Agenda Item No: D1

CABINET

11 May 2010

CORPORATE DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENT, GROWTH & COMMISSIONING: TONY CIABURRO

CABINET MEMBER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENVIRONMENT, GROWTH & TRANSPORT: COUNCILLOR HEATHER SMITH

Subject: High Speed Rail 2 (HS2)

Recommendations: It is recommended that Cabinet:

1. Agrees its support in principle for a High Speed Rail network in Britain; 2. Agrees that the County Council seek to maximise the potential benefits associated with HS2, including pressing for significant improvements to ‟s rail services in line with the Northamptonshire Arc concept; 3. Agrees that the County Council should press the Government to mitigate the potential adverse impact of HS2 on local amenity, landscape and the environment; 4. Agrees that the County Council should seek compensation in the form of an agreed alternative site for School should the current preferred route be agreed; 5. Agrees that the cost of this site and the construction of the school, including playing space, should be borne by the Government; 6. Agrees that the costs of mitigating the impact of HS2 on highways and rights of way should be borne by the Government; 7. Agrees the proposed response (see Appendix 6) to the Extreme Hardship Scheme consultation; 8. Agrees that the County Council should take a lead on responding to the Government on behalf of Northamptonshire local authorities; and 9. Agrees that the County Council liaises with , Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire to lead a wider local authority response to the HS2 proposals

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is to outline details of the recent announcement on High Speed Rail (HS2), including the potential implications for Northamptonshire, and agree the principles which will form the basis of the County Council‟s response to this proposal.

2. Relevant Priority Outcome

Perspective Outcome

Customers - to achieve our A cleaner, greener and more prosperous county vision, what will our customers see?

2.1 Improved connectivity is one of the three thematic outcomes underpinning the Northamptonshire Arc concept. The concept recognises that HS2 has the potential to bring economic benefits to Northamptonshire. These could include better services on the existing West Coast Main Line which serves Northampton as high speed paths and connections to the inter-city network are freed up by services transferring to the new Line.

3. Background

3.1 On 11th March 2010, the Government published a command paper setting out its proposals for High Speed Rail (HS2). HS2 is a major piece of the national transport infrastructure and is of importance to Britain‟s future prosperity.

3.2 Britain‟s road and rail networks already experience congestion and crowding at peak times. As the demand for travel continues to grow, these problems can only get worse unless major investment takes place. The government has ruled out major new motorways or an expansion of domestic aviation on sustainability grounds.

3.3 High Speed Rail was first introduced by the Japanese in 1964, while the French launched the Paris – Lyon Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV) in 1981. High Speed Rail routes now exist in a range of European and Asian countries, with serious proposals also being made in the United States.

3.4 High Speed Rail not only offers substantially reduced journey times between major city centres, but also a significant increase in people-moving capacity, while producing lower levels of carbon emissions than road or air alternatives. As has been demonstrated in France, the improved connectivity benefits which High Speed Rail could bring to the English regions could provide a major benefit to their economies.

3.5 Currently Britain‟s only High Speed Rail route is the 70-mile HS1 route between St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel. In 2001, the Strategic Rail Authority commissioned the consultancy firm Atkins to look at the case for a high speed line between London and the North. More recently, Greengauge 21 has acted as a strong advocate for the benefits of high speed rail in the UK, while Network Rail has examined the potential benefits of new lines.

3.6 In January 2009, the Government established HS2 Limited, to make a full assessment of the case for a British high speed rail network, and to develop a detailed proposal for an initial line from London to the West Midlands. It had the task of reporting back to Government at the end of 2009.

3.7 The Government published the HS2 Limited report on 11th March 2010, alongside a command paper setting out its policy on High Speed Rail. The Government‟s view is that the UK‟s initial core high speed rail network should consist of a Y-shaped network connecting London directly with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour.

