Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

on the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday 13 October 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby Mr Mark Hendrick

______

IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr Timothy Mo uld, QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Mark Lowe, QC, Counsel, Buckinghamshire County Council

Witnesses:

Mrs Catherine Murray, Chiltern District Council Mr Martin Tett, Buckinghamshire County Council Ms Edi Smockum, resident Mr Andy Kirkham, Aylesbury Vale District Council Mr Jonathan Bellars, Aylesbury Vale District Council Mrs Bettina Kirkham Mr Peter Miller, Environment Director, HS2 Ltd

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Buckinghamshire County Council (Cont’d) Mrs Murray, examined by Mr Lowe 3 Response from Mr Mould 8 Mr Tett, examined by Mr Lowe 16 Ms Smockum, examined by Mr Lowe 25 Ms Smockum, cross-examined by Mr Mould 28 Mr Tett, re-examined by Mr Lowe 34 Mr Tett, cross-examined by Mr Mould 38 Submissions by M r Mo uld 47 Statement from Mr Kirkham 51 Response from Mr Mould 53 Statement from Mr Bellars 56 Response from Mr Mould 57 Statement from Mr Tett 60 Response from Mr Mould 62 Mrs K irkham, examined by Mr Lowe 65 Response from Mr Mould 84 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Mould 90 Comments by Mrs Kirkham 96

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, Order. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. Welcome back, Mr Lowe. Sorry to leave you over to today, rather than last night.

2. MRS MURRAY: That’s okay: it’s a fact of life.

3. MR LOWE QC : I don’t think I need introduce Ms Murray to the Select Committee. She’s already given evidence. The slides start at A40 and A46-1. The first issue – Lower Bottom House Farm in slides 2, 3 and 4 – has been resolved with receipt of an appropriate assurance, so I shall go straight to slide 5, please. This is Potter Row, appropriate mitigation for landscape, setting and no is e.

4. I think this has given rise to a point of principle that my witness would like to explain to the Select Committee. I shall hand over to her.

5. MRS MURRAY: Thank you. C lea r ly, what I’ve been looking at since I spoke to you last time is the residual impact, given that we would have the extra tunnel up to Fr ith Hill, for which we’re very grateful. That solves a lot of the problems. We’d clearly like more tunnel; that would be the best way of solving the outstanding problems. Looking at things in the event of no tunnel, I was still struck by the outstanding impact on the farms along Potter Row and King’s Lane.

6. The slide shows that you’ve got the three of them: Berry Farm is just off to the le ft near the portal; Hammonds Hall Farm is the one I want to ta lk perhaps most about today; and Hunts Green has been sort of saved by removing the sustainable placement that was going to have swamped the fields permanently. It is, however, going to swamp it temporarily. I want to come back to that for my second point.

7. This first point about the noise is that, as things progress, it is becoming very apparent, as was said yesterday, that this is a live project. We’ve got changing details coming in. We have lots of different pressures being put on the design. I’m just anxious that the impact on the listed buildings doesn’t get lost in this. Partly because it’s an environmental impact of the noise on the way in which the building can be used in the future – rather than just the visual impact on the landscape setting.

8. The proposals, as they were originally put to us, have been modified, in that we

know there is a slightly lower alignment of the track. This has impact on the portal at Berry Farm. There is no w bunding proposed, as before.

9. MR LOWE QC: Can we go to the next slide? I think that helps in understanding that.

10. MRS MURRAY: Yes, that helps. This is one of the proposals for the way the cutting will work by Hammonds Hall Fa r m. This is one of them. This shows the way things are in a state of flux. This one shows a cutting widened so as to allow for a sound barrier – put down at the bottom of the cutting next to the track – to be 6 metres in height. And it’s proposed that this will moderate the impact down to more acceptable levels. Hammonds Hall Fa r m is s till going to be subject to moderate adverse sound impact in HS2 terms.

