanent or temporary basis as th e powers in the Bill leave both options open to the Promoter. Your Petitioners submit that in view of the timescale for the construction programme at and around Euston station, and the fact that the Podium will be used for a period of approximately seventeen years, the Promoter shou ld be required to give an undertaking to acquire the Podium on a permanent basis. Your Petitioners submit that an approximate seventeen year period cannot reasonably be described as a temporary time period. An undertaking from the Promoter to permanently acquire the Podium would offer certainty and clarity to your Petitioners, allowing them to plan their business operations accordingly.

3.1 1 The Podium and the Tower are, as a matter of fact, one building and your Petitioners' ability to operate the Tower as a commercially viable investment would be severely impaired if the Promoter has taken possession of the Podium, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. There are a multitude of shared accesses and services and both the Podium and the Tower have always operated as one entity given that the services are inherently linked in design and practicality, and as they are held on one lease.

3.12 There is shared main access to the Tower and to the eastern end of the Podium. The main reception area is located within the Tower and is used by occupants of both the Tower and the

14204961.2 3 Podium. The reception is a purpose built facility which houses the reception staff, building manager and works as a hub for the operation of the building. To restrict this access would require potentially significant amendments to the existing occupational leases.

3. 13 There are designated common areas where tenants of the Podium and the Tower can collectively use shared services. The toilets within the Podium form part of the common areas of the building, and as such are available to te nants throughout the Podium and the Tower. The lift lobbies in the eastern section of the Podium add itionall y provide a further fire escape route for the Tower's tenants in the event of an emergency. If the Promoter were to take temporary occupation of the Podium these services and emergency exits would be unavailable for tenants of the Tower.

3. 14 The incoming mains for electricity, gas and water for the Podium and the Tower are located within the Tower. Any attempt to relocate these would be restricted by the design of the building. The Tower and the Podium are principally supplied from a central plant located with in the Tower. Services provided from the central plant include hot and chilled water, water services, fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems and CCTV systems amongst others. In order to separate the building into two independent blocks, new plant wou ld need to be installed within the Podium which would be costly and complex and cause considerable disruption to your Petitioners and their tenants in the Tower. Further, following any period of temporary occupation, the existing facilities or equivalent would need to be re-instated.

3.15 The fire alarm system has a single panel in the reception of the Tower. The fire alarm system is wired linking the two blocks and would require a full re-wire to separate them. The water tanks for the building are both located with the Tower. There is no dedicated water supply in the Podium for the common area toilets or kitchens. The sprinkler system is located within the basement of the Podium while the pumps maintaining the system pressure are located within the Tower. Further, following any period of temporary occupation, the existing facilities or equivalent would need to be re-instated.

3. 16 Your Petitioners submit that it would be extremely difficult to continue to operate the Tower separately from the Podium. The disruption to shared services and loss of common areas would be such a significant constraint on the building that the occupation, marketing, letting and general use of the Tower would be unfairly prejudiced by the HS2 works. The impacts would be so great that your Petitioners submit that, as a consequence, the Promoter should be required to give an undertaking to acquire the Tower permanently.

Comprehensive redevelopment of Euston

3. 17 As the Bill currently stands the Promoter has only sought lesser powers to acquire rights in the Tower, and cannot acquire it permanently. The location of the Tower is central to the Euston redevelopment area and, if comprehensive redevelopment is to be achieved, it is essential that the Tower, along with your Petitioners' other properties, be acquired. The Properties need to be acquired outright to ensure that cohesive and comprehensive redevelopment of Euston with the HS2, Crossrail 2 and Network Rail station schemes can realistically be achieved, allowing for maximum opportunities for growth and OSD. As such, the Promoter should be required to give an undertaking to acquire the Tower permanently.

3.18 The London Borough of Camden and the Greater London Authority amongst others raised serious concerns in front of the House of Commons Select Committee regarding the lack of

14204961.2 4 provision under the Bill, and scope in the Environmental Statement, for comprehensive redevelopment of Euston. Your Petitioners remain fully supportive of their submissions and consider that current proposals under the Bill would amount to a significant loss of opportunity for redevelopment, jobs and economic benefit in the area. The Promoter has stated that they recognise and support the aspirations for a coherent and integrated redevelopment of the Euston area. In order for this to be achieved, it is essential that the Properties are all acquired outright.

3. 19 In summary, you r Petitioners respectfully submit that the Promoter should be required to give an undertaking to the effect that the Properties will all be permanently acquired , at the same time.