3.8 The Government see wider benefits being obtained through the use of the capacity released on existing lines for expanding commuter and freight services. Northamptonshire being a key area of housing growth is singled out for mention as somewhere that could benefit.

3.9 The Government has also asked HS2 Limited to develop detailed plans for extensions to Manchester and Leeds for public consultation early in 2012.

3.10 Subject to the results of these consultations and further detailed work on costs and funding to feed into decisions to be taken in the next Spending Review, the next step will be to carry out the necessary preparations, including the process of environmental impact assessment, for the introduction of a Hybrid Bill for a core high speed network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

3.11 This could see the London – Birmingham route opening by the end of 2026, with the links to Manchester and Leeds opening over the succeeding years, although that is clearly dependent on securing Parliamentary approval.

4. Requirements of a suitable route

4.1 The route will have been designed to operate at 300km/h (186mph), but with an alignment capable of operation at 400km/h (248mph). This speed requires a minimum curve radius of 7km, which means that any detour must begin at least 3km before the constraint.

4.2 The route will have been designed to accommodate trains to European loading gauge. This is wider and higher than that on Britain‟s conventional rail lines, although the track gauge is identical. The larger loading gauge allows both wider seat spacing and the operation of double-deck trains if required. Train lengths of up to 400m also make a major contribution to the significant capacity increase possible. This is around twice the length of conventional British trains and as such makes integration at existing stations difficult. Trains operating off the new high speed route would be built to the conventional British loading gauge.

4.3 The Government has proposed a route starting from an enlarged terminal at London Euston, running in tunnel to an interchange station at Old Oak Common (for interchange with Crossrail and Heathrow Airport) and then running alongside an existing rail route through west London before tunnelling through the Chilterns from the M25 to Amersham. Continuing to the west of Wendover and Aylesbury, the route would then make use of the largely-preserved track bed of the former Great Central Railway until just south of Brackley (where it enters Northamptonshire). Running on a slight curve between Brackley and Turweston, the route then follows a straight alignment passing close to the villages of Greatworth, , Chipping Warden, and (where it exits Northamptonshire). The route then continues through Warwickshire to enter Birmingham close to Water Orton. The route would terminate at a

new city centre station built at Curzon/Fazeley Street in Birmingham‟s Eastside regeneration area, with the main line extending north to join the West Coast Main Line near Lichfield, enabling services to continue at conventional speeds to destinations further north. Maps of the route are included in Appendix 1.

4.4 In drawing up their proposals, HS2 Limited considered a long list of routes, which all appear to cross Northamptonshire. They refined this down to a smaller number of short- listed routes. Maps of the short-listed routes are included in Appendix 2.

4.5 More information can be accessed at http://www.hs2.org.uk/

5. Impact on Northamptonshire communities close to the route

5.1 As detailed above, the proposed route passes close to a number of Northamptonshire villages. The alignment varies between cutting and embankment or viaduct, the latter usually where it crosses a flood plain. The main potential adverse impacts for residents would be noise, visual intrusion and possibly vibration. Some noise and visual impacts would also be experienced by communities further from the route, particularly where the alignment is on embankment or viaduct, dependent on the land form. Pending the completion by HS2 Limited of further work on environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures, it is not currently possible to confirm these environmental impacts.

5.2 The construction of the proposed route would obviously require the permanent acquisition of land. In addition to purely agricultural land, the proposed route would require the permanent acquisition of land at the following sites which are shown on the plans in Appendix 1:

1. Northampton Road Saw Mills, Brackley * 2. Substation near Hall Farm 3. Greatworth Park 4. Manor Cottages, Lower Thorpe 5. Chipping Warden School * 6. Chipping Warden Airfield* 7. Fir Tree Nursery, Boddington Note: * - not indicated as permanent land requirement on published plans, but land clearly required.

5.3 During the construction of HS1 between London and the Channel Tunnel a series of principles were established for dealing with the community impact and environmental mitigation which should be seen as a minimum for the Government to meet with respect to HS2. These are listed in Appendix 3.

