HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE HS2 (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL 14 July 2015
Petitioner – The Chiltern Society No. 0761
A1194 (1) 0761 / 1 HOC/00761/0003 Chiltern Society Presentation
1. About the Chiltern Society
2. AONB & Countryside issues
3. Water related issues
4. AONB Planning Policy
5. Three Bore Tunnel Option
6. Mitigation Hierarchy
7. Chiltern Society’s Conclusion
A1194 (2) 0761 / 2 HOC/00761/0004 1. About the Chiltern Society
o Founded 50 years ago • to conserve and enhance the Chiltern Hills • to campaign for the AONB to be confirmed • to campaign against the M40 cutting • to reinstate footpaths post-WWII o Registered charity o 7,000 members
A1194 (3) 0761 / 3 HOC/00761/0005 500 volunteers – the largest group in any AONB
A1194 (4) 0761 / 4 HOC/00761/0006 Chiltern Society - interest groups o Rights of Way o Site management o Walking o Cycling o Rivers & wetlands o Planning o Heritage o Photographic
A1194 (5) 0761 / 5 HOC/00761/0007 Chiltern Society - what we do o Maintain rights of way o Manage 13 nature reserves and heritage sites o Participate at all levels of the UK planning system o Work with a wide range of national, regional and local environmental organisations o Work on chalk streams and wetlands o Provide opportunities to volunteer and learn new skills o Support local community groups
A1194 (6) 0761 / 6 HOC/00761/0008 Chiltern Society – some notable achievements
o Founded Chiltern Open Air Museum o Restored Lacey Green Windmill and Ewelme Watercress Beds o Created the Chiltern Way long distance circular footpath
A1194 (7) 0761 / 7 HOC/00761/0009 Chiltern Society – more achievements
o Organises annual Chilterns Building Design Awards jointly with Chiltern Conservation Board o Co-created Chiltern Cycle Way with Chiltern Conservation Board o Organises 150 cycling trips and more than 100 walks each year o Donate-a-Gate - currently over 600 easy access gates funded and installed
A1194 (8) 0761 / 8 HOC/00761/0010 Chiltern Society - key partners o Forestry Commission o Chiltern Conservation Board * o Chilterns Open Air Museum o Chilterns Chalk Streams Project * o Chilterns Woodlands Project * o Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company * o Woodland Trust o Ridgeway Trail Partnership o Local authorities * Partners to which the Society contributes funding annually
A1194 (9) 0761 / 9 HOC/00761/0011 Why is the Chiltern Society petitioning?
o Irreversible damage to the Chilterns AONB o Severance of the Chilterns o Risk to the Chilterns Aquifer and River Misbourne o Serious harm to the Colne Valley Park o Impact on wildlife o Impact on countryside recreation and tourism o Impact on communities o Disregard of long-standing AONB national planning principles o Failure to apply higher standards within the AONB
A1194 (10) 0761 / 10 HOC/00761/0012 2. AONB & Countryside Issues
o Irreversible damage to Chilterns AONB
o Harm to ancient countryside
o Impact on communities
o Impact on recreation & tourism
o Threat to the Misbourne chalk stream
A1194 (11) 0761 / 11 HOC/00761/0013 Chiltern Hills AONB – o Designated in 1965 o Only AONB on HS2 route o Closest AONB to London o Unique ancient countryside
A1194 (12) 0761 / 12 HOC/00761/0014 Severance of the Chilterns
HS2 cuts through the AONB at its widest point
A1194 (13) 0761 / 13 HOC/00761/0015 Damage to the Chilterns AONB
o Irreversible damage to unique ancient English landscape o Adverse impact on the Chilterns’ footpath network o Loss of wildlife habitat - . 41km (25 miles) of hedgerows . animal migration routes . 14 ha (35 acres) of ancient woodland o Potential adverse impact on over 550 listed buildings o Loss of part of Grim’s Ditch - a scheduled ancient monument o Permanent loss of 212 ha (530 acres) of farmland
A1194 (14) 0761 / 14 HOC/00761/0016 Damage to the Chilterns AONB
Construction of – 4 vent shafts 2 cut and cover tunnels 2 viaducts, high embankments 30 metre deep cuttings 27 balancing ponds Security fencing and signage Catenary towers
Dumping of millions of cubic metres of spoil at Hunts Green Farm
A1194 (15) 0761 / 15 HOC/00761/0017 Introduction of noise and light pollution
A1194 (16) 0761 / 16 HOC/00761/0018 Ancient landscape with very little change over hundreds of years
o Chequers estate map of 1620
o The Ridgeway National Trail
o 19 Hill forts
o Romano-British villas every 2 - 3 km
o Living heritage for future generations
A1194 (17) 0761 / 17 HOC/00761/0019 Footpaths
o Over 2000km of footpaths in the Chilterns o HS2 route crossed by 36 paths o 29 footpaths closed temporarily o One bridleway will be closed permanently o 16 footpaths diverted permanently o Impact on the integrity of the footpath network o Impact on views from the Ridgeway and Icknield Way
A1194 (18) 0761 / 18 HOC/00761/0020 Environmental Statement
o Only 40% of land surveyed o Geological surveys not made o Traffic assessments inadequate and incorrect o Definition of rush ‘hour ’ inadequate o Landscape assessment o Code of Construction Practice
A1194 (19) 0761 / 19 HOC/00761/0021 Permanent impact on communities o Additional noise – impact on tranquillity o Light pollution o Impact of overnight maintenance work o Permanent change to local landscapes o Traditional access routes diverted o Harm to local businesses (eg tourism and farming)
A1194 (20) 0761 / 20 HOC/00761/0022 Construction impact on communities
o Up to an additional 2800 LGV, 1100 HGV movements per day causing - . Disruption of children’s education . Delayed emergency service response . Commuter and traffic delays o Severance of hill villages from services o Impact on local businesses o Disconnection of rights of way and amenity areas o Loss of tranquillity
A1194 (21) 0761 / 21 HOC/00761/0023 Colne Valley Regional Park o An important buffer between the Chilterns and West London o Provides valuable countryside ‘green lung’ for North West London o Provides key recreational activities for Londoners (eg. Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre - HOAC) o Important SSSI for transitory waterfowl o HS2 will severely damage these assets - permanently
A1194 (22) 0761 / 22 HOC/00761/0024 3. Water related issues
o Threat to the River Misbourne o Risk to the public water supply o Environmental risks o Risk reduction
A1194 (23) 0761 / 23 HOC/00761/0025 Threat to the River Misbourne
o A globally rare chalk stream o One of nine main Chiltern chalk streams o Key feature of the Misbourne Valley o Feeds Shardeloes Lake o Highly vulnerable to changes in the chalk aquifer
A1194 (24) 0761 / 24 HOC/00761/0026 Risks to public water supply
Pollution of the aquifer o The construction proposed in the Colne Valley presents a risk to water quality in the Colne Catchment Area o 22% of London’s water supply comes from the Colne Catchment area o Could lead to loss of water supplied by the Great Missenden, Amersham and Chalfont St Giles pumping stations
A1194 (25) 0761 / 25 HOC/00761/0027 Environmental risks
o Loss of the Misbourne, and Shardeloes Lake o Water being diverted away from the Colne Valley & Weston Turville SSSIs o Settlement along proposed route, particularly Chalfont St Giles
A1194 (26) 0761 / 26 HOC/00761/0028 Risk reduction o The upper levels of the Chiltern aquifer have a number of fractures through which the water flows. The deeper one goes into the aquifer the chalk is more clay rich and less permeable. o Drilling deeper in the aquifer reduces the risk of . Settlement along proposed route . Diverting the water away from the River Misbourne . Damage to the aquifer . Affecting the public water supply
A1194 (27) 0761 / 27 HOC/00761/0029 Witness Dr Haydon W. Bailey o Chartered Geologist o PhD in Chalk Stratigraphy o Consultant micropalaeontologist - oil and gas industry for over 35 years o Specialises in Upper Cretaceous Chalk stratigraphy o Honorary lecturer, MSc course in Applied and Petroleum Micropalaeontology, University of Birmingham o President - Geologists’ Association o Chairman - Hertfordshire Geological Society o Past Chairman - The Micropalaeontology Society o Written over 25 peer reviewed articles, mainly about Cretaceous chalks