4 The prayer

AND the Petitioners remain, etc.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL LLP Parliamentary Agent for

EUSTON ESTATE (GP) LIMITED EUSTON ESTATE (No.1) LIMITED BALFE LIMITED MICHAEL GROSS

15 April 2016

14204961.2 5 HL: 295

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF: G.B.N. Services Limited & R.V.L. Properties Limited

Declares that:

1 Your Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by Clauses 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 15- 19 and 48 of the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State Patrick Mcl oughlin (the "Promoter").

2 Your Petitioners

2.1 Your Petitioners are G.B.N. Services Limited (Company number 02069980) ("GBN") and R.V.L. Properties Limited (Company number 01423638) ("RVL"). GBN and RVL have interests in land adjacent to Skip Lane, Harvil Road, Harefield, UB9 6JL (the "Skip Lane Site"). The Skip Lane Site is directly affected by the proposals of the Bill, including but not limited to, its provisions for the compulsory acquisition of private property interests.

2.2 GBN is the largest, family-owned skip hire, recycling and waste company for construction, commercial and household customers across London and the South East. It operates six key recycling centre sites in the South East, one of which is on the Skip Lane Site.

2.3 RVL is a group company of GBN and is the freehold owner of the majority of the Skip Lane Site (under title numbers: AGL 141821 , NGL532243, AG L46936). GBN leases this land from RVL and a further section of land from the adjoining land owner Harvil Road Properties Limited (title number AGL341637). GBN also has a freehold interest in a further small part of the Skip Lane Site (title number AGL344584).

2.4 The Skip Lane Site is shown on Sheet No.1-37 and Replacement Sheet No.2-01 of the plans deposited with the Bill and roughly corresponds with plot numbers: 547; 548; 549; 550; 551; 552; 553; the majority of 557; 558; 559; 560; 561; 562; part of 563; 566; 567; AP5-2; AP5-3; AP5-4; part of AP5-5; AP5-6; AP5-7; and a portion of land adjacent to plot 565 marked 'Land Not to be Acquired or Used '.

3 Your Petitioners' concerns

3.1 The Bill would confer powers to compulsoril y acquire large parts of the Skip Lane Site including the only access road to the site. If these powers are used and the land is acquired, GBN would no longer be able to operate at the Skip Lane Site and would be forced to close their operations.

3.2 This would have substantial economic consequences for GBN and RVL as well as wider consequences for the local area, including:

(1) Loss of revenue - the Skip Lane Site has a current turnover of around £11 million per year. GBN would lose this significant source of revenue if the site was forced to close.

14252985.1 (2) Loss of benefit of recent capital investment - GBN has recently invested approximately £5 million in site specific machinery for the Skip Lane Site including two new trommels and picking lines and a kinetic flow finds cleaner. The benefit of these significant investments will be lost if the site is forced to close.

(3) Loss of jobs/socio-economic impact - GBN employs 70 full-time staff at the Skip Lane Site and makes a meaningful contribution to the local economy. This contribution would be lost if the site were forced to close.

(4) Environmental impact - The Skip Lane Site processes approximately 75,000 tonnes of waste each year which requires approximately 400 vehicle movements on the site every day. Currently, all of the waste which is processed on the site is recycled. Closure of the Skip Lane Site may mean this waste would have to be transported further for processing and may end up in landfill as not all recycling centres have the capability to recycle all the waste they receive. Both of these outcomes would be to the detriment of the environment.

3.3 We understand that the powers to compu lsorily purchase GBN's and RVL's land have been included in the Bill to accommodate the realignment of an overhead power line. However, given the linear nature of the proposed realignment, it is not necessary for the Promoter to require such a large part of the Skip Lane Site or to do so on a permanent basis.

3.4 GBN and RVL are not opposed to the realignment of the line in principle and are keen to work with HS2 to enable the realignment to go ahead in a way which does not negatively affect their business. Accordingly, your Petitioners request that the Promoter reassess the land and rights needed for the diversion of the overhead line and amend the Bill accordingly.

4 The prayer

Your Petitioners therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the ru les and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bil l.

