FOR PUBLICATION

CURRENT CONSULTATION ON THE GOVERNMENT'S HIGH SPEED TRAIN (HS2) PROPOSALS

MEETING: 1. OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY FORUM

DATE: 1.Thursday 17 th October 2013

REPORT BY: HEAD OF REGENERATION

WARD: ALL

KEY DECISION 331 REFERENCE:

FOR PUBLICATION

BACKGROUND PAPERS FOR PUBLIC REPORTS:

TITLE: 1. HS2 Phase Two Consultation Document

2. Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor Area Action Plan, Preferred Option 2012

LOCATION: 1. http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/route- consultation/document-library

2. http://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/Branches/Chesterfield/Websit e/Files/Documents/Environment/Local%20Development% 20Framework/Staveley%20Works%20Area%20Action%2 0Plan/SRVC%20AAP%20Preferred%20Option%20for%20 Publication%20Nov%202012.pdf

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To give an interim report on the government proposals for the Birmingham to Leeds high-speed rail line (HS2) published for consultation on 17 th July 2013.

1.2 To put forward for discussion elements that might be appropriate to include in the Chesterfield Borough Council response to the HS2 consultation.

NOTE: AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, APPRAISAL OF THE EFFECTS OF THE HS2 PROPOSALS IS STILL TAKING PLACE. MANY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT ARE ONLY PROVISIONAL THEREFORE, AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FINAL COMMENTARY OR ADVICE.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the report be considered.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 On 28 th January 2013 the government announced that the Birmingham to Leeds leg of the proposed High Speed Rail link would pass through the eastern part of the borough. Comments were not invited.

3.2 On 17th July 2013 the government announced the start of a formal period of public consultations about the Birmingham to Leeds and Birmingham to Manchester legs of the proposed High Speed Rail link. Responses have to be received by the government by 31 st January 2014.

3.3 The government’s consultation raises issues for several areas of the council’s activities. Since the most significant are to do with planning and development, Richard Bryant (Principal Planner, Strategic Planning and Key Sites) is co- ordinating council work and contacts to do with HS2 for the time being.

3.4 The consultation asks people to respond to nine questions. Whilst this report is not structured in that way, to have maximum effect the council’s eventual response needs to

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 broadly fit that pattern. The nine questions are attached at Appendix A.

4.0 DISCUSSION

THE ROUTE BEING PROPOSED

General 4.1 The route for the Birmingham to Leeds HS2 leg published for consultation on 17 th July 2013 is the same as that published without prior notice on 28 th January 2013, save that more detail is given about the proposals for the area at the former Staveley Works site where the maintenance depot is proposed to be located. The route as published runs on a south /north line through the east of the borough, in the valleys of the Rivers and Rother.

Markham Vale 4.2 Going south to north, the published route first enters the borough through the eastern part of the Markham Vale site, (on the side of the M1). From North East it comes on viaduct over the A632 and Buttermilk Lane (B6418) after which the line is proposed to cut straight into the old Markham Colliery South Tip.

4.3 The HS2 proposals show the line emerging from its cutting into the South Tip and going north on embankment between 12 and 16 metres above current levels across the eastern parts of plot 1 (north and central). This is where planning permission has been granted for the ‘Green Giant’ warehouse development and where the disused branch railway to Bolsover runs.

4.4 Going north from plot 1 (north) the proposed line goes on to a 540-metre viaduct that bends slightly west to cross the M1, the River Rother and the defunct branch line going to the former Seymour sidings, the Oxcroft Coal Disposal point at Stanfree and the Clowne to Creswell route.

Woodthorpe and Netherthorpe 4.5 On embankment for 150 metres, it then goes into a 950 metre cutting 12 metres deep below Bridle Road, Woodthorpe. The cutting has yet to be designed in detail, Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 but as shown now the excavation would be likely to threaten the future of two dwellings on Bridle Road. A bridge is proposed to carry Bridle Road over the cutting and maintain access to the homes at Woodthorpe Grange from the Woodthorpe direction.