5.4 A schedule of the impacts on designated and non-designated heritage and biodiversity sites is included in Appendix 4.

5.5 The proposed route has a pronounced impact on a number of sites in Brackley for which development proposals are in preparation, for which planning approval has been given or which are included in the draft Masterplan.

6. Wider impacts on Northamptonshire

6.1 The construction of HS2 will also have positive impacts for Northamptonshire. During the construction phase there will be opportunities for employment and the construction industry which will be of economic benefit to the county.

6.2 The release of capacity on existing rail routes is recognised by the Government as providing opportunities for improving rail services to Northamptonshire. This is a strategic priority of the Northamptonshire Arc. Improvements to the county‟s connectivity will assist economic development and the attractiveness of Northamptonshire to businesses and investment.

6.3 The Government‟s proposals for capacity released on the West Coast Main Line currently fall some way short of the aspirations contained in the Northamptonshire Arc (see Appendix 5), and it will be important for the County Council to lobby for improvements that make a real difference to Northamptonshire. Even greater benefit would be obtained if a station served by either high-speed or conventional rail services could be provided.

6.4 Further benefits for Northamptonshire will come through the removal of pressure for traffic growth on the M1, the M40 and other key road corridors as a result of some car traffic switching to the high-speed rail network.

6.5 There will also be associated benefits on the Birmingham to Marylebone line as well as on the West Coast mainline for residents of Northamptonshire. Stations at Bicester and are sometimes closer for residents in Northamptonshire even though they lie in the neighbouring area of . So any „capacity‟ that is freed up through introducing HS2 could give an opportunity for more direct or even non-stop rail services from Bicester/ Banbury to points in the north and south.

6.6 There is also an opportunity to include broadband and telecommunications along the line which will have benefits for many homes and businesses within Northamptonshire, and for much further beyond.

7. Impact on the County Council

7.1 The proposed route cuts through part of the site of Chipping Warden Primary School. While full details of the land required are not available, it is considered that if the proposed route goes ahead it would render the existing site unviable as a Primary School, and that a new site for the school would be required. The County Council will need to work with the Government, HS2 Limited and the Governing Body to better understand the impact and develop options for a way forward.

7.2 No other land owned by the County Council is affected by the proposals.

7.3 The proposed route crosses the county highway network at 13 locations where new road under- or over-bridges would be required. A further overbridge would be required on the Boddington – Wormleighton road, immediately adjacent to the county boundary. The route also crosses the current A43/Turweston Road bridge to the east of Brackley, the proposed treatment at this point is unclear.

7.4 The proposed route crosses a number of rights of ways. HS2 Limited has not yet drawn up proposals for bridging, diverting or stopping up any of these rights of way.

7.5 As promoter of the scheme, the Government should be expected to mitigate any impacts e.g. new bridges or re-routing, at no cost to the County Council.

8. Extreme Hardship Scheme

8.1 Under existing planning law residential and agricultural property owners directly affected by any confirmed plans for the development of any future high-speed rail line would have access in due course to statutory blight provisions, which would apply from such time as safeguarding directions are issued in respect of any route. These provisions also apply to commercial properties with an annual rateable value of no more than £29,000.

8.2 Since proposals for a route are likely to impact on property values in the period before statutory protection is available, the Government proposes to introduce an Exceptional Hardship Scheme for householders most affected by these recommendations, and in particular for householders who have an urgent need to relocate.

8.3 The consultation period runs until 20 May 2010, and a draft of the proposed County Council response is included in Appendix 6.

9. Consultation and Scrutiny

9.1 County Council officers were given two confidential briefings by HS2 Limited during 2009 which allowed them to understand some of the background to what was being proposed in terms of potential routes. However, only with the publication of the Government‟s proposals on 11th March has it been possible to properly understand what is proposed. In consequence this cabinet report is intended to initiate the process of consultation and scrutiny.