AND the Petitioners remain, etc.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL LLP Parliamentary Agent for G.B.N. Services Limited & R.V.L. Properties Limited

15 April 2016

14252985.1 2 . HL: 296 To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Richard Samuel Birch, Julie Ann Birch, John Phillip Mapleston-Stroud ,Carole Ann Mapleston-Stroud, Richard Duncan Williams and Helen Dorothy Williams

Declares that

I . The Petitioners are specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioners

The petitioners are residents of Wendover parish adjoining the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). They own the properties in which they reside, the Birches at 79 Perry Street, the Mapleston-Strouds at 77 Perry Street, and the Williams at 68 Perry Street, Wendover HP22 6DJ, Buckinghamshire. They are active throughout the AONB and Aylesbury Vale areas the Birches in their roles as conservation and fundraising volunteers for BBOWT, a charitable trust, the Mapleston-Strouds and Williams as working parents and grandparents with members of their families residing locally. They will be specially and directly affected by the Bill for the proposed HS2 line both during construction and after completion. The Petitioners are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which they object for reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioners' concerns

(i) The petitioners' concerns during the construction phase can be summarised as: the adverse impact on the local road network causing delays in travelling to their work and accessing emergency services; the reduction in customers and other visitors wanting to come to Wendover businesses causing local unemployment and curtailment of commercial activity; the reduction in property value of the petitioners' property; and the noise, dirt, and public right of way disruption that w ill be generated by the works.

(ii) The petitioners' concerns during the operational phase can be summarised as:

- 1 - the disruption to sleep caused by intrusive noise generated by passing trains in late evenings and early mornings; the visual impact of the two proposed 500 metre long viaducts and associated embankments; the disfiguring effect of six metre high noise barriers of doubtful efficacity all reducing the appeal of this part of the AONB. The associated impact on property values and local businesses for current and future generations will lead to a loss of facilities in the community's High Street to the detriment of the petitioners' way of li fe.

(iii) The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty through which the line passes has been designated by Act of Parliament as a national asset benefiting from long term protection in the public interest. The plans for HS2 do not show respect for this environment.

(iv) The petitioners will be specifically affected by noise from the north portal of the proposed green tunnel, which is approximately 500 metres from their home. The Supplementary Environmental Statement 4 and Additional Provision 5 to the Bill included a description of the noise barrier at the northern tunnel portal. However, the detailed figures for the north of Wendover no longer showed the 3-4 db noise reduction specified in " PS 161 Wendover Further Noise Mitigation" - they were in most cases identical to the noise figures in the original bill and in one case higher. The new noise figures quoted in the SES4/AP5 report show peak noise levels of 63 db close to your petitioners' property, and up to 67 db at some receptors in the north west Wendover residential area. The current design of barriers no longer reduces maximum noise levels at properties in northern Wendover to below the lowest adverse effect threshold as previously stated.

In response to petitions against AP5, HS2 Ltd published a further document "Promoter's response to Chilterns Additional Provision 5 issues". This made no reference to the problem of noise in the north of Wendover, despite this being the subject of petitions, and stated "The Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) set by the Promoter include [ ...] 60 dB for the LpAFmax (fac;:ade) to assess the impact of airborne noise caused by the operation of the Proposed Scheme on permanent residential buildings. [ ... ] As required by Government noise policy all reasonable steps wi ll be taken to design, construct, operate and maintain the Proposed Scheme so that these levels are not exceeded." It is clear that with the present proposals, these figures are exceeded. Given that the promoter's autumn 2015 figures met government policy gu idelines, it is clearly possible to do so, and therefore your petitioners assert that all reasonable steps have not been taken.

(v) Your petitioners have additional concerns about the construction of the Green Tunnel and the associated impact on the Bacombe Hill aquifer that feeds the Grand Union Canal and Weston Turville Reservoir Nature Reserve, a SSSI and local community leisure facility. T he key concern relates to a currently undefined requirement to add holding tanks, pipelines and a pumping station to mitigate the damage caused by extensive interception of the aquifer which could lead to loss of water quality and quantity. The increase in construction costs and timescale in the Wendover area could also be avoided by redesign.

- 2 - 4 Remedy

The petitioners propose that a fully bored tunnel through the whole AONB and south of Wendover, running underneath the Bacombe Hi ll aquifer and exit ing clear of the built-up area, would be an effective solution to the majority of t he inju rious construction and operational phase impacts. Much work has been done by HS2 Ltd and by local groups employing highly qualified consultants so your petitoners propose that an independent review of the tunneling options, using this existing information, should be carried out as quickly as possible to avoid further delay. The refusal of HS2 Ltd to carry out this review is against the public interest. It imperils the timetable for the project, has already added to the cost and lacks the transparency expected of a public body spending taxpayers' funds.

5 The prayer

The petitioners therefore ask the House of Lords that they, or someone representing them in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioners remain, etc.