4.6 The proposed line emerges from cutting north of Bridle Road at the eastern edge of the floodplain and just inside the Netherthorpe Flashes Local Wildlife Site. It goes at natural ground level for about 35 metres before going on to viaduct to head over the A619 in the open break between Lowgates and Norbriggs. Before reaching the road a branch starts to curve off to the west, again on viaduct, to access the proposed maintenance depot on the site of the former Staveley Works

Lowgates and Norbriggs to Renishaw (Maps 4 and 5) 4.7 Just north of the A619, still on viaduct, the proposed line intersects with the existing line of electricity pylons which it follows north, and the branch curving to the west goes above the north east corner of the Riverdale park homes site. On viaduct and heading due north, the main line viaduct goes across the Norbriggs Flash Local wildlife Site, which is also a Local Nature Reserve. It crosses the River Doe Lea and the old ‘puddle bank’, which is the route of the ‘Cuckoo Way’ long-distance path. The viaduct re-crosses the river and then goes on to embankment for 370 metres until it is beside the sewage works. (Map 5) By the ‘puddle bank’ crossing, the main line is joined by a branch from the west going north on viaduct, which is proposed to give access to the proposed maintenance depot on the site of the former Staveley Works, Northwards from the sewage works the proposed main line goes on to viaduct again for a short section, then reverts to embankment to cross the borough boundary near the part of Renishaw which is called ‘The Hague’. Just over the boundary in , the main line embankment then directly overlies the route of the Chesterfield Canal and cuts across the Trans-Pennine Trail (on the former ‘Beighton Line’ railway).

Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor 4.8 An 11 hectare Infrastructure Maintenance Depot is proposed on the former Staveley Works site. This will need to be Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 addressed in the emerging Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor Area Action Plan. Although an initial assessment suggests that there may be scope to accommodate the proposal alongside key planned housing and infrastructure, more information is needed about the proposed depot in order to clarify the impact.

4.9 The approach lines linking the proposed depot to the HS2 main line pass close to Lowgates and would directly affect the established park homes site there. They would also interfere with the Chesterfield Canal restoration, potential rail access to Markham Vale and the Erin landfill operation, and the potential for reinstatement of branch lines (Bolsover, Stanfree, Clowne and Creswell).

Chesterfield Canal 4.10 The proposed route would have a considerable effect on the line of the restoration of Chesterfield Canal. Within Chesterfield Borough the proposed route and link to the proposed infrastructure depot would impact on the canal at Staveley Puddle Bank; occupy the site of the proposed Hartington or Railway Lock, and cut and lie over a considerable stretch of the canal route in the Doe Lea Valley and at Renishaw and . In the short term, the proposals have thwarted the Canal Partnership’s ambitions to obtain special funding for planned improvements.

CONSULTATION TIMETABLE AND EVENTS

4.11 The current consultation started on 17th July 2013. Responses have to be received by the government by 31 st January 2014. HS2 Ltd has a website www.hs2.org.uk and the Phase 2 consultation can be found at: http://www.hs2.org.uk/developing-hs2/consultations/phase- two

4.12 Public consultation on the proposals is taking place until 31st January 2014 and comments have to be made directly to HS2 via the above website or in writing/by email to the address given on the website. Appendix A lists the nine questions around which the consultation is structured.

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 4.13 Paper copies of the proposals can be seen at the following local libraries: • Staveley • Chesterfield • Bolsover • Killamarsh • Holmewood

4.14 A series of public information days are being organised by t he HS2 consultation team. Locally these will take place at: • Meadowhall Shopping Centre, on Friday 8th November from noon to 8pm and Saturday 9th November from 10am and 5pm. • Killamarsh on Thursday 14th November from noon to 8pm • Bolsover on Thursday 28th November from noon to 8pm • Staveley on Friday 29th November from noon to 8pm

4.15 These details have been put on the council’s website at: http://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/HS2-1163.html to help users seeking information about the proposal and to encourage interested parties locally to have their say.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND EFFECTS

General 4.16 Taken together, the proposals have the potential to impact adversely upon existing settlements, individual homes, farms, businesses and Local Wildlife Sites in the east of Chesterfield borough, presenting only a few opportunities for positive enhancements.

Long term economic benefits 4.17 On its website at: http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts- figures/regeneration-hs2 HS2 Ltd says: “Phase Two of HS2 will help to support the creation of some 60,000 jobs in the cities of the Midlands and the North. Up to 10,000 jobs are anticipated in construction; 1,400 in operation and maintenance jobs; and almost 50,000 supported around the proposed stations. Overall the Government estimates that

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 the HS2 network will support over 100,000 jobs across Britain.” “These estimates capture only the effects of HS2 immediately around the stations and in the design and construction of the network. The full benefits in terms of employment are likely to reach much further into the great cities of the Midlands and the North.”