9.2 The County Council has been asked by HS2 Limited to take the lead role in facilitating consultation within the county, to ensure that local communities and stakeholders are fully engaged with the process.

9.3 The Government proposes to undertake consultation starting in the autumn and lasting around six months. This consultation will cover three key areas: HS2 Limited‟s detailed recommendations for a high speed line from London to the West Midlands; including consideration of the details of the Governments proposed route. The strategic case for high speed rail in the UK; and The Government‟s proposed strategy for an initial core high speed rail network.

9.4 The published HS2 Consultation Strategy sets out the steps which it is intended to follow:

‘1.7 Key stages before a hybrid bill is presented to Parliament include: HS2 submits report (end of 2009). Government response to HS2 report (by end March 2010). Public consultation on the HS2 proposals (Autumn 2010).

Ministers publish results of consultation and announce the preferred route. Full detailed design, including full environmental impact assessment, on the proposed London to West Midlands route. Public consultation on the detailed design. Preparation and submission of Hybrid Bill to Parliament.’

‘3.2 Therefore, it is recommended that, at an appropriate time before the consultation begins, further discussions are held with stakeholders particularly along the London to West Midlands route but also for conurbations further north. The main aim of this would be to inform how the dissemination of information about the consultation could be enhanced when it is launched and to inform development of the communication plans particularly around: Understanding specific local and regional sensitivities to consultation. Understanding how local areas might prefer/want to be consulted. Understanding how communities are structured and whether there are specific bodies such as residents’ associations/community forums which could encourage participation in their areas or act as voices for the community. Gaining information on local venues (and access to them) for possible consultation events/exhibitions. Understanding whether and how planning authorities could assist in the consultation and dissemination of information.’

9.5 The scope of the consultation means that it is important to involve all Northamptonshire residents and stakeholders, as well as the communities immediately affected by the proposed route.

9.6 Over the coming months the County Council will need to work with HS2 Limited to ensure that the consultation meets these requirements.

10. Alternative Options Considered

10.1 Not to engage with the consultation would put Northamptonshire at a disadvantage compared to other areas.

11. Financial Implications

11.1 In 2010/11 the main focus for the County Council will be on facilitating and responding to the consultation. While the work for officers involved is likely to be time-consuming it will be achievable within existing staffing budgets. It is expected that the costs of public exhibitions and similar activities will be met by HS2 Limited or the Government.

11.2 In the medium-term following the consultation, and presuming that HS2 proceeds, it is anticipated that the focus will switch to dealing with the detailed amenity issues and other impacts. The County Council will expect HS2 Limited to meet the costs of examining the consultation responses from local communities, assessing impacts, and developing appropriate mitigation measures.

11.3 Looking further ahead, and the construction phase, if the proposed route is accepted, there are expected to be some significant works and associated costs involved. These include the possible relocation of Chipping Warden School and works to bridge/divert

highways and rights of way. As promoter of the scheme, the Government should be expected to fund these works so that there is no additional cost to the County Council.

12. Risk and Business Continuity Management a) Risk(s) associated with the proposal

Risk Mitigation Residual Risk Impact on local communities Engage with consultation and press Amber for suitable mitigation measures. Possible loss of Chipping Warden Better understand proposals and Green School develop plans for new facilities if required, at no cost to the County Council. Impact on highways and rights of way Work with HS2 Limited to develop Green proposals for bridges/diversions at no cost to NCC.

b) Risk(s) associated with not undertaking the proposal

Risk Risk Rating Not being able to influence the scheme Red Local communities are not properly engaged with the consultation Red Northamptonshire misses out on potential benefits of HS2 Red

13. List of Appendices Appendix 1: Maps and detailed description of route. Appendix 2: Maps of short-listed routes. Appendix 3: Standards used for addressing community impact and environmental mitigation for HS1 Appendix 4: Schedule of impact on designated and non-designated heritage and biodiversity sites. Appendix 5: Northamptonshire Arc (Extract – Section 3.6 Rail Connectivity) Appendix 6: Draft response to consultation on Extreme Hardship Scheme.