A1194 (28) 0761 / 28 HOC/00761/0030 Holmer Green Coleshill Wendover Kingshill Chalfont St. Giles Denham
Good aquifer: Flints common – difficult to tunnel ------Moderate aquifer: Few flints – easier to tunnel ------Poor aquifer: No flints – easiest to tunnel
A1194 (29) 0761 / 29 HOC/00761/0031 Pre-Anglian glaciation route for the Proto-Thames - half a million years ago
A1194 (30) 0761 / 30 HOC/00761/0032 Chalfont Borehole - Original drillers log
Surface Top soil
Flint gravel
Weathered Upper Chalk
16 metres Top Solid chalk
Chalk Rock
A1194 (31) 0761 / 31 HOC/00761/0033 Chalfont St. Giles valley crossing
16 metres – rubbly chalk
6 metres – competent chalk SOLID CHALK
A1194 (32) 0761 / 32 HOC/00761/0034 4. AONB Planning Policy
o Long established principles o Major developments in AONBs o Failure to satisfy the key tests
A1194 (33) 0761 / 33 HOC/00761/0035 Long established principles
o AONB designation recognises the highest quality of English landscape (same as for the National Parks) National Planning Policy Framework 2014 requires that – o Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and AONBs Consistent with long standing principles to protect natural beauty, established by – o National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 o Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
A1194 (34) 0761 / 34 HOC/00761/0036 Major developments in AONBs – The thrust of public policy Successive planning guidance & policy identified four key tests in AONBs – o Major developments, including those that raise issues of national significance, should not take place in AONBs except in ‘exceptional circumstances’ o They should be subject to the ‘most rigorous examination’ o The cost and scope for ‘developing elsewhere outside of the designated area’ should be assessed o They should be demonstrated to be in the ‘national interest’ before being allowed to proceed
A1194 (35) 0761 / 35 HOC/00761/0037 Failure to satisfy the key tests
The ‘rigorous examination’ test has not been met because HS2 Ltd has not adequately assessed a route that does not cross the Chilterns AONB – i.e. a ‘non - AONB alternative’ As a consequence, Parliament cannot assess whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist Parliament cannot therefore be satisfied that – . A ‘national interest’ test has been properly applied . The Government’s obligation to ‘conserve and enhance the natural beauty’ of the Chilterns AONB has been met
A1194 (36) 0761 / 36 HOC/00761/0038 5. A three bore tunnel under the Chilterns AONB
o Key factors o Advantages o Safety - risk management o Safety - assessment o Estimated costings
A1194 (37) 0761 / 37 HOC/00761/0039 A three bore tunnel – key factors
o Same design concept as Channel Tunnel o Central tunnel as passenger safety refuge o No need for intervention gap (fire fighting area) o No vent shafts o No need to construct surface evacuation facilities within the AONB
A1194 (38) 0761 / 38 HOC/00761/0040 Three bore tunnel - advantages
o Only option which eliminates damage to the AONB o Greatly reduces risk to the aquifer o Substantially reduces impacts on local communities o Removes property blight o Enables . Deeper tunnelling . Operational benefits with virtually no incline on the track . Development of an alignment avoiding the need to tunnel under the Misbourne o Reduces public safety risk by providing a sealed safety area independent of the other operational tunnel
A1194 (39) 0761 / 39 HOC/00761/0041 Tunnel safety - risk management
Best practice safety Source – management requires - COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2014 . Highest priority to be given ‘Safety in railway tunnels’ to risk ‘avoidance’, as the best means of ‘prevention’ . Rigorous safety assessment of alternatives EU regulations require a special safety investigation of any long tunnel
A1194 (40) 0761 / 40 HOC/00761/0042 Tunnel safety assessment
o It is in the public interest that any higher safety benefits of a three bore tunnel are not rejected in order to achieve lower costs o This could be assured by requiring all main tunnelling options to be subjected to rigorous comparative safety assessment by independent specialists o Key issue for Select Committee – Can the prospect of a higher level of public safety provided by a three bore tunnel be discounted?
A1194 (41) 0761 / 41 HOC/00761/0043 Three bore tunnel – estimated costings Additional Construction Cost Estimated at £800m by HS2 Offsets Transport £25m Tourism £174m Property blight £120m No landscape impacts £206m Sub total £525m
Value of land and property no longer required Most of the spoil will be chalk which could be sold for cement manufacturing
A1194 (42) 0761 / 42 HOC/00761/0044 5. The Mitigation Hierarchy
o Lowest level mitigation o Moderate level mitigation o Highest level mitigation
A1194 (43) 0761 / 43 HOC/00761/0045 Lowest level mitigation
Minimum expectation (must include) – o Lower the current line, so that it is mainly in cutting o Remove spoil from AONB o Reconnect all footpaths, rights of way and animal migration trails, using green bridges at least 100 metre wide or passages through embankments o Restore lost hedgerows o Remove right for main undertaker to raise the line o Provide air ambulance cover
A1194 (44) 0761 / 44 HOC/00761/0046 Moderate level mitigation A long two-bore tunnel – o Saves 95% of ancient woodlands threatened o Substantially reduces impact on . landscape . footpaths and rights of way . spoil dump in AONB . noise and light pollution . commuters and communities However there are negatives – . Needs six vent shafts . Needs an intervention gap
A1194 (45) 0761 / 45 HOC/00761/0047 High level mitigation A three-bore tunnel – o Eliminates adverse impacts on . Landscape . Aquifers . Footpaths and rights of way . Construction in the AONB . Ancient Woodland . Hunts Green Farm (spoil dump) . Loss of good quality agricultural land . Noise, light and dust pollution o Eliminates vent shafts and an intervention gap o Enables Parliament to fulfil its obligations to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB
A1194 (46) 0761 / 46 HOC/00761/0048 6. Chiltern Society’s Conclusion
If HS2 has to cross the Chilterns AONB - the only acceptable mitigation in the national interest is a three bore tunnel
A1194 (47) 0761 / 47 HOC/00761/0049 Chilterns Tunnel - mitigation options for the River Misbourne
The Proposed Scheme will be predominantly in tunnel throughout the Chalfonts and Amersham area, with three above-ground vent shaft locations. The tunnels will cross under the River Misbourne in two locations, at chainages Ch. 35+600 and Ch. 42+000 (Shardeloes lake).
P7452 (1) HOC/10043/0309 Chilterns Tunnel - mitigation options for the River Misbourne
Summary: • All the Chilterns tunnel proposals cross under the River Misbourne in two locations.
• There will be at least two tunnel diameters depth between the river bed and the top of the tunnel.
• There is a low risk that tunnelling will induce settlement producing enhanced permeability and loss of water from the river and lake.
• Mitigation measures include monitoring of ground settlement, lake levels and river flows where the route passes beneath the River Misbourne and Shardeloes Lake and for a suitable distance up and downstream, in order to underpin prompt decision making should further mitigation be necessary.
• The potential for the tunnel to obstruct groundwater flow and exacerbate flooding has been identified, however the tunnel is very small in comparison to the overall thickness and extent of the aquifer so the impact on river flows is considered to be negligible.