4.18 HS2 Ltd also maintains that the Birmingham-Leeds leg will generate:

“Station-supported employment: Hub 1,500- 1,600 jobs; Sheffield Meadowhall 4,000-5,400; Leeds New Lane 13,200-19,700 Station-supported housing: East Midlands Hub 150-800; Sheffield Meadowhall 250-300; Leeds New Lane 1,700- 2,400” 4.19 HS2 Ltd says that, when completed, the project will free-up space for freight on the ‘classic’ (existing) rail network and that it will make more space available on those ‘classic’ lines for passenger services . “The new high speed rail lines will take long distance services off existing north-to-south lines, transforming the UK’s rail infrastructure and making room for faster, more frequent local services.” 4.20 Both the present and the previous government have followed these arguments and have supported the project in the belief that its lo ng term economic benefits will be worth the costs. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils have commissioned economic consultants Volterra to assess the economic effects of both the East Midlands station proposed for Toton and the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot proposed for Staveley. The results of that study will probably not be known until December. As it happens, Volterra has just published an up-beat economic assessment of the overall HS2 project , which takes a positive view about evidence of the ‘multiplier effects’ of large-scale expenditure on infrastructure, whilst acknowledging that forecasting such effects is always an imprecise business.

Potential noise and other environmental impacts

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 4.21 The designers have evidently done their best to avoid direct effects on built development, and it appears that only a small number of existing properties within the borough (mostly dwellings) will have to be demolished, or will be so close to the proposed line that only extreme sound-insulation will be able to make life supportable and then only indoors. Two dwellings on Bridle Road, Woodthorpe, are very close to where a cutting is proposed. On the south side of Worksop Road (A619), the last property in Norbriggs before the River Doe Lea will within about 50 metres of the viaduct carrying the railway.

4.22 Also on Worksop Road, where the proposed line crosses above the road, a branch line is proposed westwards towards the intended Infrastructure Maintenance Depot. The curve of the viaduct taking the branch away from the main line crosses the north eastern corner of the Riverdale Park Homes Site at Lowgates. It seems likely that some of these Park Homes would become uninhabitable in this location, but it is not known how many, or whether they could be moved to an alternative site. Planning officers have discussed the implications with the owner/operators of the site, but have not yet met residents.

4.23 The council’s Environmental Health officers say that the HS2 report about the noise implications of the proposals is based on modelling and assumptions about existing conditions. (See comments at Appendix C to this report). The HS2 work assesses a corridor 3 kilometres either side of the main line.

4.24 As one would expect, properties close to the line and on the hillsides next to it are those judged likely to be adversely affected, with a noise increase to over 50dB(A) that would exceed the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended limit for outdoor sound level. These properties include much of Long and Duckmanton, all of , Woodthorpe, Norbriggs and Mastin Moor and most of Lowgates and Netherthorpe and the Hartington Estate. Staveley Town Centre is also likely to be affected. The noise implications of the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot north of Staveley do not appear to have been separately assessed.

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 4.25 At this stage very few details have been given about the measures to be taken to reduce the impact that railway noise will have on its surroundings, or the harm that the construction work may do to biodiversity, archaeology, landscape and so on. Measures of this kind are usually termed ‘mitigation’. The HS2 noise report does refer to some mitigation works being feasible and models those effects for about half of the main line within the borough and for a further small stretch just to the south, in North East Derbyshire. No detail of any of these possible mitigation works is available, however.

4.26 Vibration is likely to be a concern where sections of line are to be in tunnel. No sections of this kind are proposed in the borough. Air quality is not thought to be a concern.

4.27 Taking a larger view of the environmental effects, one of the biggest impacts of the proposed scheme will be the effect on the landscape setting of the Rivers Doe Lea and Rother. Embankments and viaducts and potential screening works will all affect the historic settings of the Chesterfield Canal (as well as Hardwick Hall, Hall and Bolsover Castle).

4.28 Other aspects of environmental concern include immediate disruption of biodiversity resources (Doe Lea Flash close to Poolsbrook, Netherthorpe Flashes and Norbriggs Flash (also a Local Nature Reserve). Significant industrial archaeology will also be lost in the context of the Chesterfield Canal, (handiwork of the canal pioneer Brindley). Representations need to be lodged with HS2 seeking enhancement and damage limitation for all affected features of this kind in the borough.