11. CHAIR: Can I ask Mr Mould a question? We have had this additional provision. Have the sound figures been worked out for the new trajectory of the line in that area, fo r Potter Row?

12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, they have. They’ll be published as part of the AP4 material, which I think was yesterday. They have been published.

13. CHAIR: We have them. Yes, okay, sorry.

14. MRS MURRAY: Sorry. To illustrate it further, this shows the 6 metre sound barrier at the bottom. Exhibit U, which has been published in the meantime, discussed the alternative possibility of a 3 metre sound barrier on top of the cutting, which would obviously have more impact on the setting of the listed building. Exhibit U, to quote, said it was rejected ‘due to the potential additional landscape and visual effect that this could have.’ Well, I’m now told, as of Friday, that it’s the 3 metre barrier on top that’s going to be the one despite the visual impact, because it has slightly better sound impact. I feel that I’m in a state of not knowing quite what is proposed or what the parameters will be – and wondering how to cope with this.

15. I wanted to make the point that this is particularly pertinent to listed buildings.

16. MR LOWE QC : Can we have the next slide, please?

17. MRS MURRAY: Yes.

18. MR LOWE QC : Thank you.

19. MRS MURRAY: Here’s Hammonds Hall Farm. It’s a timber-framed building, so it’s not exactly thick-walled. Lots of sound is going to go straight into it. Why are listed buildings a special case? They’re my start point. I’m pointing, eventually, to a bigger problem – b ut le t’s start with the listed buildings. If we do n’t preserve the setting, we have a potential for harm to the viability of the building. We disrupt the visual attractiveness of it and the perception of how it is sat in its rural landscape.

20. What was brought up yesterday is that it is sometimes not economic to provide mitigation to counter everything and that harm can be countered with compensation schemes for the owners. My point, as before was that the owners can go away; the listed building is left behind. Somebody – usually the District Co unc il – has to pick up the duty of making sure that it’s properly cared for.

21. MR LOWE QC : Your second bullet point draws attention to the need to keep these structures in use as homes and workplaces.

22. MRS MURRAY: Yes.

23. MR LOWE QC : Shall we go to the next slide, please?

24. MRS MURRAY: Having considered all that, I came up with the assurances that you have got in front of on this slide, both asking for a principle agreement that this will be taken account of and, also, that we would have adequate means of discussing how the solution had been arrived at and whether it was the most appropriate in terms of mitigation at the Schedule 16 stage.

25. I think I want to take it slightly on from that, because, on Friday, I was told that, yes, of course there would be the opportunity for the District Council to have sight of the proposals at the Schedule 16 stage but that we wouldn’t have sound assessments. My point is, if I am presented in a planning department with a set of plans that say, ‘These are the proposals’, how can I comment on them and ask for reasonable mitigation if I don’t have information about the anticipated sound impact on the listed building?

26. When I explained this to HS2, they said, ‘You will have it, but it’ll be at the ‘bringing it into use’ stage, which might be at a considerably later time.’ Now, a ‘considerably later time’, I take it, is when things are pretty much up and ready to go. The Council’s only allowed to contemplate refusal of bringing into use if it’s reasonable to mitigate. Is it going to be reasonable to ask for another metre of sound barrier on top of what’s already been built? I would very much doubt so. It would seem far more sens ib le to contemplate the sound impact at the design stage, when we can all debate it, debate the various options – because options there are going to be. I’m not asking for a perfect, ideal solution now. It has to be discussed, but it seems to me that we have to have enough information on the table to allow us to make the appropriate suggestions.

27. MR LOWE QC: Are you willing to enter into discussions with HS2 to try and resolve this point of principle, which presumably applies to all listed buildings along the line?

28. MRS MURRAY: Absolutely. I think it will apply further to other buildings and other principles as well, but I have come at it from the listed-building aspect. You might hear more about it when my colleagues come on to the presentation about noise in due course, later in the month, but I wanted to flag this up now because it is an issue from the heritage point of view. As always, everything is totally interlinked.