Author: Name: Chris Wragg Team: Transport Planning & Development Contact details: Tel: 01604 364411 Fax: 01604 364455 Email: [email protected] Background Papers: Command paper, report and supporting documents published on www.dft.gov.uk Does the report propose a key decision is YES taken? If yes, is the decision in the Forward Plan? YES Will further decisions be required? If so, Further decisions will be dependent on the please outline the timetable here timescales of the HS2 proposals. The next decision expected will be to agree the County Council‟s response to the consultation, expected to be around spring 2011. Is this report proposing an amendment to NO

the budget and/or policy framework? Have the financial implications been YES cleared by the Strategic Finance Manager Name of SFM: Rosemary Pallot (SFM)? Have any capital spend implications been N/A cleared by the Capital Asset Investment Group (CAIG) Has the report been cleared by the relevant YES Corporate Director or ACE? Name of Director: Tony Ciaburro Has the relevant Cabinet Member been YES consulted? Cabinet Member: Cllr Heather Smith Has the relevant scrutiny committee been NO consulted? Scrutiny Committee: Customers & Communities Has the report been cleared by Legal YES Services? Name of solicitor: Gurdeep Sembhi Solicitor‟s comments: None Have any communications issues been YES cleared by Communications and Name of officer: Liam Beasley Marketing? Has an Equalities Impact Assessment YES been carried out in relation to this report? Are there any community safety There may be some community safety implications? implications of either the construction or the implementation of the HS2 proposals, however insufficient information is available to identify these at present. Are there any environmental implications: Government has compared the proposals for HS2 with strategic alternatives for increasing strategic transport capacity and has concluded that it has overall environmental benefits compared to other options examined. However, the proposal will have a significant environmental impact on the areas through it passes. Full details of these impacts, or proposed mitigation measures, have not yet been published and are one reason it is important that the County Council engage with the consultation process. Are there any Health & Safety Implications: NO – Not at this stage. There are potential Health & Safety issues with the construction and implementation phases of the project, but insufficient information is available to identify these at present. Are there any Human Resources NO – None apparent at this stage. Implications: Are there any human rights implications: NO – None apparent at this stage. Constituency Interest: Countywide. Directly affected by the route: Cllr Andrew Grant (Brackley East), Cllr Ron

Sawbridge (Brackley West), Cllr Ben Smith (Greens Norton), Cllr Ken Melling (Middleton Cheney).

Appendix 1: Maps and detailed description of route.

Route - London to Northamptonshire

The proposed London terminus is Euston, with a major reconstruction and expansion of the station proposed. Just outside Euston the line enters a 7.1km tunnel which takes it below Camden to Old Oak Common, (adjacent to the Great Western Main Line) where a station would be provided for interchange with Crossrail and trains to Heathrow Airport. After another „short‟ 1.1km tunnel, the line runs alongside existing rail lines through West London.

Near Ickenham, it curves northwards and crosses the Grand Union Canal and River Colne (and gravel pits) on a 3.6km viaduct. Immediately south of the M25 near Chalfont St Peter, it enters a 9.6km tunnel, which ends west of Amersham. The route continues on a new alignment, largely in cutting, passing close to Wendover and west of Aylesbury. It passes Aylesbury largely on embankment.

The line continues and joins the alignment of the former Great Central (GC) main line just north of the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre at Quainton Road. The old line here currently carries a single track, although there are proposals for doubling by Chiltern Railways for a new – London service. The line continues on the old GC route north of Calvert where the track currently ends. The old GC alignment would needs to be straightened and widened for HS2 use.