P7452 (2) HOC/10043/0310
Simon Dale-Lace Our Ref: HNL-150430 HS2 High Speed Two Ltd 25th Floor, One Canada Square Canary Wharf Your Ref: London E14 5AB E-mail: [email protected] Date: 19 May 2015
Dear Simon
Re: River Misbourne crossing
Thank you for your e-mail of 4 April 2015.
As described in the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted in support of the Hybrid Bill for Phase One, the route is proposed to cross beneath the River Misbourne in a tunnel at two locations – east of Chalfont St Giles, and north of Shardeloes Lake.
As set out in the ES, a number of avoidance and mitigation measures are proposed to be incorporated into the design of the route in this area, including:
a minimum cover of two tunnel diameters depth being provided between the river bed of the River Misbourne and the top of the tunnel operating the tunnel boring machine in a closed face mode within water bearing parts of the aquifer, and designing the tunnel lining to keep leakage rates to a minimum closely monitoring river flows during construction, immediately upstream and downstream of crossing points – and working with us to agree appropriate trigger levels to prompt where further mitigation could be required
The ES identified a potential significant effect in relation to the proximity of the works to local public water supply sources. Alongside Affinity Water we will continue to provide advice (in line with our statutory role) to ensure a management strategy and mitigation measures are agreed. This will have to demonstrate that Affinity Water is able to maintain the resilience of public water supplies at all times both during construction, and in the longer term, in accordance with their Water Resources Management Plan.
Ultimately, before we could approve applications in line with the Protective Provisions within the Hybrid Bill and other UK legislation, we will need to be satisfied that all potential risks to the river and the surrounding environment have been mitigated. This will need to be supported by evidence from your ground investigation programme.
We will continue to provide advice to ensure the proposed mitigation will be acceptable, and that approvals can be issued.
Environment Agency, 9 Wellington Crescent, Fradley Park, Lichfield, Staffs. WS13 8RR Customer services line: 03708 506 506 Email: [email protected] P7453 (1)www.gov.uk/environment-agency HOC/10043/0311
SC 16
It would be possible, however, for the tunnel to fall outside of this requirement if a substantial open section (more than 500m) or emergency-access station was included somewhere close to the mid-point of the tunnel, effectively splitting it into two shorter tunnels. 8.1.6. As there are no prescribed standards for access and evacuation for tunnels over 20km we have considered a number of options for tunnel design, covering a range of options for emergency evacuation: A tunnel with ventilation shafts at 2km intervals (as required in TSIs for tunnels from 1km to 20km long). This would mean that, in the event of a fire within the tunnel, passengers would be evacuated into the adjacent tunnel awaiting a rescue train. There are a number of practical issues with the rapid evacuation of a high capacity train in fire conditions into the other running tunnel. It could not be made safe for access immediately as other high speed trains would still be passing through it. It is unlikely to be acceptable for evacuation of the tunnel to be solely through the adjacent bore and there is a strong likelihood that we would be required to provide additional measures, such as an emergency access station or a third bore, at substantial extra cost and potential disruption. On that basis our view is that an option for a twin-bore tunnel with ventilation shafts only is not a realistic proposition. A continuous tunnel with a third bore between main bores to facilitate evacuation and access. In this case passengers would be evacuated into the central bore. However it would mean that emergency service access would only be from either portal, potentially requiring them to travel more than six miles underground to reach an incident, and would require a complex and extensive ventilation system to control smoke in event of a fire. We do not consider it appropriate for the emergency services to be required to travel this far underground to reach the site of an incident if ventilation shafts are a feasible option. A third bore would also come at a substantial additional construction cost, and would be likely to require its own dedicated emergency rescue service to provide acceptable response times. A tunnel with a third bore between main bores to facilitate evacuation and ventilation shafts at 2km intervals. In the event of an incident this would allow evacuation and rescue via a central bore, with the shafts providing ventilation and emergency service access. This would be likely to meet safety requirements for long tunnels but would come at a substantial additional cost. A tunnel with ventilation shafts at 2km intervals and either an open section or evacuation box. An open section or emergency station somewhere near the midpoint of the tunnel, effectively splitting into two tunnels for the purposes of the TSI, would enable a train to reach an area where passengers could be evacuated to surface level. This would need to be a substantial construction within the AONB. The alternative of a bored cavern large enough to hold a full train of passengers for up to two days (as is being
A1210 (2) HOC/00761/0080 Wendover Parish Council Halton Parish Council The Wendover Society Wendover HS2
A1211 (1) HOC/00106/0002 Wendover & Halton Parishes
• Population of 8500 and over 3300 houses
• RAF Halton a vital training facility is located in the parishes
• Local economy based on tourism and agriculture
• Wendover has had a weekday market since 1464
• Many historic buildings
• Situated in the Wendover Gap between Wendover Woods and Combe Hill
A1211 (2) HOC/00106/0003 WENDOVER
A1211 (3) HOC/00106/0004 HALTON
A1211 (4) HOC/00106/0005 HS2 proposal
A1211 (5) HOC/00106/0006 Wendover Asks
Fully Bored Tunnel Thru Chilterns
Extended Green tunnel to the North and South of Wendover – enclosures on embankments
Higher barriers & bunds Legally Enforceable Noise Limits
A1211 (6) HOC/00106/0007 A Bored Tunnel Thru the Chilterns A bored tunnel through the Chilterns will: • Save the AONB • Reduce the risk to the Wendover Arm Canal • Enable St Mary’s Church to be a community centre • Do away with the noise issue • Protect Wendover heritage • Reduce visual blight • Save Agricultural and tourist businesses • Remove property blight • Safeguard people’s health A1211 (7) HOC/00106/0008 Wendover Cut & Cover Extensions
Southern Extension Surface tunnel 700m London Road Northern Extension 500m Viaduct enclosure 500m Surface tunnel 600m
A1211 (8) HOC/00106/0009 Impacts on Wendover
• Heritage • St Mary’s • Tourism • Blight • Health • Wendover Campus School
A1211 (9) HOC/00106/0010 Heritage Impacts
High Street, Wendover Wendover Clock Tower St Mary’s Church Lychgate
Grim’s Ditch Scheduled Monument Romano-British Adze Hammer Back Street, Wendover discovered Wellwick Farm, Wendover A1211 (10) HOC/00106/0011 A1211 (11) HOC/00106/0012 HS2 track is line of site behind trees 280m from churchSt Mary’s • St Mary’s is used by many groups • For community activities as well as religious services • Recently refurbished • 70 dB peak outside, 46 dB inside • Too loud to continue to use as
Remember what the a music, concert venue principle of the school said on the 11th June. • HS2 looking at insulation
The schools excellent work • Does not solve the churchyard with the most vulnerable issue children will be seriously prejudiced by the noise.
Also great risk of injury to children who stray into construction sites and onto the track of the trains in operation regardless of A1211 (12) fencing St Mary’s Church Wendover and adjoining schoolHOC/00106/0013 Tourism • Wendover has a high number of tourists - Wendover Woods 300,000 pa - Combe Hill 100,000 - RAF Halton Graduations 10,000 - Ridgeway walkers 56,000 • The economic value is assessed as £16M • Wendover has a lot of cafes, pubs, restaurants, high end shops and antique shops to cater for tourists • The Ridgeway goes along the High St and past St Mary’s • Any disruption to how they get here, or their enjoyment while they are here, will cause them to stay away
The Ridgeway The local impact will be high HS2 line A1211 (13) HOC/00106/0014 Property Blight
Construction Blight Green Tunnel Blight
A1211 (14) HOC/00106/0015 Health – Construction Phase
• Interruption to tourism • Whole generation affected • Increase in social isolation – traffic delays • Chalk dust – copd/asthma • Age related lifestyle – retiring or staying for a long time not so possible • Deaf people affected disproportionately
A1211 (15) HOC/00106/0016 Health - Operational Phase
• Effects from night time noise • Health effects from property blight • Link with noise-stress- obesity (see swedish report published in BMJ) • Large cost to the health and wellbeing of residents living with 1km of proposed exposed section of line
A1211 (16) HOC/00106/0017 Chiltern Way Federation Wendover House School
Specialist secondary school for pupils with social, emotional, communication and interaction difficulties.