Effect on regeneration schemes now and in the future 4.29 Three major regeneration projects which are part of the council’s Core Strategy are currently directly compromised by the proposals and two are already experiencing blight as a result. The three projects are: o Markham Vale scheme and Enterprise Zone o Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor Area Action Plan o Chesterfield Canal

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 Markham Vale scheme and Enterprise Zone 4.30 The HS2 scheme is already having a blighting effect on the Markham Vale scheme and Enterprise Zone (EZ), because the line and structures proposed would take out of employment use a substantial area of the committed scheme, and deny use of all the plots within Chesterfield borough able to take very large buildings (one such plot would remain untouched in ). The plots in question represent the main sites included in the designated EZ, within which it is possible to offer ERDF incentives for development.

4.31 On plot 1 (just north of where the old Markham Colliery headstocks stood) planning permission has already been granted for the ‘Green Giant’ development, which is the main large site currently ready to develop on Markham Vale, and is in a prime location next to the motorway. The HS2 proposals would reduce the area available for this committed development, taking up a strip along the eastern part of the site. Announcement of the HS2 proposals has blighted the project and the single enquiry received from a potential occupier this year has been that from the Department of Transport regarding temporary use as a construction camp for the ‘Managed Motorway Scheme’ improvements to the M1. Markham Vale Ltd and the developers Henry Boot have been in direct talks with HS2 Ltd about the situation.

4.32 The HS2 proposal proposes a cutting into the old Markham Colliery South Tip between the ‘Green Giant’ site and Buttermilk Lane. From North East Derbyshire it comes on viaduct over the A632 and Buttermilk Lane (B6418) after which the line is proposed to cut straight into the old tip. This well-vegetated spoil heap currently screens parts of Markham Vale out of the view from Bolsover Castle. The spoil heap also contains heavily contaminated waste The 2008 MEGZ Reclamation Strategy Report for Phase 1B and 1C (page 218) indicates that the phenolic contaminants in the tip are likely to be the result of “disposal of liquid waste from the Coalite Chemical Works.” Figure ES/06 in the 2008 report shows the locations of buried disposal lagoons within South Tip. It would seem that HS2Ltd may not be aware of the extent of this contamination.

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 4.33 Several former railways run through the Markham Vale scheme, connecting to the existing network at Barrow Hill. The current HS2 proposals sever all these routes, denying transport options which may be required in the future. These old lines have presented developers with the option of serving Markham Vale sites by rail. Other options include the possibility a passenger halt in the Seymour Junction area, and in the longer term, passenger routes through to Bolsover and/or Clowne and Creswell. Freight routes to the former Oxcroft Coal Disposal point at Stanfree and to the former Coalite works are also options. Rail access to the adjoining Erin Waste Disposal Site (between Poolsbrook and Duckmanton) has been under active discussion with the operators. The council’s response to HS2 needs to draw attention to the potential which would be negated.

4.34 The decision to grant planning permission for the Markham Vale employment development (or MEGZ as it was known then) was taken in 2003. The project was a key part of the 2006 replacement local plan adopted in 2006, as it is in Local Plan Core Strategy the council adopted in July 2013. There has been substantial national investment in it, with construction of the new motorway junction 19A, and large sections were awarded Enterprise Zone status earlier this year alongside other parts of Sheffield City Region. With this background, it would make sense for the council to make strong representations seeking alternative designs, or realignment of the HS2 proposal. Compensation of some kind might also be requested for the costs of delaying this key regeneration scheme that is of sub-regional significance.

Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor Area Action Plan 4.35 Proposals for the HS2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot north of Staveley bring with them the risk of ruining a key project that the council has long striven to achieve. At the same time the proposals could possibly represent a practical alternative option (depending on what variations HS2 is prepared to offer and what further research reveals). At this stage further evidence is being sought (see above under ‘Further Research’)).