Route In Northamptonshire (in more detail)

The old GC alignment through Brackley has been built on, and is also too curvaceous for HS2 use. The proposed route therefore leaves the GC formation near Mixbury, it crosses the Rover Great Ouse on a 500m viaduct. Following a very straight route it enters the county between Turweston and Brackley on a 300m long viaduct over the flood plain. It crosses over the A43 Brackley Bypass at the location of the existing Turweston Road bridge. It is unclear whether the rail line passes over the existing bridge or the Turweston Road would be closed, as no replacement bridge is indicated.

The line crosses the Northampton Road (south of the A43 roundabout) just as the formation moves from embankment into cutting. It appears to require demolition of a number of industrial units, and appears compromises a number of proposed development sites, including the Brackley North Sustainable Urban Extension. It appears to require demolition of some buildings off Radstone Road.

The line passes over open countryside, to the north of Halse, being close to ground level, ie very shallow cutting or embankment. It passes very close to the east end of Greatworth, being on embankment south of the Helmdon Road and in cutting north thereof. It appears to require demolition of buildings at Greatworth Park.

The route continues in cutting for some distance, then passes to the east of Thorpe Mandeville on embankment due to the presence of a stream or small river. It passes very close to Manor Cottages at Lower Thorpe. It then continues in shallow cutting or embankment over open country.

The next feature if a 400m viaduct over the flood plain of the , crossing the east end of „The Pool‟ to the east of House. Entering cutting, it passes close to the north-east of Chipping Warden, appearing to require some land at Chipping Warden School.

It continues in cutting across the former Chipping Warden Airfield, then west of Aston-le-Walls changes to embankment as it crosses the Highfurlong Brook. It continues on embankment to the south-west of Lower Boddington, entering cutting just as it crosses the county border.

Route northwards

Continuing across open countryside, the route passes south of Southam, and then to the north- east of Leamington Spa and the National Agricultural Centre at Stoneleigh Park. Curving gently it it passes through a short gap between the built up areas of Kenilworth and Coventry.

On the western outskirts of Coventry it joins the formation of the old Kenilworth to Hampton-in- Arden railway line to use the old formation to pass through some ribbon development. It continues parallel to the old railway then crosses the Coventry to Birmingham railway and runs broadly parallel to the A452.

It passes east of Hampton-in-Arden, and close to M42 junction 6 there is a new „Birmingham International Interchange Station‟. This is located north of the NEC, with a people-mover linking to the NEC, existing station and airport.

It then runs to the west of the M6, passing on the very edge of the Chelmsley Wood housing estate. Running parallel to the M42, it appears to require some industrial demolition at Hams Hall. Just after the M6 toll leaves the M42, the proposed line also leaves the M42, although a possible future spur to the „north east‟ would use the M42 corridor northwards.

The line crosses open countryside to the west of Tamworth, and curves round the north-east side of Lichfield, to re-join the West Coast Main Line.

Birmingham Spur

In the vicinity of the M42?M6 junction a spur leaves the proposed HS2 route and broadly follows the M6 corridor into Birmingham, eventually running parallel to the Birmingham – Derby railway.

The station site, shown as Fazeley Street, is adjacent to the existing approaches to New Street station. It partly uses the empty site of a former Royal Mail depot at Curzon Street, but extends further in to the city centre. The proposed station is next to the existing Moor Street station and to the rear of the Pavilions Shopping Centre, and close to the Bull Ring. It would be a short walk from New Street Station.

Appendix 2: Maps of short-listed routes.

Appendix 3: Standards used for addressing community impact and environmental mitigation for HS1

1. To use existing transport corridors (both rail and road) where that can be shown to minimise land take, severance and environmental and noise intrusion.

2. To avoid built development as far as possible where new rail tracks are constructed outside present BR operational land.

3. To take careful account of the constraints arising from different geology and drainage in order to minimise environmental damage from tracks.

4. Construction of rail tracks on lengthy embankments to be avoided to minimise noise and visual and noise intrusion.

5. To design cuttings, tunnels, cut and cover screening embankments and acoustic walls to minimise visual and noise intrusion.