A1211 (17) HOC/00106/0018 Impact of HS2 on Wendover House • The proximity of HS2 will impact on the pupils use of the playing fields • The importance of outside spaces not being recognised • The construction site will be a constant distraction • Traffic congestion during construction will cause significant problems to pupils and staff • Traffic congestion will hamper Emergency Services • A magnificent school achieving life-changing results for vulnerable young people. It has a dedicated staff and excellent facilities. It must be allowed to continue.
These risks must be fully mitigated
A1211 (18) HOC/00106/0019 CLT Construction Camp
Blue = existing land take By comparison the CLT additional land take is Green = released land take quite modest A1214Red= (7) new land take for railhead HOC/00106/0054 Agricultural Impacts
A1212 (1) HOC/00106/0020 Impact on Wendover Agriculture
• 17 farms directly affected in CF10; 16 in CF9 • Huge land take – during construction & permanent • Viability of working farms at risk - size changes vs profit margins - fractured fields/stranded land & transport costs • Implications of loss to local community • Diversified business loss including ‘Farm Stay’ tourism • Impact on countryside stewarded over centuries • Financial loss to local & national economy • Loss of jobs: Rural unemployment
A1212 (2) HOC/00106/0021 Agricultural Impact Wendover CFA 10 Farm Total Activity Construction % Permanent % Loss Size ha loss in ha Loss Loss in ha Hunts Green Farm 100 Arable ,beef, sheep 47.8 47.80% 14.3 14.30% Strawberry Hill Farm 220 Arable ,beef, sheep 43 19.55 23.5 10.68 Durham Farm 63 Arable and beef 15.9 25.24 6.5 10.32 Upper Wendover Dean 50 Arable ,beef, sheep 23.1 46.20 6.2 12.40 Farm Hartley Farm 6.5 let 5.7 87.69 3.7 56.92 Road Barn Farm 28 grassland 10.3 36.79 4.3 15.36 Boswells farm 95 Arable ,sheep 11.3 11.89 2 2.11 Bank Farm 202 Arable,sheep 31.7 15.69 8.3 4.11 Grove Farm 89 Grassland dairy 7.9 8.88 4 4.49 Small Dean farm 66 Grassland (let) 6 9.09 1.1 1.67 Wellwick Farm 81 Arable,equine 25.6 31.60 11.6 14.32 Orchard Farm 21.9 Orchard,grazing 0.9 4.11 0.7 3.20 Nash Lee Farm 89 Arable ,beef, sheep 5.5 6.18 4.7 5.28 Unnamed paddock 5 grazing 3.3 66.00 1.8 36.00 Stocken farm 48 arable 3.7 7.71 0.1 0.21 Hunters Leaze 16 grazing 12.7 79.38 11.4 71.25 Chilton Million 2.7 grazing 2.7 100.00 1.7 62.96 Total 1183.1 257.1 21.73% 105.9 8.95%
A1212 (3) Source: ES Vol5 CFA10 Agriculture, Forestry and Soils appendix AG-001-010 HOC/00106/0022 Road Barn Farm - demolished Durham farm has Edward Mogford’s (Banks Farm) a viaduct go over it field which will be used during construction Some of the farms affected by HS2
Hunts Green Farm – loses 48% of land Grove Farm Strawberry Hill Farm during construction – loses 20% during construction
A1212 (4) HOC/00106/0023 Summary & Key Messages • HS2 has a huge impact on the local agricultural economy, including farms without land-take • Many farms put at risk due to large land take during construction • Compensating farmers does not solve issues relating to tax and scarcity of replacement land/building constraints of being within an AONB • The consequences of the agricultural economy reductions on the local communities not considered • A bored tunnel through the Chilterns would save not only the AONB but also the agricultural economy – benefit £14.5M
Period CFA 9 CFA 10 Total Construction Loss Income p.a. £157,054 £269,150 £426,204 Period 5 5 5 Total Construction Loss £785,270 £1,345,750 £2,131,020
Permanent Loss Income p.a. £95,498 £112,155 £207,653 Period 60 60 60 Total Permanent Loss £5,729,880 £6,729,300 £12,459,180
Total Impact £6,515,150 £8,075,050 £14,590,200 Less work camp £(49,869) £(49,869)
Net Benefit of Bored Tunnel £6,515,150 £8,025,181 £14,540,331
A1212 (5) Based on a paper by Thompson & Cackett (NFU) HOC/00106/0024 Wendover HS2 – The Need for a Bored Tunnel
Presentation in respect of Noise on behalf of Wendover Parish Council Steve Summers MSc MIOA CEng ACCON UK Ltd
6 A1212 (6) HOC/00106/0025 Noise Impacts in Wendover from HS2 - Introduction
• Green tunnel would reduce noise for Wendover • However, noise impacts would still be significant at: – Bacombe Lane – Nash Lee Lane – St Mary’s Church – Wendover Campus • Also: • In Wendover a large number of residents would be subject to potential sleep disturbance at night from maximum noise levels from HS2 trains – Further mitigation should be provided
7 A1212 (7) HOC/00106/0026 St Mary’s Church & Wendover Campus School - Location
8 A1212 (8) HOC/00106/0027 St Mary’s Church – Noise from HS2
• Approximately 275m from HS2 • Used regularly for concerts • High maximum operational noise levels LpAFmax 70dB • Internal LpAFmax > 40 dB • Expected to cause disturbance to concerts • As well as services, weddings etc • Maximum levels will also affect church yard • Significant construction noise impacts • LpAeq 60 dB during construction of green tunnel • Both operational and construction noise impacts would be removed by fully bored tunnel
9 A1212 (9) HOC/00106/0028 Wendover Campus – Noise from HS2
• Specialist school for students with social, emotional, communication or interaction difficulties. • High maximum noise levels LpAFmax 71dB • LpAFmax 56 to 61dB inside with open windows • Disturbance to teaching and learning • Disturbance to outside play – particularly important for the school • Significant construction noise impacts • LpAeq 60 dB during construction of green tunnel • Both operational and construction noise impacts would be removed by fully bored tunnel
10 A1212 (10) HOC/00106/0029 Operational Noise Wendover South • Major impacts at Bacombe Lane • Closest house LpAeq 62 dB & 10 dB increase (rec 359406) • Most parts of the town of Wendover would +10 be below: dB • Daytime LOAEL of 50 dB LpAeq Bacombe Lane • Night-time LOAEL of 40dB LpAeq
11 A1212 (11) HOC/00106/0030 60 Maximum Honey dB Banks Noise High Wendover Stree t St Mary’s South Church 70 700 dB • LpAFMax Contours m Wendover • Up to 36 trains/hr Campus • 0500hrs to 0000hrs • Large part of Wendover LpAFmax > 60 dB • 60 dB LpAFmax = LOAEL. Based on 70 WHO Sleep dB Disturbance criterion
Bacombe • IP E20 commitments Lane • Fully bored tunnel would remove these noise impacts
60 12 A1212 (12) dB HOC/00106/0031 Operational Noise Wendover North • Nash Lee Lane 9 dB increases to Nash Lee 61 dB LpAeq at Lane closest house +9 dB • Nash Lee Road 5 dB increases to 62 dB LpAeq at closest house • Northern part of town of Wendover would +5 be below: dB Nash Lee • Daytime LOAEL Road of 50 dB LpAeq • Night-time LOAEL of 40 dB LpAeq 13 A1212 (13) HOC/00106/0032 60 dB Maximum Noise Lionel Avenue Wendover North
• LpFMax Contours 70 450 Nash Lee dB m • Part of Wendover Lane Bridlew ays would be subject to LpAFmax > 60 dB • 60 dB LpAFmax = LOAEL. Based on WHO Sleep Disturbance criterion • IP E20 Nash Lee commitments Road • Fully bored tunnel would 70 remove these dB noise impacts 60 dB 14 A1212 (14) HOC/00106/0033 Summary
A fully bored tunnel would effectively prevent any HS2 airborne noise from affecting Wendover. In addition this would address the key effects that I have identified. The fully bored tunnel would: • Eliminate operational and construction noise impacts at St Mary’s Church & Wendover Campus School • Eliminate operational and construction noise impacts at Bacombe Lane and the Nash Lee Lane area • Prevent sleep disturbance from HS2 trains affecting residents of Wendover subject to maximum night-time noise levels greater than the LOAEL • An estimated 950 properties would benefit along the route from Wendover Dean to Nash Lee • This will meet HS2’s commitment in Information Paper E20 to ‘take all reasonable steps to design, construct, operate and maintain the operational railway so that airborne noise does not exceed the lowest observed adverse effect levels ’
15 A1212 (15) HOC/00106/0034 St Mary's Church Wendover
Further investigations were carried out and established the following:
• More detailed information on the existing baseline noise levels affecting the church showed these were broadly in line with those established in the ES. • The sound insulation provided by the church’s building envelope was found to provide only a modest degree of sound insulation against the intrusion of external noise.