Signed

Richard Samuel Birch Julie Ann Birch

John Phillip Mapleston-Stroud Carole Ann Mapleston-Stroud

Richard Duncan W illiams Helen Dorothy Williams

Dated 13 April 2016

- 3 - HL: 297 To the House of Lords Session 2015-1 6

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF BODDINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

Declares that:

I. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

Your petitioner

2. Your Petitioner is Boddington Parish Counci l. The proposed route of High Speed Two (HS2) will pass through the parish ofBoddington covering a distance of approximately 2 miles. Your Petitioner represents a popul ation of 741 people with 604 electors many of whom wi ll be affected by the works proposed under the bill.

3. Boddington Parish Counc il has interacted with HS2 Ltd through Community Forum meetings, bilateral meetings and Local Access Forum meetings and a lso through the petitioning process in the House of Commons. Boddington Parish Council have consistently asked for a level of mitigation which would minimise the impact of HS2 on the quality of life and the property prices in our parish. The measures requested are those agreed after d iscussion with parishioners.

Your petitioner's concerns

4. The residents of Upper and Lower Boddington and the surrounding countryside through which the proposed railway w ill pass are and will be specially and directly affected in the fo ll owing ways:

5. Noise Boddington Parish Council are concerned about the potential noise from HS2 during both the construction and operational phases of the project.

6. Noise in Operation Your Petitioner is concerned that the noise levels used by the Promoter to determine the need for mitigation are significantly in excess of the Baseline noise levels recorded for the rural areas of Northamptonshire in the Environmenta l Statement. The noise levels proposed by HS2 are too high to achieve effective mitigation for recipients of the parish of Boddington. In your Petitioner' s opinion HS2 have yet to carry out an adequate and detailed background noise survey in Lower Boddington; a number of residents in the quieter pa11s of Lower Boddington have been paid by HS2 Ltd for the siting of noise measurement equipment but no measurements have taken place. The monitoring sites for the existin g survey favoured locations on the ma in route through Lower Boddington and ignored the quieter residential areas.

7. Noise During Construction HS2 Ltd propose to site 2 construction camps in the parish of Boddington. The life of these camps has been extended to 2.75 years and 5.75 years from the origina l 18 months w ithout consultation. Your petitioner is concerned about the noise, visual impact, working hours, li ghting at night and the doubling of the local adult population including the associated traffic. HS2 Ltd have assessed the traffic as up to 35 HGYs and 300 LGVs per day and there appears to be additional traffic as a result of Haul Routes passing through the parish for which there is no detailed information.

8. Visual Impact - General Your Petitioner is gravely concerned about the visual impact the proposed railway will have on the parish of Boddington particularly the presence of the new infrastructure and high speed trains which w ill result in a radical and lasting change to the rural setting of the vil lages of Upper and Lower Boddington and the surrounding area. The latest design proposed by HS2 Ltd includes a long viaduct up to 9m high and I 40m long and an embankment up to 7m high for a d istance of 400m. This latest design has raised the height of both the viaduct and the embankment despite your petitioner's continuous request to lower these two features.

9. Visual Impact - Maintenance Loop A mai ntenance loop has been moved into our parish at the 4c1i Community Forum meeting, without consultation. At previous Community Forum meetings we had been assured that the proposed loop and all ancillary equipment would be in a 14m deep c utting and not visible from Upper Boddington. The maintenance loop is a large and intrusive feature of the proposed rai !way being more than I km long and w ith the loop being 130m wide and the overall width being 350m. The maintenance loop in its current position will create a significant and permanent adverse visual impact as well as night time noise and light.

The prayer

I 0. The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that someone representing him in accordance w ith the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on a ll or some of the issues ra ised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

The petitioner remains, etc.

Fred Dumbleton

Roll B Agent

Boddington Parish Council HL: 298

To the House of Lords Session 2015-16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ELISABETH LUCAS

Declares that:

1. The Petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill.

2. Your petitioner

The Petitioner is a resident of Wendover Parish, being part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The area and petitioner will be specially and directly affected by the Bill for the proposed HS2 line both during construction and after completion.

The Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons. amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

3. Your petitioner's concerns

The Petitioner's concerns during the construction phase can be summarised as: the disruptions to the household which will result from the construction of the line and the dust, noise, hours of work, vibration, traffic movements, congestion and access problems and other implications during what will be a long period of construction. Your petitioner needs to use the narrow lanes and roads which will cross and be affected by the construction of the proposed line and needs to use the roads for access to Wendover, in particular. for shopping, recreation, medical services and ra il , as well as to gain access to the A 413 for London and all other areas. Your petitioner further regards this network of narrow lanes in the AONB as a characteristic feature of the area and is also concerned about proposals to use some of these narrow country lanes for construction vehicles and access to the track and to and from the A413 and elsewhere.