4.36 An Area Action Plan for regeneration of the former Staveley Works and associated land was proposed by the council in Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 the replacement local plan adopted in 2006, but no delivery date was set on it because parts of the land were still in use. Survey and issues and options work has gone on since and in 2012 a draft Area Action Plan was published for public comment , finding wide support. The regeneration detailed in that draft is included in the adopted Core Strategy (2013) which also gives the project ‘strategic site’ status. As such, it is integral to the Core Strategy, being intended to supply sites for 2000 new dwellings by 2031, together with employment development, green infrastructure, a local centre and elements of the Staveley Regeneration Route.

4.37 The HS2 proposal to site an Infrastructure Maintenance Depot within the strategic site brings an entirely new factor to an equation for which a solution appeared to have been found. If 11-hectares of the Staveley Works site are denied for housing development the viability of the whole project needs to be re-evaluated. At the same time the potential benefits of having a developer already identified, taking on a substantial portion of a regeneration site, are well understood. An additional difficulty of the proposal as currently proposed is the fact that it makes no allowance for construction of the Staveley Regeneration Route, required as part of the future overall scheme of development in the area. Also unknown is the extent to which the regeneration route could be delivered as part of the access to the infrastructure maintenance depot.

Chesterfield Canal 4.38 The adverse impacts on full restoration of the Chesterfield Canal of the proposed HS2 line and Infrastructure Maintenance Depot have been documented in detail by the Chesterfield Canal Trust . From0 the borough council’s point of view these adverse impacts will be damaging a regeneration project which it has supported and helped to progress over a period of at least 30 years. In terms of the recently adopted Core Strategy, regeneration of the canal has a role that fulfils many of the plan’s objectives simultaneously, regarding sustainable transport, health, green infrastructure, biodiversity, tourism and major selling- point for the Waterside project. To sever the historic route just east of the new Staveley Town Basin and to rule out restoration of navigation along the Renishaw and Killamarsh Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 stretches would be to negate a large part of that potential and to downgrade the value of what has been achieved so far. Further damage would also result to community development, since the project has seen enormous ‘capacity building’ and direct empowerment through what has been achieved by a large network of volunteer workers and local supporters over an extended period.

4.39 Set against the potential harms just listed, judicious redesign of the HS2 project could deliver many positive improvements and help secure some of the missing links that currently deny continuous navigation from the Trent to Chesterfield. Indications are that the HS2 team is now much better briefed in this respect and there is cause for optimism that positive alternatives may be within reach as a result of the consultation. The arguments need to be maintained in the council’s response and other partners (both within Derbyshire and within Sheffield City Region) need to be alerted to the potential devaluation of this asset.

Effect on capacity and services on the existing ‘classic’ rail network 4.40 Theoretically the diversion of some future passenger traffic on to HS2 will free-up space for freight on the ‘classic’ (existing) rail network and free-up seats on passenger services on those ‘classic’ lines. Some commentators claim that this will not happen, maintaining that :1) reductions in ‘classic’ (existing) rail network investment has been factored in to the HS2 funding package and into the cost-benefit analysis; 2) current ‘classic’ rail services will be rescheduled to stop at more stations and have longer journey times; 3) electrification of the Midland Mainline route as far north as Sheffield will not now take place.

4.41 The last of these three claims has been denied by government spokesmen. Sheffield City Region LEP has commissioned a study of the likely effects on the ‘classic’ rail services and network. This is being undertaken at the moment and is expected to be available to partners by the end of November. Whatever evidence comes out of the study, it would be appropriate for the borough council to do all it can to argue that the current levels of service should be maintained. Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013

Further Research 4.42 As mentioned directly above, Sheffield City Region (SCR) LEP has commissioned a study of the likely effects on the ‘classic’ rail services and network in this area. At the same SCR LEP has also commissioned a study on the connectivity of the proposed station at Tinsley (near Meadowhall). This work will help SCR partners wanting to make sure the proposed station truly serves as much of the city region as possible and that the benefits are as far-reaching as possible.

4.43 Again, as mentioned above, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils have commissioned economic consultants Volterra to assess the economic effects of both the East Midlands station proposed for Toton and the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot proposed for Staveley. Delivery of this report will help this council to gauge the likely costs and benefits of the depot in the context of the plans already drawn up for the site’s redevelopment. Derbyshire County Council is also undertaking design work on the eastern end of the Staveley Regeneration Route. Improved detail of the way that options for achieving this highway proposal (linking from the Hall Lane roundabout through to Works Road) could be realised will help in assessing better options for the footprint of the proposed depot. At the same time the landowner (Chatsworth Settlement Trust) is commissioning work from consultants to explore the parameters of the depot design and to see if alternatives can be found which provide a better match with the objectives of the Area Action Plan. It is to be hoped that the findings of these studies can be shared and combined to inform the comments that all parties make about the HS2 proposals. To date the borough council has not agreed to contribute to any of these studies, but it may be appropriate to do so to secure timely delivery. Again, on present estimates, the work is unlikely to be completed much before the end of November.