29. MR LOWE QC : Right, well, let’s go on to the next one, please, slide 9. This is Hunts Green Farm. And this is all about care in the event of a vacancy and it is a vacancy that might arise because of the temporary stockpiling during the construction phase; is that right?

30. MRS MURRAY: That’s right, yes. My slide does mention a construction route, but I’ve been assured that this is only for building a little lane to the access track over the top of the railway and won’t be a major haul route or anything. I’m really looking at the impact of covering up the land temporarily. I’m told that it will take up to four years to remove the piles and that restoration of the land will then take a further five years, which allows for a gradual scheme of re-implementation of the agricultural practice and so on.

31. We are looking at potentially five years beyond the completion of the line with work starting soon. This is 10-15 years of a farm being possibly out of action.

32. MR LOWE QC: Now, let’s look at the next slide, because I think that sets out your concerns during that period.

33. MRS MURRAY: Yes. Buildings decline if they are left empty. Why are they left empty? It’s because of the railway. There isn’t any other reason. Even if HS2 were to compensate the tenants, both can walk away. We’ve got no guarantee that would be spent on the buildings – unless we take enforcement action, it’s suggested. Enforcement action against people who have been put upon by the railway in this way seems harsh, to put it mildly, thinking of their feelings down the line.

34. MR LOWE QC: Should we look at the next slide and see what your solution is?

35. MRS MURRAY: All I want, really, is a simple assurance that HS2 have it in hand to look after buildings that are left in this predicament. I’m told there are all sorts of ways this will be catered for: compensation; HS2 could acquire it; they could let it out; they could hand it to managers, who will ensure that it is looked after. But there is no commitment, officially, anywhere to looking after these buildings – despite the statutory requirement and the desirability of preserving them. For a Government body, I think this is a little short.

36. MR LOWE QC : You want a commitment to bring back vacant listed buildings into listed use.

37. MRS MURRAY: Yes.

38. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: And to avoid deterioration, I think, as well, I think we heard.

39. MRS MURRAY: Yes, in the first place.

40. CHAIR: Thank you. Okay, did you want to ask any questions of Ms Murray?

41. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I think I can deal with this by making one or two submissions.

42. CHAIR: Okay, would you want for us to get a response from HS2 after each witness or would you prefer to have all your witnesses on to have a response at the end, Mr Lowe?

43. MR LOWE QC : No, it’s much better to know the response of other witnesses here, because the witness then probably goes away thinking that heritage is –

44. CHAIR: And they can go and have a sandwich.

45. MR LOWE QC : And I don’t have instructions.

46. CHAIR: Mr Mould, would you like to respond to the points?

47. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, thank you. Could we go back to slide 7 o f Ms Murray’s presentation and just deal with the question of noise impact? Sorry, it must be slide 6. That’s the one.

48. The AP4 proposals published yesterday contemplate two alternatives in relation to noise mitigation in the vicinity of Hammonds Hall Farm. One is that the noise fence should be within the cutting, as you see shown on the diagram in front of you; the other is that it should be placed at the top of the cutting, which I think you were shown two or three weeks ago as Exhibit U. It therefore leaves open for detailed design the further consideration as to which of those two alternatives is the one which provides the optimal attenuation for noise in the area.

49. CHAIR: And, more importantly, it allows people to petition against it.

50. MR MOULD QC (DfT): People will be able to petition; yes, exactly, sir. Whichever of those is selected, that won’t be the end of the process so far as the local planning authority is concerned, because they will be able to consider whether which of the proposed solutions in detailed design is appropriate under the aegis of their powers under Schedule 16 to the Bill.

51. Moving, then, to the next slide – yes, I think it’s the next slide; it’s the one after that, slide 8 – I’d just draw attention to Schedule 16. I won’t read out the passages because they’re tedious, but paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 empowers a relevant planning authority – and I’m going to assume for the sake of these purposes that Chiltern District Council is such an authority. It requires us to secure their approval fo r plans and specifications in relation to a number of matters, including earthworks, site noise and dust screens.