The Petitioner's concerns during the operational phase can be summarised as: the disruption to sleep caused by obtrusive noise generated by passing trains in late evenings and early mornings; the visual impact of the proposed Small Dean Viaduct and associated embankments with noise barriers reducing the appeal of this part of the AONB; and associated impact on property values and local businesses for current and future generations.

There are additional concerns about the construction of the Green Tunnel, and the associated impact on the Coombe Hill aquifer that feeds the Grand Union Canal and

The petitioners propose that a fully bored tunnel through the AONB and running underneath the Coombe Hill aquifer would be an effective solution to all the construction and subsequent phase impacts.

4. The prayer

AND the petitioner remains.

ELISABETH LUCAS

\L:r APRIL 2016

- 2 - HL: 299

To the House of Lords Session 20 I 5- 16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London -West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF .Elmtree Green Residents Association

Declares that:

Your petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the whole Bill

Your petitioner

The petitioner is the Elmtree Green Residents Association.

Elmtree Green consists of mid sixties award winning designed properties in a quiet cul de sac with 2 blocks each of nine flats and 27 tow n houses.

The properties currently enjoy a tranquil and safe location and are located one kilometre from the train exit/entrance at the portal as outlined under deposited plans Vol 2.1 Replacement sheet 2.25. The junction of the A4 I 3 roundabout where the haul road is located is only 220 metres away

The properties of your Petitioner are in part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) which the Bill will specially and directly affect.

Your Petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons. amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Your petitioner's concerns

1. Your Petitioner will suffer a range of severe and adverse effects by reason of the Bill, in respect of which your Petitioner requests that the presently proposed fu ll y bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended throughout the entirety of the Chilterns AONB, by requiring the construction of an extended tunnel, based on the T3i proposals, as developed by HS2 Limited. The extended tunnel proposals have been referred to in the Environmental Statement and accepted by DfT and HS2 Ltd as both feasible and environmentally preferable. This proposal has been extensively discussed with local councils and action groups and is supported by them. The adoption of this proposal, which is jointly submitted and will be presented with others, will address most, if not all, of these adverse effects, the concerns of your Petitioner and will reduce the impact on the AONB.

1 analysis of such alternatives and to undertake and publish a full cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts for such AONB section.

3. The adverse effects of the Bill with which your Pet1t1oner is concerned and to which it objects are primarily caused by and associated with the works proposed from the South Heath portal, empowered by Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and associated powers in the Bill (including the power of compulsory purchase). These include works 2/14 to 2/20 in Schedule 1 and are detailed primarily on Deposited Plans. Vol. 2.1, Plan Replacement Sheets 2-24 to 2-28

4. In the alternative to the extension of the fu lly bored Chiltern Tunnel throughout the AONB, which is the primary alteration to the Bill your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the fully bored Chiltern Tunnel is extended to Leather Lane, as it will address, most but not all. of your Petitioner's concerns.

6. Traffic Congestion: The disruption over eight years of access to and from Great Missenden for your petitioner travelling to the shops, medical appointments and to the station arising from the major adverse effect that will occur with the large amount of construction traffic at the Link Road (A4128) and Frith Hill roundabouts. Th is major adverse effect will continue for your petitioner who needs to travel along the A413 to and from Wendover and Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Aylesbury. Your Petitioner is also concerned that avoidance of the congestion at the Link Road Roundabout will lead to rat-runs through Great Missenden and the hilltop villages especially along Kings La ne with its associated safety hazard.

Remedies: 1. An effective Traffic Management Plan to be approved by Bucks County Council with all costs of monitoring and enforcement to be borne by HS2 Ltd. 2. Reduce the amount of spoil that requires to be transported through the use of retained cuttings or a bored tunnel extension or reduce the road transportation of spoil by taking it all along the trace. 3. HS2 to work with Bucks County Council to facilitate traffic flow at the congestion points and consider slip roads. road widening etc l. Construction Haul Road: Your Petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of construction traffic using the haul road from the South Heath portal onto the A413 at the Link Road roundabout. such as damage from HGVs (270 HGVs a day at the peak), noise and dust from vehicle cleaning operations and the high risk to users of the Skate Park. Tennis Courts and children's play area adjacent to the roundabout and children going to the Great Missenden Combined Church of England school nearby.