Arrangements to Finalise Response 4.44 A series of discussions with ‘fellow traveller’ organisations has been undertaken by officers and is continuing. This is intended to achieve a CBC response to the consultations which finds as much support as possible from other Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 consultees locally and in the city region. The organisations in questions are chiefly: • Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership • Staveley Town Council • Brimington Parish Council • Chesterfield Canal Partnership • Derbyshire County Council • North East Derbyshire District Council • Bolsover District Council

4.45 The proposed timetable of reports is as follows: • Overview and Scrutiny Forum 17 th October 2013 • Corporate Issues Group 4 th November 2013 • Cabinet 3 rd December 2013 • Additional Cabinet Report (if required) 14 th or 28 th January 2014

It may only be necessary to make a single report to Cabinet, particularly if the main issues have been bottomed at the point when a report is made. Should that not be the case, a second report may be necessary to seek approval for the finalised response from Cabinet in January.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES

4.46 As mentioned throughout this report, conclusions are interim only and the results of further are awaited. The main issues identified so far can be summarised, however, and grouped as follows:

 Benefits of the HS2 scheme overall at regional and national scales.  Environmental impacts for residents of Chesterfield borough adjoining the proposed line and depot.  Adverse effects of HS2 main line on Markham Vale Enterprise Zone (particularly the direct impact on the ‘Green Giant’ planning permission and the future Seymour Junction sites).  Risks inherent in disturbing South Tip and its loss as a landscape screen in the view of Markham Vale from Bolsover Castle.

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013  Loss of potential rail connections to Erin landfill void south of Poolsbrook, to Markham Vale railhead(s), and to Bolsover, Stanfree and Clowne as long term options.  Adverse effects on Riverdale Park Homes Site (Lowgates) resulting from southern approach line to rail depot proposal.  Economic significance of 11-hectare rail depot proposal at Staveley Works site and potential clash with Staveley and Rother Valley AAP as published 2012 in terms of overall project viability and impact on housing delivery borough-wide.  Impact of proposed rail depot and approach lines on residents of Hartington Estate and Barrow Hill.  Adverse effects of rail depot proposal on planned infrastructure required for regeneration of Staveley and Rother Valley Corridor.  Landscape impact of embankments and viaducts (together with the nature of screening works and landscaping) on the setting of Rivers Doe Lea and Rother and the Chesterfield Canal.  Impact of proposed HS2 main line and rail depot approach lines on reinstatement of Chesterfield Canal navigation.

5.0 RISK CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 There are no risk implications arising from the contents of this report.

6.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from the contents of this report.

7.0 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 There are no legal implications arising from the contents of this report.

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 8.0 EQUALITIES CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 There are no equalities implications arising from the contents of this report.

9.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.2 That the report be considered.

10.0 REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

10.1 To comply with the requirements of the council’s Overview and Performance Scrutiny function.

You can get more information about this report from Richard Bryant (01246-345790) or Alan Morey (01246-345371).

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 APPENDIX A

Responding to the consultation QUESTIONS PUT AS PART OF THE CONSULTATION

FROM Phase Two Consultation Summary on line at: http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/route-consultation/document-library A hard copy of the response form is included in the consultation summary document. Paper copies are available from DfT publications (Tel: 0300 123 1102, online: www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications ).

“ The consultation is open to everyone. This consultation seeks views on the proposed line of route from the West Midlands to Manchester and from the West Midlands to Leeds, both of which are set out in Part 2. Views are also being sought about the sustainability impacts, how the potential released capacity generated by HS2 could be used and the opportunities to introduce other utilities along the line of route.

The questions on which the Government is seeking views are set out below. In each case, the Government is interested in whether or not you agree with its proposals and why, as well as any additional evidence that you feel it should consider in reaching its final decisions.