52. Under subparagraph 6 of that paragraph of the Schedule, the Chiltern District Council will have the power to refuse to approve plans and specifications for noise fences and earthworks in this area if they take the view that the works in question ought to be and could reasonably be modified firstly to preserve local amenity, which would include noise effects on people living in the area, and secondly to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest, which would include a listed building and, in particular, the visual impact of proposed structures like noise fences on the setting of such a building.

53. In order to persuade the District Council in the exercise of those powers that the proposals we put forward ought not to be refused but ought to be agreed to, it would clearly be in our interests to bring forward supporting information to demonstrate that we have investigated the likely effects on living conditions and on the setting of the listed building in question and to produce evidence to show why we have come to the view that we put forward is acceptable and ought to be approved by them.

54. So far as noise is concerned, there’s the added imperative that, as you know from yesterday and from previous debates before this Committee, under our IPE20, we have given a design commitment that we will seek, in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances, so to design the railway that the impact of its operation does not exceed the levels that are set out in the appendix to that Information Paper. That is a commitment that is binding upon us, enforceable at the behest of the Secretary of State under the undertakings, and forms part of the Environmental Minimum Requirements for the project. That sits alongside the statutory powers under the Schedule.

55. We shall need to produce evidence to the local authority in a case such as this to show that, on the basis of the predictions we bring forward, the railway is expected to perform in terms of its noise effects in accordance with those design objectives. The upshot of all that is that there will be a need to produce evidence demonstrate that to the Council, particularly in sensitive cases such as this, and the Council will have the opportunity to consider that evidence alongside its own advice from its own officers when it comes to whether it should grant approval under paragraph 3 of Schedule 16.

56. It doesn’t end there, because under paragraph 9 of Schedule 16 the Council is also given power to regulate the suitability of the mitigation works that we bring forward,

and that embraces noise mitigation, visual mitigation and so forth. Again, amongst the grounds on which the Council can consider whether it’s willing to approve such matters are impact on amenity, including visual and noise amenity, and also impact on historically and architecturally designated structures such as listed buildings.

57. The point of principle is one that the Bill faces up to and one that the Bill provides for in a way that essentially mirrors the arrangements that exist in the ordinary planning process for the detailed design stage of development schemes. We will clearly need to bring forward material to support our submissions to the Council under that Schedule when the detailed design stage arises.

58. That is, in my submission, sufficient to enable the Committee – and, I hope, the Council – to be reassured that whilst the living conditions of those living in this farm house may change – because there will be a railway and it will, as Mr Thornely-Ta ylo r has told you, undoubtedly be audible when it operates, and that will affect the noise environment of those living in it – they will be at an acceptable level and that people will not be so discouraged by the presence of HS2 that nobody will be willing to live in that property. We believe that that is an unlikely outcome of the HS2 scheme.

59. Turning to Hunts Green Farm, the concern there is, I think, that – by virtue of the use of land at Hunts Green Farm, which is within the Bill limits, for the temporary deposit of excavated material – it will impinge upon the feasibility of continuing to farm that holding and thus lead to the risk that the farmhouse is vacated by its current tenant and a new tenant is not able to be found. The relevant factors there are these: first of all, the legal liabilities in relation to the preservation of a listed building fall primarily on the freeholder – and that, of course, will not change as a result of HS2.

60. No doubt, in the case of a tenanted farmholding, the freeholder seeks to transfer those liabilities in practice to the tenant in the form of repairing covenants and so forth. In the event that the tenant quits and no replacement tenant can be found – and thus the liabilities of the freeholder are, in practice, increased, because whereas he remains legally liable he would have expected the tenant to discharge that liability in practice – insofar as his liability has increased and, therefore, he suffers injury – an increased amount of money that he has to spend on repairs as a result of the use of his land for HS2 – he will be able to make a claim for such loss under section 7 of the Compulsory

Purchase Act 1965. He will have to prove that he has suffered a loss resulting from the construction o f HS2, but in principle that remed y is available to him.