2 Remedies: 1. The construction haul road should be relocated further north and distant from the larger settlement Great Missenden/Prestwood hence reducing traffic congestion at the Link Road (A4128) and the 8485 roundabouts. It would also lessen the impact and visual blight from Elmtree Green and most residents of Great Missenden. Traffic signals can be implemented on the junction with the A413 to control the flow of construction traffic. 2. The amount of spoil requiring transport by road can be reduced by moving more spoil down the trace.

1. Maintenance Access Road: The permanent maintenance and access road - Work No 2/ 18C from the South Heath portal joins Frith Hill (SHL) at a bend on a narrow part of the road. This leads to your petitioner having concerns about road safety especially as the footway and road is used for walking and cycling to Great Missenden. Safety could be further exacerbated by temporary contractors using it to access the portal during construction. Furthermore there is concern for the safety of children at the Great Missenden Church of England Combined School using their Forest School Outdoor Learning Centre and their playing fields as they are adjacent to the Frith Hill roundabout.

1. Noise and Dust: Your petitioner is concerned that there will be construction noise and dust (and operational noise) as a result of the deep, wide cuttings at the South Heath portal and the cuttings beyond towards Wendover. The dust and noise will be at its worst during the eight year construction period but thereafter some mitigation of the dust will be provided when plantings have matured but not the noise.

Remedies: 1. Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMP) to be monitored and enforced by Bucks County Council with all costs to be borne by HS2 Ltd

2. A tunnel extension throughout the Chilterns AONB, or at minimum to Leather Lane will obviate the need for deep, wide cuttings in the South Heath and Potter Row area.

3. Other remedies would be retained sides for th,e cutting and higher trackside noise barriers with barriers on the east side (as well as west) of the line towards Leather Lane.

1. Operational Noise: Your petitioners are close enough to the surface line to suffer operational noise at night close to the peak WHO target LOAEL of 60dBmax ( 23.00 - 24.00 and 06.30 to 07.30)

3 Remedies: 1. Your petitioner feels that not exceeding the peak LOAEL level of 60dBmax should be a mandatory requirement and not just an aim as outlined in Information Paper E20. Anticipated noise levels should be independently verified and based on evidence of the efficacy of alternative noise reduction methods. 2. Reasonably practicable measures to dissipate the noise should include having retained sides, or steeper slopes to the portal cutting and beyond: deeper cuttings; reducing the train speed; lengthening the porous portal: higher more absorbent noise barriers adjacent to the line to protect Potter Row; noise barriers both sides of the line and to the south of the portal to protect South Heath and Frith Hill properties and those using footpaths GMl/12 & 13.

1. Health and Wellbeing: Your Petitioner is concerned that their Health & Wellbeing has been adversely affected, and continue to be, since the announcement of HS2 in 2010. The undeniable result of HS2 is worry, anxiety and stress and, in some cases, clinical depression requiring medical treatment. A further worry is that emergency respo nse times will deteriorate further during construction when ailments such as respiratory disorders will be at their maximum.

2. The provision of an air ambulance service is requested to complement emergency medical services which are already struggling.

1. Chilterns AONB: The proposed line is above ground from the South Heath portal of the Chiltern tunnel for 9 kms to the edge of the Chilterns AONB just north of Wendover. It is in a cutting for approximately 3 kms and will be visible at the highest point of the line in the vicinity of Liberty Lane, notwithstanding the sight of the security fences and catenary masts above the cuttings which will be a major permanent eyesore along the length of Potter Row. The proposed line from Liberty Lane descends to Wendover and crosses two large unsightly viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean in the Chilterns AONB before reaching a green tunnel running alongside Wendover. Construction will last up to 8 years with a peak period of more than 3.5 years. HGV traffic, noise and dust will render the rural lanes and footpath s less attractive to all visitors to this area of the AON B whether they are ardent walkers/hikers, currently popular with those groups taking the Duke of Edinburgh Award, or cyclists as it is Route 57 on the National Cycle Network or just families coming for a day-out from London to enjoy the countryside. Remedies (apart from a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB): 1. The AONB review body must ensure that the viaducts and embankm ents with enclosures to reduced noise are made as visually pleasing as possible. The design of the new permanent buildings erected by HS2 Ltd to be in-keeping with the surrounding area. 2. The vertical alignment of the track between the South Heath portal and Wendover should be lowered further, if it is not to be placed in a tunnel, to reduce the intrusion of the viaducts; to conceal catenary masts and gantries and 4 reduce the height above the general ground surface of accommodation footbridges. The contractor should not be empowered to raise the line at all on the AONB section 3. The need for spoil dumps should be minimised either by tunneling or moving the spoil down the trace or by rail. This particularly applies to the spoi l dump planned for Hunts Green farm and those by the construction compounds 4. The Rights of Way are not to be closed for any length of time and any diversion not to be parallel to the track; furthermore diversions should be over green bridges and not accommodation bridges. 5. All overhead power lines adjacent to the route be buried 6. Alternatives to Balancing Ponds be considered, and they should be made ecologically and visually attractive, in-keeping with AONB.