• The noise from existing local activities is audible inside the church e.g. local road traffic and trains entering and leaving Wendover station.
• However, the peak noise levels from these existing activities are relatively low level and do not occur frequently.
• Whilst the noise from HS2 trains will fall within the existing range of peak noise levels experienced by the church, it will occur more frequently. P74942 (2) HOC/00106/0022 Table 1: Existing baseline sound levels
Existing baseline sound level (dB)
For operational sound assessment For construction sound assessment Data Assessment Measurement Area Represented Arithmetic average Highest Evening/ Night- source location ID location Daytime Night-time Daytime of night-time night-time weekend time coding LpAeq,16hr LpAeq,8hr LpAeq LpAFmax,5min LpAFmax,5min LpAeq LpAeq 356230 Aylesbury Road, Wendover CS2101 52.6 43.7 55.3 68.8 52.9 46.4 41.2 3,A,iii,b
363376 Nightingale Road, CS2101 52.6 43.7 55.3 68.8 52.9 46.4 41.2 3,A,ii,b Wendover 369288 Hale Road, Wendover CS2057 47.2 38.5 46.1 64.1 47.8 45.7 37.5 1,A,i,a
357093 Bacombe Lane, Wendover CS0034 47.7 40.6 46.6 71.3 48.6 46.1 40.6 1,A,i,a
357199 Nash Lee Lane, Wendover CS1011 50.2 44.7 57.7 71.3 50.8 50.5 45.0 3,A,i,a
368776 Rocky Lane, Wendover CS5103 53.5 45.6 54.3 68.3 53.9 52.7 45.6 1,A,ii,b
357971 Nash Lee Lane, Wendover CS0086 56.1 50.5 60.4 76.5 56.5 54.9 49.5 1,A,i,a
359341 Bacombe Lane, Wendover CS0107 49.3 46.9 51.0 72.9 49.5 51.5 46.4 1,A,i,a
368919 London Road, Wendover CS1102 45.1 34.6 47.1 65.1 46.2 39.5 34.5 3,A,ii,b
359406 Bacombe Lane, Wendover CS0020 52.4 44.5 40.9 53.1 53.3 47.8 44.5 1,C,ii,b
P7499 (1) HOC/00106/0028 Day: Wendover Green Tunnel: phase 4 section CSV1 Bacombe Lane, 68/76 359406 - - A - reinstatement - finishes/embankment - S 3 R T - - - D 16 NI 0 - Wendover [A] filling (Including removal of props). C01*
Table 3: Operational airborne sound level, noise impacts and effects
Assessment Location Impact criteria Significance criteria
Do something t
n
e
ct Proposed Scheme only Do nothing (Opening (Opening year
cts
e
m
ct
ct
Change a
n
a ff
e
(Year 15 traffic) year baseline) baseline + Year gn
e
ro
ff
ptor
si i
ct
mp
mp
i
e
e
of
e
d
e ture i ID Area represented 15 traffic) ****
c
t
nv
e
a
d
ff
d
e
t
of
n
e
e
e r
e
on
f
n
r
i
g
n
t
ca
e
i
i
of of
n
a
f
ptor
i Day Night Max Day Night Max Day Night Day Night ue
i
ese
t g
e
i
n
iq
c
t
is
pr i
g
umb
n
ype ype
x * ** *** * ** *** * ** * ** e
T N r T Re E U Comb M Si 356230 Aylesbury Road, Wendover 35 26 55/58 53 44 55 53 44 0 0 NA 82 R T - - - - 363376 Nightingale Road, Wendover 37 27 53/56 53 44 55 53 44 0 0 NA 103 R T - - - -
Chiltern Road, Wendover 37 27 53/56 53 44 55 53 44 0 0 B 1 G5 T - - - - 363376 (British Legion Club)
369288 Hale Road, Wendover 48 39 61/65 47 39 46 51 42 3 3 NA 11 R T - - - - #
357093 Bacombe Lane, Wendover 47 38 65/68 48 41 47 51 43 3 2 NA 5 R T - - - - #
357199 Nash Lee Lane, Wendover 60 52 72/75 51 46 58 60 52 9 6 A 7 R T - - - - OSV10-C04
368776 Rocky Lane, Wendover 53 45 67/70 54 46 54 56 48 3 2 A 6 R T - - - - OSV10-C02
357971 Nash Lee Lane, Wendover 55 47 66/69 56 51 60 58 51 2 1 A 6 R T - - - -
359341 Bacombe Lane, Wendover 50 40 69/72 49 47 51 53 48 3 1 A 6 R T - - - - OSV10-C03
368919 London Road, Wendover 55 46 69/72 45 35 47 56 46 11 12 A 3 R T - - - - ~
OSV10-C03 359406 Bacombe Lane, Wendover 62 53 83/86 52 45 41 63 54 10 9 S 3 R T - - - NI OSV10-D01
P7499 (3) HOC/00106/0030 P7496 HOC/00106/0025 Hydrogeology
A1213 (1) HOC/00106/0035 Schematic of Wendover (in yellow) showing the 5 springs identified in the DfT reports and the surface water features they support.
Spring 1: Wendover Arm Spring 2: Castle Springs 4 & 5: Brook & Weston Stokes Brook. Turville
Spring 3: Wendover Wendover Brook
WESTON TURVILLE RESERVOIR SSSI A1213 (2) HOC/00106/0036 The Wendover Green Tunnel and North Cutting have a similar impact to ‘building’ a new chalk stream south of Wendover.
Government’s preferred scheme
NEW FLOW PATH Ml/ d ? HS2 GREEN TUNNEL
HS2 NORTH CUTTING
WESTON TURVILLE WENDOVER ARM CANAL A1213 (3) RESERVOIR SSSI HOC/00106/0037 DfT identify that Wendover Green Tunnel (WGT) & Wendover North Cutting (WNC) will be excavated below “normal” groundwater level.