61. Behind that, of course, is the practical consideration. The project, knowing there is that risk, can be expected – acting reasonably, because it has an obligation to seek to protect the public purse from unnecessary expenses – to engage with the tenant of that holding and with the freeholder of that holding with a view to trying to avoid such a situation arising where, because of the intensity of impact of HS2, the tenant is discouraged from remaining and no replacement tenant can be found.

62. Again, under the existing law, I would submit that there is sufficient reassurance for the Committee and for Ms Murray that no specific intervention is required at this stage on behalf of the Committee. These matters were set out in a letter to the Council that we wrote on 7 October, which covered these and other heritage-related points. It’s in the pack. For the record, it’s at P8421. I don’t need to turn it up. If there are aspects of that letter that are unclear or on which Ms Murray would like further clarification or detail, we would be only too pleased to provide it.

63. CHAIR: Noise was another issue raised. Presumably, what you were saying earlier was the local authority will have noise impact on these particular buildings.

64. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, because we need to secure the approval of the local authority to our earthworks and our noise fences and so forth, one of the grounds on which they can decline to approve is where they take the reasonable view that the impacts that would result from those provisions would be unacceptable to living conditio ns. It is in our interests to provide information to them that shows we are not going to give rise to that result. We will be providing information. What form it will take I cannot say at the moment, but it will clearly have to be sufficient to enable them, sensibly, to understand it and base a decision upon it.

65. CHAIR: Mr Lowe?

66. MR LOWE QC : I’m going to ask the witness if she’s got any comments, if I may, on these points.

67. CHAIR: Okay.

68. MR LOWE QC: I’ll start with Hunts Green Farm. You can rely on the established law and landlord and tenant and the Compulsory Purchase Act, which may lead the freeholder to have compensation. What is your problem with all that?

69. MRS MURRAY: It’s a rigmarole, is n’t it? It will take place. It will be slow; it will be potentially tedious and uncertain. I think that all I’m looking for is a much more straightforward assurance that HS2, in principle, has an aim to make sure that nothing untoward happens to these listed buildings in such an event and that they will cater for it appropriately, given the best means. There’s nothing in the Bill or any of the information papers that I can find that actually categorically says they’ll do that. That’s all I would really like: something very simple.

70. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will say I give that assurance, because it is, in a nutshell, what I have sought to explain to you over the course of the last five days. I have simply set out how, in practice, under the existing law, one can expect it to be given effect.

71. MRS MURRAY: Would you email it to me?

72. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You have it on record, in Parliament.

73. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: Can I just lift something from page 119 of the petitioners’ thing just before the Promoter’s response? In 156B there’s a request on Hunts Green Fa r m, ‘To restore the listed farmhouse in an appropriate manner to good order and a habitable condition following any period of construction blight.’ That doesn’t quite bring in the operation, but if we interpret what Timothy Mould has said, that they’ll do what they can to make sure the building doesn’t deteriorate and it will be useable afterwards, as much as possible during construction as well, I think that’s roughly what we will have heard.

74. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The only point I want to make clear is that we do not seek to usurp the proprietary rights of the owner of that property. I don’t suppose the owner o f that property would wish us to usurp those proprietary rights. It is important that we do not lose sight – in our desire to do good to all parties – of the fact that there is someone with an interest here who may want to take responsibility, as far as they can, for their own destiny in that respect. My comments were made with that important

consideration in mind.

75. MRS MURRAY: Right, thank you. If we go back to the issue of the sound, I take on board what you say. I really welcome the idea that you think that sufficient information will be given to me so that I can understand it. I’m most appreciative of having it in that fo r m.

76. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Your Council – not necessarily you personally, because your interest is in heritage, but I’m sure that we’ll be looking to provide sufficient information so your colleague in the environmental health department can understand it. If we don’t do that, I would have thought we will have failed in our own objective, which is to secure a reasoned and sensible decision from your Council under its powers under paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 to the Bill.

77. MRS MURRAY: Can I just come back to you on the process? You mentioned the requirements that are part 3 of Schedule 16, which are the appearance ones, I gather. Those are the ones that will be put to us initially. I am told that I cannot recommend refusal of anything because noise wouldn’t come under the appearance. That would be part of the amenity, and that can only be dealt with under the submissions under section 9, which are to do with bringing into use. Now, am I right in understanding that?

78. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I don’t know who’s told you that, but it’s wrong.

79. MRS MURRAY: Good.

80. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I just explain? The possible grounds for a refusal are that the design or external appearance or the works ought to and could reasonably be modified to preserve the local environment or local amenity. Local amenity, as anybody who practises in the field of town and country planning knows, embraces not just visual appearance but also living conditions in terms of noise effect. Design embraces design which is for the purposes of mitigating those impacts as well as visual impacts.

81. MR LOWE QC : I think my friend and I are at one.

82. MRS MURRAY: Yes.

83. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We always are.

84. CHAIR: You have it on the record.

85. MRS MURRAY: Thank you.

86. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

87. MRS MURRAY: That’s all that I need to bother you with.

88. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.

89. MRS MURRAY: Thank you.

90. MR LOWE QC: Now, I’m going to ask the Committee to move on to the Steeple C la ydo n and Calvert mitigation plan. I have a number of witnesses dealing with Steeple Claydon, starting with Mr Tett, but can I just explain one matter that I think before we start?

91. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If it’s difficult, not to worry, but if it’s possible at some stage that would be helpful.

92. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’ll see if we can do it tomorrow morning.

93. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, thank you.

94. MR LOWE QC : You will have known that amongst our slides were a set of slides A1449 that came fro m a Mr S teve Cooper of Parsons Brinckerhoff, the engineering firm that deals in particular with rail matters. He had been commissioned by the Council to provide a report and give evidence to this Committee on the feasibility and viability of the provision of the proposed station at Steeple Claydon on the proposed East West line. That report was duly produced, and I know it was shared with HS2 at a meeting. I don’t actually have the date in front of me here. Mr Cooper then prepared his slides of evidence based on the report, and they were submitted to the Committee and HS2 in the usual way last Wednesday sometime in the course –

95. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: – line crossing the HS2?

96. MR LOWE QC: Yes, yes. And these are the slides about the viability of having a

local station at Steeple Claydon. Having submitted his evidence on the morning of last Friday, just before noon, that’s less than a full working day before the commencement of our appearance here, we were informed by Mr Cooper that he’d been instructed that he could no longer appear, as due to a very recent increased involvement of the wider WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff group in HS2’s work he was conflicted in terms of appearing before this Committee. This received a pretty robust response, as you can imagine, from the Council at that stage, at that stage, they having paid for the report and received the evidence, in which he was informed that in the Council’s view there was no conflict because this station was entirely on the East West line, and there was no criticism made whatsoever of HS2 in it, and it had no impact on the HS2 line.

97. As a result of receiving this communication Parsons Brinckerhoff then changed their mind, and later in the afternoon of Friday we were told that Mr Cooper would be here this morning and would give his evidence. Then just before noon yesterday we had a further letter from Parson Brinckerhoff, or email from Mr Cooper, saying his position had been reviewed over the weekend at an executive level and he was no longer free to appear here today, and he did not intend to appear, but he nevertheless made available to my clients a draft speaking note and a further note.