1. Code of Construction Practice: The Code is a draft; it is not specific about timing of works, or monitoring by the Local Authority and is subject to a sub contract with the nominated undertaker. Remedies: 1. Da ily movements of HGVs to be restricted to between 09 .30 and 15.30 hrs and prohibited from using rural lanes. 2. Construction activities should be subject to strict noise limits and light emission limits from night security lighting (there is no street lighting near the construction compounds) and activities restricted to times that are un likely to affect the sleep patterns of children and the elderly. Furthermore, the Local Authority should be funded to enforce monitoring and policing of the noise and light emission limits and activities, and work should stop if the limits are exceeded. 3. During the construction phase a hotline should be established for residents to raise any issues of concern and for road users to report damage. also for an independent HS2 adjudicator to review issues, monitor progress with enforcement orders and facilitate claims.

Primary Mitigation Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the associated works and the clauses in the Bill that empower the works involved, and humbly requests your honourable House to modify the Bill , and/or require undertakings of the Promoter, to remove these adverse effects. primarily through a fully bored tunnel throughout the Chilterns AONB or at least to Leather Lane.

Secondary Mitigation In the alternative to the extension of the fully bored Chi ltern Tunnel that your Petitioner seeks, your Petitioner requests that the haul road from the South Heath portal to the Link Road roundabout be moved along the A413 beyond the Mobwell junction, as it will help to lessen the impact of the construction traffic on the Great Missenden Area .

Other Matters There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners. their rights. interests and property, and for which no adequate provision is made to protect them.

5 Conclusion

Your Petitioner supports the petitions for a longer fully bored Ch il tern Tunnel that extends throughout the Chilterns AONB. Such tunnel extension is being petitioned by the local County, District and Parish Councils and the Chiltern Conservation Board and in the alternative a shorter extension to Leather Lane. If your honourable House alters the Bill to provide for such an extended tunnel most of your Petitioner's objections would be removed (your Petitioner's objection to unsuitable ancillary structures and to the present proposals for compensation would remain - albeit far fewer residents would be affected).

In the alternative to extending the fully bored Chiltern tunnel, your Petitioner seeks a significant secondary mitigation by relocating the haul road at the South Heath portal.

For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully requests that unless the Bill is amended as proposed above or suitable undertakings obtained from the Promoter, the Bill, along with accompanying Schedules, so fa r affecting your Petitioner and your Petitioner's area. along with the wider AONB. be not allowed to pass into law.

There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner's rights, interests, property and your petitioner's area and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.

The prayer

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that the petitioner. or someone representing the petitioner in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House. be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the Petitioner remains. etc. Signatories:

Mrs Anne Hewett

Director Elmtree Green Residents Association

Date

6 HL:Joo

To the House of Lords

Session 2015-16

PETITION against the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF Iver Heath Residents' Association

Declares that:

1. The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by the traffic associated with the construction of the relocated Heathrow Express depot to Langley.

1. Your petitioner

The petitioner is IHRA - representing 163 households in Iver Heath ...

1. On behalf of the residents, the Association objects to the severe and permanent effects that will be caused to them by the construction of the relocated Heathrow Express depot to Langley.

2. The significant increase in traffic, congestion , noise and po llution resulting from the construction will irreversibly damage and disrupt the quality of life for the residents. The high volumes of continuous heavy construction vehicles on the narrow village roads, lanes and cycle routes raises concerns about safety, damage to the environment and important Green Belt Land. It also raises concerns for the local economy and businesses in the area.

3. The village of Iver Heath is between Slough and Uxbridge. Its roads and lanes are residential, narrow and were not constructed for high volumes of traffic or Heavy Goods Vehicles. The village is already routinely congested and affected by continuous traffic for the following reasons:

• Three roads at the centre of the village connect it to the M4, the M40 and A40, and the M25 in both directions. These.are regu lar, busy routes for commuters, businesses and local traffic. Residents are already affected by congestion and weight of traffic.

1 • Motorists and HGV drivers use Iver Heath as an alternative to the M25, M4, M40 and A40 when there is a problem with these networks.