Inferred Groundwater table
Base of proposed scheme
Chalk
Upper Greensand
Gault Clay
Wendover Green Tunnel Wendover North Cutting
A1213 (4) HOC/00106/0038 DfT methodology contains one omission & four mistakes, Omission No estimate of the flow intercepted.
Mistakes Sichardt’s formula for identifying the zone of influence for flow impacts. Spring catchments define whether flows will be impacted by WGT/WNC. Flow impacts only occur down gradient. The depth of aquifer below the base of the WGT/WNC has an effect on the flow impact.
References CFA10 |Dunsmore, Wendover and Halton Water resources assessment ( WR-002-010 ) Water resources Hydrogeological impact appraisal of dewatering abstractions. Environment Agency. SC040020/SR1 Bredehoeft et al 1982
A1213 (5) HOC/00106/0039 The flawed EIA produced by DfT identifies minimal impact from Hs2 on the five springs in Wendover. There is no estimate of how much flow will be intercepted & any flow that is intercepted will be discharged to Stoke Brook.
? Ml/d HS2 GREEN TUNNEL
HS2 NORTH CUTTING
? Ml/d
0 Ml/d ? Ml/d
0 Ml/d ? Ml/d ? Ml/d
Minimal Significant but WESTON TURVILLE Ml/d WENDOVER ARM CANAL mitigated A1213 (6) RESERVOIR SSSI HOC/00106/0040 Alternative Approach in line with EA Best Practice
Estimate flow intercepted River aquifer equation used in MODFLOW Ruston (2003),
QRIV = CRIV(h - HRIV)
Where:
CRIV is river coefficient Not conservative! h is groundwater level at “normal conditions” Not conservative! HRIV is level of base of Wendover Green Tunnel and North Cutting Conservative!
We can make an estimate of the flow drained by HS2 profile based on the information in the DfT report
But HS2 cutting will be ~19m wide? So these estimates may well be on the low side. Very Extracted from: unlikely to be conservative. Methodology per Hydrogeological impact appraisal of dewatering abstractions. A1213 (7) Environment Agency: SC040020/SR1 HOC/00106/0041 HIA (Boak et al 2007) & Rushton (2003) estimates a profound temporary impact from HS2 on the 5 springs in Wendover (treating “Green Tunnel” and Cutting as 5-10m wide chalk stream with “normal groundwater levels”)
~47 Ml/d (+)
~24 Ml/d HS2 GREEN TUNNEL ~6 Ml/d (-) HS2 NORTH CUTTING
~5 Ml/d
~6 Ml/d -4 Ml/d ~15 Ml/d -5 Ml/d ~5 Ml/d -11 Ml/d -4 Ml/d WESTON TURVILLE WENDOVER ARM CANAL A1213 (8) RESERVOIR SSSI +27 Ml/d HOC/00106/0042 Q1: How could we Q2: Would a tunnel have got it wrong? be any better?
Scenario based risk assessment Minimal flow intercepted Defra 2011. Intercept GW at cutting face only. (1)The predicted flow impact is small compared to GW flow in Wendover That is why we did the spot gauging. Positive pressure maintained during tunnelling to reduce water ingress. (2)Seasonality. Groundwater storage could delay and smooth the impact of Tunnel sections pressure grouted to WGT on Wendover springs during prevent preferential flow path construction. developing. WNC is a permanent impact. Groundwater model required. Tunnel goes through highly permeable (3)Real groundwater levels along the chalk layer twice at start and end. WGT route of the government’s proposed & WNC are constructed in highly scheme are much lower than suggested permeable chalk. in DfT reports. Unlikely given the levels of the 5 Northern terminal in Gault formation springs. (non aquifer) Additional fieldwork required.
A1213 (9) HOC/00106/0043 What is the impact of a weak EIA? Kildare Bypass “ A cautionary tale...... ” O Donnel (2006)
“The bypass was initially estimated to cost €55million and the tanking system was estimated to cost €6.35million. The final cost was €160million. Presumably much of the increase in cost is accounted for by the delays involved in finding a solution to the potential [hydrogeological] damage the project may have caused to Pollardstown Fen.” A1213 (10) HOC/00106/0044 Will it be possible to Shopping list: mitigate if required? • Pumping station at bottom of WNC.
“ Not considered likely....” • Three pumps rising mains to discharge to springs 1, 2 and 3 plus discussion with Pumping water back up the hill and under the road to mitigate community about ‘lost’ streams. impacts on springs 1, 2 and 3 for the • Need to be able to pump high and low life of the project. flows? Q10 is ~ 2X Q50 at Wendover “un-desirable due to sustainability • Need to get drainage under the road. reasons” • May need to upgrade drainage under road and through meadows for spring 1? • May need to upgrade feeders from Wendover Arm to Weston Turville? • Need to check WQ implications. Ref:Wendover Green Tunnel and North • Need to coordinate with design to Cutting Hydrogeological Impact Assessment - Technical Note Document prevent groundwater flooding. Number: C252-ETM-EV-NOT-020-000161 • Agree seasonal flow target discharges with EA/ NE and C&RT. A1213 (11) HOC/00106/0045 What about when GW levels are at their maximum? Ref. Groundwater Flooding in Buckinghamshire Document Number: C252- ETM-EV-NOT-020- 000017 Will the pumping station be able to cope? It may not be possible to mitigate this?
Engineers can always come up with mitigation measures but ...(Kildare)
A1213 (12) HOC/00106/0046 Wendover Cut & Cover Tunnel Extension
A1214 (1) HOC/00106/0048 Background • Wendover has petitioned for a fully bored tunnel to protect the people of Wendover and safeguard the AONB.
• This alternative proposal for a Cut & Cover Tunnel Extension is our fall-back position. This is not an acceptable option to all because it does not address many of the issues raised, which would be solved by a bored tunnel.
• Our preference with regards tunnel option are; 1st Chiltern Long Tunnel 2nd CRAG T3i Tunnel 3rd Extensions to the proposed Cut & Cover Tunnel
• The extension to the green tunnel has three elements: - North Portal - South Portal - London road/Misbourne Valley
A1214 (2) HOC/00106/0049 Northern Extension
500m
Proposal Construction • Extend current Cut & Cover • As the line rises on its current tunnel by 500m to have the vertical alignment it becomes clear portal at chainage 55.400 and that the ‘hump’ of the tunnel will be then a cowl of 100m to take it to visible. 55.500 • Use spoil to smooth this hump • Ensure the extension like the basic tunnel is remediated to particularly to the west to blend it address the hydrogeological risks into the landscape and return the land use back to agricultural A1214 (3) HOC/00106/0050 Northern Extension
Costs Benefits • This part of the proposal has been • Reduce peak noise disturbance costed using HS2 Ltd data • Reduce property blight • In response to a parliamentary • Reduce visual intrusion from both the town question Frank Dobson was told the and Combe Hill Wendover Cut & Cover tunnel would • Reduce stress cost £57M to construct • This implies a cost of £48,000 per meter • Therefore 500m costs £22M A1214 (4) HOC/00106/0051 Stoke Mandeville and the Wendover Tunnels
Wendover Parish Stoke Mandeville Parish
4 2 3 1 Ellesborough Parish
Distance to corner of Proposal and portal chainage Distance to corner of Stoke Mandeville Wendover 2900m 1. Current proposal – 54.900 300m 2400m 2. Extend green Tunnel – 55.400 600m 2500m 3. Crag T3i bored Tunnel – 55,250 450m 2000m 4. Chiltern Long Tunnel – 55.800 1000m A1214 (5) plus west HOC/00106/0052 Bored Tunnel Construction Camp • The latest T3i drawing from HS2 Ltd shows a sprawling construction camp running from Nash Lee Road to Stoke Mandeville • Largest seen to date – to frighten Stoke Mandeville? • In comparison Cross rail construction camp at Westbourne Park for tunnelling operations and a railhead on the same scale looks miniscule • 20 times the size of cross rail • Need to understand why HS2 need so much land
A1214 (6) HOC/00106/0053 CLT Construction Camp
Blue = existing land take By comparison the CLT additional land take is Green = released land take quite modest A1214Red= (7) new land take for railhead HOC/00106/0054 Southern Extension – Proposal
Part 1 Part 2 • Put an enclosure over the line as it runs • The viaduct requires enhanced mitigation from Bacombe lane to the viaduct. for sound. • Length of 700m • Therefore the proposal is to put the HS2 • This will effectively make it a surface tunnel concept proposal on the viaduct. • Building techniques today will make this • Length 500m construction relatively quick and less • This will help St Mary’s Church and invasive than a cut & cover tunnel. churchyard as well as Wendover Campus • Adding a green roof to it will help it blend in School and playing fields A1214and (8) facilitate animals crossing the line. HOC/00106/0055 Southern Extension - Construction
• The construction of the surface tunnel should be relatively easy and cheap. • Once the foundations are established the preformed concrete arches can be erected very quickly. • The enclosure on the viaduct is a substantial structure however as the design is not complete and as they already have a draft concept ready then turning this into reality should not cause too many problems. • HS2 Ltd have suggested the enclosure on the viaduct will be an eyesore, we concur as would the viaduct itself be an eyesore.