98. So I’m in this rather unusual difficulty of a witness, a professional witness, pulling out at the very last moment. There’s no possibility of us asking for an adjournment and getting someone else in, and in any event you know how difficult it is to obtain other professional advice because HS2’s web spreads so far. No criticism of them, but their influence does spread a long way. They have a lot of patronage to give. So the fruit that we have obtained after this work with Parsons Brinckerhoff has been plucked from us at the last possible moment. We may have remedies against them for breach of contract, and we will have to look at their professional obligations, but that won’t help us here. What I was going to ask the Committee, in view of this embarrassment to my clients and particularly to the local residents of Steeple Claydon, is that since the evidence has been submitted, Parsons Brinckerhoff have not applied to this Committee to withdraw it, they’re merely not coming here to speak to it, that you could at least receive it as a document and I could show you its principle points in the course of giving the evidence on Ste ep le C la ydo n

99. CHAIR: Fine.

100. MR LOWE QC : Thank you.

101. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The normal response of a Committee is to send the clerk to the Serjeant at Arms to go and bring in the person who hasn’t turned up, but I don’t think you can do that.

102. MR LOWE QC: I thought I could ask for something nice and dramatic like that, but I didn’t know it was going to assist our case very much.

103. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It did happen with Arthur Scargill some years back.

104. CHAIR: Some of us have driven past the site, and so we did a visit to that area.

105. MR LOWE QC: What view the Committee decide to take of this I leave entirely to them, but we’re not pressing any particular form of action.

106. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mark, could I just say something?

107. MR LOWE QC : Yes, of course.

108. MR MOULD QC (DfT): May I just say, sir, I looked at the slides when I received them last week. I haven’t received any instructions that we were concerned about any conflict of interest. No doubt if there were such concerns I would have been so instructed, and so I have no objection whatsoever to Mr Lowe relying on these slides as part of his presentation today.

109. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. Well, I’ll now proceed to the presentation, and I go first to Mr Tett, and they are A1447.

110. MR TETT: Thank you very much, Mr Lowe. I love our ancient traditions. I just had a mental picture of people being escorted in chains here. Gentlemen, thank you very much again for this opportunity to appear before you. Two things: first of all I’m sure in your deliberations over recent months you’ve heard many communities come before you who have pleaded their cases in terms of the detriment that HS2 is to their local community. I don’t in any way detract from any of the previous appearances you’ve had here. Every community is affected along that route to a greater or lesser extent. I am here to talk specifically about what I believe is a grouping of villages and hamlets who are probably, bar none, the most directly impacted and the most

detrimented of any communities on the London to Birmingham route. That is the series of communities clustered around the Steeple Claydon village in the Aylesbury Vale area.

111. What I intend to do is present to the Committee my case in terms of the detriment and very much the tipping point that HS2 represents to this community, to list six key asks in terms of the local community, which they believe would in some way go towards ameliorating the impact of HS2 in that area, and I will on each of them, having briefly summarised them in advance, some I will tackle myself but some I will also hand over to expert witnesses. And I’m very pleased to say that I’ve had excellent support here from our colleagues in Aylesbury Vale District Council, who will appear on two of the points, and indeed all of the parish councils in the area, who have all written in support of this particular petition to yourselves.

112. So if we start by going to slide 22, Members may recall that during their visit, those that were on the visits last year, there were a number of stops on the Calvert and Steeple Claydon area. What I intend to show you in a series of build slides is the cumulative impact of the significant amount of infrastructure that will be in that area progressively over about the next 10 years. The area at the moment is one of the most rural and unspoilt areas in Aylesbury Vale, and indeed one might say particularly in the south of England. It has incredibly beautiful countryside, amazingly dark skies at night, and it is a cluster of almost picturesque villages. What you have at the moment therefore is an unspoilt landscape by and large.

113. If we move now to slide 23, I have to claim responsibility for the first detriment to this community. I own up to it. We have procured an energy-fro m-waste plant that occupies an area to the south of Calvert Green. In partial mitigation of that we’ve also built a new road that relieved traffic through that area, and that links down to the A41. It is a sizeable plant in terms of height, but it’s a relatively small footprint in the locality, and it is obviously not immediately adjacent to Calvert Green itself.