6. The greatest possible degree of noise attenuation shall be the aim, and the general standard of protection shall not be inferior to that provided in accordance with best practice elsewhere.

7. There will be a fundamental requirement for the final route alignment to pay regard to existing settlements to an extent that with the use where necessary of protective measures there is no significant deterioration in the noise climate.

8. Protection of communities and the environment from noise intrusion to be planned to the highest modern standards, which take account of the special characteristics and intrusion of railway noise within parameters related to receiver sensitivity, and measured over a period bearing direct relationship to the actual period of operation of the route, and with special consideration being given to any overnight operations.

9. Noise protection to be achieved wherever possible at source by the incorporation of the highest engineering standards in motive power units, rolling stock, the design and construction of tracks, power distribution systems, structures and trackside equipment rather than the insulation of individual properties.

10. To design for operating speeds which enable commuter use of new tracks and permit maximum practical flexibility in vertical and horizontal alignments so as to minimise property loss, environmental damage and noise intrusion.

11. Fair, flexible and comprehensive compensation to be speedily settled for affected property, whether for impact from land take, noise or visual intrusion and to include property affected by increased use of existing tracks.

12. Roads and paths to be reinstated where severance occurs.

13. Agricultural and other land severed to be reassembled to enable good long term management.

14. Financial provision to be made for full environmental treatment of new and enhanced rail facilities to the highest modern standards, including substantial “off-line” landscaping.

15. Principles and proposals be established for the construction phase including identifying the location and function of each construction site and access to and between them, planning controls to be exercised over the construction stage and included within any Bill proposal; and an environmental code of conduct for the management of the sites.

16. Principles and proposals be established for spoil disposal and other bulk material movements including identifying disposal sites considered necessary to meet predicted requirements, giving priority to mitigation measures alongside of close to the Rail Link, seeking to use chalk in cement-making or sand in the minerals industry where feasible, taking the opportunity to fill a derelict site (or sites) within NW Kent or the Medway Valley which is otherwise unlikely to be satisfactorily restored, and maximising the transportation of spoil and other bulk materials by rail, overland conveyors or river barges as appropriate rather than by road planning controls to be exercised over the construction stage and included within any Bill proposal, and an environmental code of conduct for the management of sites.

17. To design a high standard of safety for both passengers and those living adjacent to the rail lines, and provide suitable means of emergency access.

18. To recognise the social and environmental blight created by houses subject to purchase left empty in a community, and prepare and implement a letting, sales and management policy designed to reduce such impact.

Appendix 4: Schedule of impact on designated and non-designated heritage and biodiversity sites.

Area Constraint Description / Detail

Evenley Archaeological Assets Great Central Railway

Brackley LWS Brackley Railway Embankment (750) TPO Woodland (Various) and Area (90/1970) Archaeological Assets Northampton Weston turnpike Great Central Railway Iron age / Romano settlement Turweston Landscape Park Sewell‟s Brickworks Open Field System Ridge & Furrow PWS 136/137/138

Greatworth LWS Halse Copse North (875) Halse Copse South (876) Conservation Area Greatworth Archaeological Assets Open Field Ridge & Furrow Poss Medieval Deer Park Northampton Banbury Train Park Greatworth Hall RAF Greatworth Wireless Transmission Neolithic Bronze Age Occupation PWS 120/121

Thorpe Archaeological Assets Undated activity Mandeville Poss Medieval Animal Husbandry Post Medieval Water Management Activity Open Field Ridge & Furrow Lower Thorpe Village PWS 114/117

Edgcote Listed Buildings Grade I (setting) Scheduled Monument Archaeological Assets Edgecote Lodge Park Poss. Medieval / Post Medieval Watermill Edgecote House Park Edgecote shifted village

Chippping Conservation Area Chipping Warden Warden Archaeological Assets Banbury to Lutterworth turnpike Wallow Bank poss Neolithic Funerary Chipping Warden Airfield (WWII) Poss Bronze Age Funerary site Poss Bronze Age Activity