• Iver Heath is a popular route to Heathrow Airport for passengers and staff.

• It is an HGV route to trading estates in Slough, Iver, Richings Pa rk, Langley and Uxbridge.

• Pinewood Studios is located in Iver Heath and the many companies on its site already generate significant traffic through the village. The volume of traffic is increasing as the Studios expands on to 110 acres of adjoining Green Belt land. Pinewood Studios' success in getting planning permission to expand their business and facilities cou ld potentially encourage further development in Iver Heath with consequences for traffic.

• Iver Heath is on the route to and from other projects such as the Crossrail HGV route from the Denham roundabout to Langley. It will also be affected by traffic from the M4 widening and the Western Rail Access to Heathrow.

• The small parade of shops in Iver Heath is located at a busy junction where the main road through the village meets two other roads at a series of mini roundabouts. This area is a bottleneck and frequently congested with traffic queuing in all directions.

4 . The Additional Provisions relating to the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot to Langley as proposed are unacceptable to Iver Heath residents.

5. The chosen haulage routes for the proposed works will be detrimental to the whole of Iver Heath. As described above, the road network is already saturated and inadequate and we object to the severe adverse impacts for residents and businesses that the relocation will cause for the following reasons:

6. The Depot construction is estimated to take 2 years and will involve 500 HGV movements a day. A minimum of 80% of this traffic will use one of two routes through Iver Heath.

7. The routes chosen are residential roads and unsuitable for HGV traffic as the carriageways are narrow, one has a 7.5 ton weight limit (Bangors Road South) and two are unclassified roads (North Park, Richings Way).

2 8. In Wood Lane, a National Cycle Route, HGVs have to mount the verge to pass through.

9. HS2 Ltd acknowledges how severe the impact of this route will be for residents. Bangers Road will have a projected 300% increase in HGV traffic during the morning peak hours and 225% during the afternoon peak. The HGV traffic will pass through one of two mini-roundabouts at the junction of this road which is , as described above, already one of the most congested parts of Iver Heath and gives us concerns about the safety of pedestrians.

1O . In addition to the massive increase in HGV traffic, Iver Heath faces the consequences of additional traffic as a result of the planned growth of Pinewood Studios. The latter has not been taken into account in any modelling of the baseline traffic flows or predicted growth in the area. The increase is unsustainable on the infrastructure. HGV drivers already find it difficult to operate on the village's residential roads. Bus services, including school buses, are already routinely disrupted by congestion .

11 . The health of residents living on or near the roads to be used as HGV routes will be affected by the traffic noise, pollution and 24 hour working. There will be potential damage to their properties from traffic vibration .

12. The residents are also concerned about the ability of HGVs to operate safely. Traffic can accelerate immediately it crosses the Crooked Billet roundabout into Iver Heath as it has been 'delayed' by queuing at the junctions.

13. HGV drivers will not have local knowledge about difficult junctions and turnings along the route. For example, visibility for traffic turning in to and leaving Sevenhills Road is poor in both directions and HGV stopping distances could make it even more concerning.

14. A National Cycle Route crosses the proposed HGV route in Bang ors Road South and as, previously mentioned , Wood Lane. Cyclists may be unprepared for HGV traffic when they are crossing what appear to be country lanes.

15. Pedestrians are likely to be put at more risk by increased HGV traffic as they walk to the local schools, surgeries, the village hall, library and shops.

16. The Association is concerned that a solution should be found before construction of the Heathrow Express depot begins.

17. The area needs a relief road to create a route for HGVs to access the M4 and the rest of the motorway network without passing through Iver and Iver Heath.

3 18. The Petitioner respectfully asks that the Bill be amended or undertakings required so that HS2 Limited, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction strategy for the project and its related works by considering its severe and permanent impacts on our community.

19. The Petitioner asks that details of mitigation be provided to the residents of Iver Heath, particular those living on or next to the proposed routes .

20. The changes necessary to provide this route need to be incorporated into the strategy before works design and construction plans have been finalised or construction contractors employed.

21 . These measures would remove the need for Iver Heath to be included on the haulage route.

22. Your Petitioner contends that linking such a road to Hollow Hill Lane to provide an alternative route would avoid the costly proposed works on Hollow Hill Lane. The £50m budget allocated for such works would be more effectively spent in providing the HGV relief road.

23. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that, unless the Bill is amended as proposed above, it should not be allowed to pass into law.

2. The prayer

Signed ... ______......

Print: Alan Norman Wilson Vice Chair: Iver Heath Residents' Association

Agent: Ann Mayling

Date: 151h April 2016