Questions This consultation is seeking your views on the following questions:

(i) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between the West Midlands and Manchester? This includes the proposed route alignment, the location of tunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the high speed line will connect to the West Coast Main Line.

(ii) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for: a. A Manchester station at Manchester Piccadilly? b. An additional station near Manchester Airport?

(iii) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the western leg between the West Midlands and Manchester?

(iv) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between West Midlands and Leeds? This includes the proposed route Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 alignment, the location of tunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the high speed line will connect to the East Coast Main Line.

(v) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for: a. A Leeds station at Leeds New Lane? b. A South Yorkshire station to be located at Sheffield Meadowhall? c. An East Midlands station to be located at Toton?

(vi) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the eastern leg between the West Midlands and Leeds?

(vii) Please let us know your comments on the Appraisal of Sustainability (as reported in the Sustainability Statement) of the Government’s proposed Phase Two route, including the alternatives to the proposed route?

(viii) Please let us know your comments on how the capacity that would be freed up on the existing rail network by the introduction of the proposed Phase Two route could be used?

(ix) Please let us know your comments on the introduction of other utilities along the proposed Phase Two line of route?

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013

Ways to respond The consultation starts on 17 July 2013 and closes at 1700 on 31 January 2014. Please ensure that your response is sent to us by this date. Online: You can submit your response online through the HS2 Ltd website: www.hs2.org.uk By response form: You can complete the response form and send it by post to the address below. You can request a copy by calling the document order line on 0300 123 1102 or by ordering online at www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications Email: You can email your response to: [email protected] By post: You can post your completed response form and any additional information relevant to your response to: Freepost RTEL-YAZX-HAZT Phase Two Route Consultation PO Box 1152 HARROW HA1 9LH

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 APPENDIX B

MAPS (SIX AT A4, COLOUR)

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 APPENDIX C

INITIAL COMMENTS ON HS2 REPORT CONCERNING NOISE FROM COUNCIL’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Existing noise data

It seems that, despite the initial plans, there were no existing noise level surveys carried out (BDC also had their visit cancelled). Instead the document specifies that the modelling uses a minimum level of 45dB(A) as a level averaged over the full period (18 hours from 06:00-24:00). In effect this assumes a background level of 45dB (A) across the whole of the length of the line study area (i.e. the proposed route and a corridor 3km on either side). This may well be an appropriate assumption, given that the line follows the general route of the (at least in this area)

The model uses data from the TGV as operated by SNCF, and with a maximum line use of 20 train movements along the line per hour (i.e. 360 trains per day - 18 hours from 06:00 to 24:00)

Noise assessment criteria

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that the outdoor sound level should not exceed 50dB(A), in order to protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed. The assessment uses this as a guide and defines a Noticeable Noise Increase as causing rail noise of greater than 50dB(A), with an increase over existing background (as assumed above) of 3dB(A).

Where the levels reach 68dB (A), and are within 300m of the track properties would be eligible for additional noise insulation.

A high noise level exposure criterion is also used for properties expected to exceed 73dB(A)

Modelling results

The report assesses that adversely affected areas will be in Poolsbrook, Netherthorpe, Woodthorpe, and Mastin Moor.

If there are no mitigation measures taken (and the report is vague about what these would be - it mentions additional barriers, if possible), the following properties are identified:

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013

The Grey areas have increased noise levels (i.e. above 50dB). The Yellow areas would be eligible for additional noise insulation. The Red property is identified as suffering the high noise level. The Green boundary identifies areas where noise mitigation is assessed. If these steps are taken the following is the result:

Only a single property would be eligible for additional noise insulation, and the area of annoyance is reduced.

Vibration

Vibration is also discussed, with emphasis on tunnelled sections of line. Some 7300 properties are assessed as possibly being affected, but no information is given on locations.

Staveley Depot

The proposed Staveley depot does not appear to have been included in the modelling exercise, but the report mentions that where tight curves are used there is the potential for squeal from Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013 the wheels. I would assume that the depot will be a 24hr operation, and traffic into and from the depot would be expected to happen mainly during the night to maximise utilisation of the high speed route during the operating period of 06:00 to 24:00.

Steve Payne

Environmental Health Officer Environmental Protection Chesterfield Borough Council Town Hall Chesterfield Derbyshire S40 1LP

Direct Dial: 01246 345741 Email: [email protected]

Overview and Performance Scrutiny Forum th 17 October 2013