A1214 (9) HOC/00106/0056 Southern Extension
Costs Benefits • HS2 Ltd estimated the southern ext. • Noise reduction would cost £40M (FOI 13-903) • Property blight • If we assume a surface tunnel costs 50% of • Health issues a Cut & Cover tunnel because you do not • St Mary’s Church have major excavation work then the • Wendover Campus school cost would be £16M • Tourism saved – longer term • The viaduct enclosure could cost up to £20M • Clearly a professional evaluation of this proposal is required A1214 (10) HOC/00106/0057 London Road/Misbourne Valley
Benefits Costs • Better noise mitigation • Costs will be about £15M • Improvement on property blight • Stop light intrusion from the pantograph • Reduced land take
A1214 (11) HOC/00106/0058 Table of Proposal
Original HS2 Proposal This proposal Cowl 100m 100m Northern Extension - 500m Original Cut & Cover 1100m 1100m Tunnel Southern Ext. Surface - 700m Tunnel Southern – viaduct - 500m enclosure London Road Surface - 600m Tunnel Cowl 100m 100m Total 1300m 3600m
A1214 (12) HOC/00106/0059 Summary
• This proposal will cost £77M
• Benefits ⁻ It will save a substantial amount of property blight ⁻ It will remove hundreds of houses from the peak noise issue ⁻ It will reduce the impact on tourism and the local economy ⁻ It will help protect St Mary’s and Wendover Campus School
• What is missing ⁻ It will not save the AONB ⁻ It will not save the Agricultural economy ⁻ It will not avoid the widespread chaos of construction so close to ⁻ the residents of Wendover ⁻ it will leave HS2 as a dominant feature and scar on the landscape
A1214 (13) HOC/00106/0060 Wendover Economics
A1214 (14) HOC/00106/0061 Property • Construction of the green tunnel will blight 2,127 properties, mostly in Wendover village and affecting the historic centre. • Operation of HS2 will continue to blight 1,950 properties - although the pattern of blight changes with the green tunnel • Estimated 1000 properties over 60 dB and about 140 over 70 dB peak • This will result in up to £124m of economic loss. • Using PWC real house price growth to 2027 (1.4% vs 6% actual in 2014) then HS2 Ltd real income growth projections, Based on SQW figures and GIS data from local authority. • Note that the loss is to the asset base of the UK economy as a whole. • A bored tunnel will save most, if not all of this amount
A1214 (15) HOC/00106/0062 Tourism value and tunnel impact
• By 2086, Wendover Tourism would have been worth £92m (2013 real money terms) to the UK economy because : - it grows in line with HS2 forecast real GDP - plus 2% premium due to its near-London and AONB location. • The local loss due to HS2 is valued at £95m (PV) with 6,300 job years lost - That is about 100 jobs/year • Some of this money will be spread out elsewhere in the UK / abroad • BUT High local job losses due to less focussed spending in the village • The long tunnel due to northern construction site and traffic, still impacts, but perhaps to a cost of £19m with less business damage A1214 (16) HOC/00106/0063 Agricultural and Land Loss in Wendover Lost output Lost land benefits Land loss con Total CFA9 £ 4.97 £ 80.77 £ 2.35 £ 88.09 CFA10 £ 6.62 £ 84.27 £ 5.43 £ 96.31 Totals £ 11.59 £ 165.04 £ 7.77 £ 184.40
• 3 Elements -Loss of land, loss of income, loss of landscape value. • What value AONB land? Intensive, flat field factory agriculture (DfT claim for AONB) Agriculture but with recreational and landscape values • HS2 needs 424 Ha in AONB during construction and 207 Ha permanently – lost output • Lost Land value based on class as “Extensive” agricultural land. As lost for ever, valued in perpetuity rather than 60 years • Land loss in construction - temporary loss of land assuming fall restoration over some years
• A Bored Tunnel removes most losses. A1214 (17) HOC/00106/0064 HS2 Cost to Wendover area & AONB Main costs Cost (NPV, Treasury and HS2 assumptions) Property -£124m Tourism -£95M Agriculture and -£184m Landscape Localised cost to -£403m Wendover
A1214 (18) HOC/00106/0065 Summary • We have explained what this project will do to Wendover - St Mary’s - Agriculture - Health - Wendover House School - Tourism - Heritage - Blight
• We have explained what the impact of noise will be
• We have explained our concerns about hydrogeology and the Wendover Arm Canal – if expensive remediation is required would it not be better spent on a bored tunnel?
• We did not ask for HS2, we get no benefit from HS2 and we believe the impacts on Wendover will be devastating.
• We just want to save Wendover – please give us a bored tunnel
A1214 (19) HOC/00106/0066 P7497 HOC/00106/0026 P7498 HOC/00106/0027 Wendover – Summary of predicted operational noise effects and impacts against options being considered Residential Non-Residential Cost +£m Bill Scheme position: Larkfield, Long Meadow St Mary’s Church as a St Mary’s Wendover House Special 0 and Cobwebs, Bacombe concert hall : Church as a School, accounting for Lane, all likely to be meeting place teaching and weekly boarding eligible for improved LAMax 65/70 dB v impact for religious of young people with protected noise insulation during level 60 or worship : characteristics : construction and Leq day 51 v impact level 50 operation. Leq day 51 dB v LAMax 66/71 dB v impact level Identified as likely impact level of of 60 as a conventional Likely to remove significant effect 50 dwelling house significant effect Leq day 53 dB v impact level of 50 for a conventional school Enhanced trackside No change LAMax 63/68 dB Leq 49 dB LAMax 62/66 dB 0.5 mitigation : existing 3 and Leq 49 dB Leq 51 dB 4 metre high noise fence barriers increased to 5 Likely significant effect Likely to Impact reduced but not metres between south caused by LAMax only remove removed portal and viaduct impact Enhanced receptor n/a Yes – likely to remove n/a Yes – likely to remove impact 0.5 mitigation feasible significant effect assuming assuming 5dB reduction 5dB reduction Tunnel extension to north No change No change No change No change 37 Tunnel extension to south Likely to remove Likely to remove significant Likely to Likely to remove impact 37 – over A413 and existing significant effect effect remove impact railway Tunnel extension to south Likely to remove Likely to remove significant Likely to Likely to remove impact 150 – under A413 and existing significant effect effect remove impact railway Note: the residential properties listed above are the only dwellings identified in the Environmental Statement for this area where maximum operational noise levels caused by the Proposed Scheme are likely to result in a significant adverse noise effect, with affected buildings likely to be eligible for improved noise insulation. See ES Vol 5 sv-001-000 and HS2 Information Paper E20 for P7495further details of the criteria and methodology. HOC/00106/0024 half a mile or one mile, but three miles. One of the things they did was that survey of agents, but they also did one of these sales prices and volume studies, page 159, and they used the Land Registry data. In this particular instance, it will have the same problem that there will be some people who won’t have crystallised the losses, which will downplay the result, and also it will have EHS cases in it. Of course, an EHS case will have been valued at full price, because the unblighted price would have been paid, so that will have lifted the figure.