Boddingtons Archaeological Assets Open field Ridge & Furrow Poss Prehistoric Settlement Welsh Road (poss Margary route166)

KEY BOLD Line goes though site Italics Biodiversity sites where habitat links will be affected LWS Local Wildllife Sites PWS Potential Wildlife Sites TPO Tree Preservation Orders Note - The Villages and details shown may not match exactly with the Parish Area, as this analysis is an initial overview and is therefore limited to assets in very close proximity to the line

Source: South Northamptonshire Council

Appendix 5: Northamptonshire Arc (Extract – Section 3.6 Rail Connectivity)

3.6 Rail connectivity

The proposal for a new High Speed Rail Line (termed HS2) between London and the Midlands initially, and then the north, has the potential to bring major economic benefits to Northamptonshire. This could involve significantly better services on the existing West Coast Main Line as high speed paths and connections to the inter-city network are freed up by services transferring to the new Line.

Strategic Priority 1 – Support the opportunities provided by the HS2 proposal to secure better inter-city connections

Upgrades to the Midland Main Line, including electrification northwards of Bedford into the county and north to Sheffield, have the potential to improve connections to services across London, reduce pollution (estimated CO2 saving of 40%), and enable reliable journey times of under 45 minutes to London from Northamptonshire. It is important that improvements benefit Northamptonshire Arc and a frequency of high speed services serve Northamptonshire and take advantage of access to long distance services including the international Eurostar services via St Pancras.

Strategic Priority 2 – Secure a minimum of two fast services (with journey times of less than 40 minutes) per hour from the Northamptonshire Arc to London on both the West Coast and Midland Main Lines

Strategic Priority 3 – Better rail connections and reduced journey times to Birmingham, Manchester and other major centres

Strategic Priority 4 – Optimise the potential benefits provided by the connections to Eurostar services

Appendix 6: Draft response to consultation on Extreme Hardship Scheme.

High Speed Two Ltd Please ask for: Chris Wragg Extreme Hardship Scheme Consultation Tel: 01604 364411 Our ref: 55 Victoria Street Your ref: London Date: 9 April 2010 SW1H 0EU

Dear sir/madam

HS2 EXTREME HARDSHIP SCHEME CONSULTATION

Northamptonshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation of the Extreme Hardship Scheme for High Speed Two (HS2). The HS2 proposals have significant impacts, both positive and negative, and we see this consultation response as the start of what we hope will be a fruitful engagement process to ensure that the positive impacts of the proposals for Northamptonshire are maximised and the negative impacts minimised.

The County Council‟s cabinet meeting on 11th May 2010 agreed the following as the County Council‟s response to the Extreme Hardship Scheme consultation:

Should the Department for Transport introduce an Exceptional Hardship Scheme ahead of decisions on whether, and if so how, to proceed with a high speed route?

Yes, the County Council agrees with the introduction of the scheme. The publication of the proposals will already have had an impact on both the value and saleability of land, and it is important that appropriate compensation is available.

Do you agree with the proposed principles underpinning the proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme? If not, what alternative principles would you propose, including specific criteria for determining qualification for the scheme?

No. The County Council believes that the Extreme Hardship Scheme should also apply to commercial properties and community assets. The following circumstances are proposed as potentially giving rise to such need and related extreme hardship in these circumstances:

The closure of the business or community asset Extreme financial pressure The need to move to larger premises

Do you agree with the proposed system for operating the proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme? If not, what alternative arrangements would you suggest?

Yes, the County Council agrees with the proposed system for operating the proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme.

I hope that you find the above responses helpful and should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact ourselves. At its meeting on 11th May 2010, the County Council agreed some further recommendations relating to HS2 and I will be writing separately to both Sir Brian Briscoe and the Secretary of State with these recommendations.

Yours faithfully