149. Nevertheless, it’s quite interesting, because what it shows is that, within half a kilometre, there was actually a 6.9% fall in prices compared to five miles away, a bit like the CBRE one, an 11.2% rise. You’ve got this 18.1% effect, which interestingly is not so dissimilar from the adjusted one we had from CBRE.
150. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just interrupt for a second? Go back one page to 311(54). This is not to contradict anything that’s been said, but it’s to add to what we’ve been hearing. Can someone read out the last sentence of the conclusion, please?
151. MS CLUTTEN: Yes, of course. ‘If the experience of HS1 and other infrastructure projects which threaten to blight landscapes hold true, these markets will return to normal and the negative impact will not be as significant as feared.’
152. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The problem we’re facing is it’s particularly between now and some years after this scheme’s been concluded. It’s a transition problem.
153. MS WHARF: Except that of course PwC didn’t feel it was quite like that. Different people come up with different –
154. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I didn’t say I was trying to contradict something; I was just trying to add.
155. MS CLUTTEN: Now, I think that covers all the actual points about the percentage of blight. There is one last point on this slide that I wanted to ask you about and that is in terms of the other points. I said earlier that they were relatively straightforward, but actually I’m not quite so sure now. There’s one that says, ‘Inertia means low take-up of schemes.’ In what context was that statement made and what does it mean?
156. MS WHARF: As I think I mentioned, two crucial assumptions in any of these
27
P7503 P7503 HOC/00106/0002 r C1 LINKING HOUSING MARK[RS HIGH SPEED 2 O Survey of Agents Compensation Schemes
e conducted a survey will continue until the route is mapped mentioned in almost every case as a among buying and lettings out in detail (there may yet be reason to consider moving away or Once the route was confirmed home agents in the vicinity of the alterations to account for engineering) not move in. One respondent said owners whose properties fall wholly or proposed route in oMer to gauge the and may continue to distort markets that this was the only factor affecting partly within the defined 'safeguarded' effect the HS2 scheme is having now for longer than is desirable. markets, implying that the effect is area (approximately 60m of the route) and expectations of how the local temporary and conditions will return to Looking ahead, respondents expected were able to serve a statutory blight notice markets are likely to behave in future. normal on completion of the line. any impact to be largely confined to a requesting the Government to purchase While the sample size is quite small !hree mile radius. There was a notable Overall, the survey results broadly the property. Statutory Blight Claims entitle the results still give an insight into the and interesting exception to this which confirm that housing markets in the the owner to the un-blighted value of market from those closest to it. revealed an expectation that residents vicinity of HS2 in Buckinghamshire their property plus ahome-loss payment The resuRs echo the experience of HS1 may move within the locality but just will be affected in a similar way of 10% of its value(up to £47,000) and in that it is the areas closest to the line further away from the line to the experience in areas close reasonable moving vests. Even though the which are mostaflected. Unlike HS1, to the HS1 route where there was owner is entitled to compensation,there There was a broad consensus that the route will not follow a motorway no additional transport benefit. is still uncertainty about how much of a about a quarter of enquiries to buy until ft approaches Birmingham so there Uncertainty is clearly a critical factor discount the blight causes. property raised questions about HS2. is potentially more to lose, but this is creating fear about the potential In the area closest to the proposed offset by more tunnelling. The tunnelling costs in terms of the levels of -., I, route, unsurprisingly, this rose to three will mitigate the effect on the landscape disruption and the eventual effect quarters. The factors of most concern after completion, but disuption from on the landscape. This uncertainty were constriction disniption, blight hom The Exceptional Hardship Scheme(EHS) construction while the work is ongoing has frozen markets to an extent and potential noise and spoiled views. In is designed for those who,for reasons of will remain. caused prices to tall in the areas terms of the effect on prices, the results exceptional hardship, have an urgent need closest to the line, as was the case The survey results suggest that the were difficult to interpret as it is sensitive to sell but have not been able to without in HS1. The fear of blight seems areas further up the route towards to the precise location. Respondents substantially discounting their property, as to have had a bigger effect on the The current proposed route comprises the following Birmingham are less likely to see an did report, however, that properties a direct result of the announcement of HS2. HS2 route, probably because, unlike broad elements: impact, which is not surprising given closest to the line wee proving difficult Qualification is on a case by case basis HS1, it does nit follow an existing which adds to the uncertainty .The same that these areas are less densely to sell. Those properties wkhin half a London terminus station at Euston; motorway. Looking ahead, the fears of ►A populated. Overall respondents mile but wdh no view of the line were uncertainties about the level discount as station Oak Common in associated with other infrastructure ►An interchange at Old were sanguine about the current estimated to have between a 5-10 per seen in Statutory Blight apply. projects turned out to be overplayed West London; effect of HS2 on the local housing cent discount. Homes vaithin half a mile and this may well turn out to be the /The main route of the high speed line. This would run in markets. Mast respondents did not with a disrupted view were discounted in West case with HS2. One quote from a tunnel from near Euston,surfacing London and think there is any effect on markets by loser to 25 per cent. leaving tunnel at Northolt until it resurfaces at an office closest to the line sums it London via a right now, with the exception of those from Apart from the areas closest to the line up well. "The number of posters/ West Ruislip. It would then proceed largely in a tunnel areas closest to the route. Here the there was little evidence that existing banners (relating to HS2] everywhere the M25 as faz as Hyde Heath. The line then continues to the uncertainty about the impact on the of partly partly residents were keen to sell. Disruption is also not helping." west Wendover and Aylesbury, in tunnel and view is paramount. This uncertainty caused by construction work was following the existing A4~3 and Chiltern Line corridor, wRh an infrastructure maintenance depot near Calvert. The next section would broadry utilise the largely preserved track bed of the former Great Central Railway, passing to the east of Conclusion Brackley before continuing in allorth-Westerly direction to pass between Kenilworth and Coventry to near Water Orton. Here the line would divide with one arm serving Birmingham city centre (partly in a tunnel and with a rolling stock depot at The experience of HSi construction Harrietsh2m ex2mple all of the risks markets in the early stages and that Heath)and the other connecting with the West teaches us some things about what are skewed to the clom~nside. seems to be the case. If the experience Washwood Coast Main Line north of Lichfield. we should expect with HS2. The of HS1 and other infrastructure projects Unlike HS1,the HS2 route does not lack of access to stations means that which threaten to blight landscapes hold follom~ a~ existing motorvaay so the risks to accommodate the routes to Leeds unlike HS1 there vas no uplift in prices true, these markets will return to normal ►Spurs to the landscape are even more negative. and Manchester; in anticipation of benefits of better and the negative impactwill not be as Undoubtedly this would lead us to / An interchange station on the outskirts of Birmingham; hansport. Instead, like the Detliny and significant as feared. expect larger effect on local housing a ►A cenVal Birmingham terminus station at Curzon Street in the Eastside regeneration area.
10/11 A311 (54) HOC/00106/0056