114. If we move to slide 24, the next major feature is East West rail, which is a scheme the Government is sponsoring. It’s about £500 million. It will initially link Oxford ultimately to Cambridge, but it will also ultimately go down to Southampton and provide a link into the national rail network. It is a scheme that the locality and the

County Council has supported, but we recognise again that this is a significant impact on the local community, removing what’s been effectively a derelict rail track and reinstating it.

115. If we move to slide 25, what you see now is the permanent infrastructure that’s currently proposed by HS2. I haven’t yet put the line on the track, but what you’ll see is there is an infrastructure maintenance depot proposed. Members may recall that we actually walked partially round this site. It is an extremely large piece of infrastructure. It will stretch right the way along underneath Steeple Claydon for several miles. This is a very, very significant piece of infrastructure. It’s going to cover 37 hectares as a permanent infrastructure, and nearly twice that during construction. This is a massive undertaking. It dwarfs Steeple Claydon village and clearly brings no local benefit whatsoever to the area, and I can answer questions on employment if we want to come onto those later, but in the locality it brings no benefit.

116. There is also a massive spoil tip proposed in the area. This is at somewhere called Shepherd Furze Farm. Again, the Committee drove past that on their coach visit, and it was the area off to the left. This is again a massive piece of land, and we’re talking here about the deposit of up to 1 million cubic metres of spoil. The site will be something like 800 metres long, 600 metres wide and 5 metres high. This will result in the loss of a substantial area of agricultural land in an agricultural area. It is also, as I shall refer to later, less than one mile from the FCC waste site, which is just north of the EfW site that I have in blue on the map.

117. If we add in, on slide 26 – oh, sorry, I have down another slide, but there we go, but basically what we have – sorry, if I go to slide 2. I apologise. I understand why that mistake was made. If we add in the temporary land take during construction you will see that the impact on the area bound broadly by Chetwode in the north through Steeple Claydon, Twyford, Calvert, Edgcott is very extensive. Most of this area will be bisected, both by East West rail but also, much more permanently, by HS2. And as far as the local community is concerned all of this infrastructure brings absolutely no local benefit. There is no station. There is no connectivity from it. It actually gives a non- transferable job loss to the area where farmers are taken out of business, and they will not be able to adequately recover that land subsequently.

118. Most importantly, and I’ve walked this area extensively, it severs natural communities. What you have here is a cluster of villages and hamlets where in fact they’re based on a hub basis around Steeple Claydon. What you have is, for example, the main doctors’ surgery is in Steeple Claydon, so if you want to go to the doctors you have to access Steeple Claydon from Calvert or Twyford or the other surrounding villages there. If you want to go to the library, that’s in S teeple C laydon. If you want to go to the Post Office, that’s in Steeple C laydon. If you want to go to the dentist, that’s in Steeple Claydon. If you want to go to the local Co-op store, which is the main supermarket in the area, guess where that is? Steeple Claydon. If you want to take money out, the ATM is in S teeple C laydon. If you want to access your schools, Steeple Claydon. If you want to access even a takeaway meal in the evening it’s in Steeple Claydon. So the breaking up of that web of connectivity has quite a severe impact on the local residents of this area, and again it’s something that, you know, I’m sure in technical terms, HS2 will say, you know, ‘Well, what’s the problem?’, but for ordinary human beings, for real people on the ground, this is a massive loss of community and the major social networks that they have around this area.

119. So if I now take us to slide 3, just to put all of the infrastructure in perspective, because I’m sure Mr Mould will want to draw our attention to the fact that there’s already East West rail and the EfW plant, as I’ve pointed out to you, we looked at the cumulative impact of the projects in the area in terms of land take, and this is after construction. This is not during construction phase where you saw all the purple on the previous map. This is the permanent infrastructure that will be left in the area as a legacy from HS2, and what we’re seeing here is that 85% of the land affected by the projects in this area is attributable to HS2. That is significantly higher, as you can imagine during construction it’s well up into the 90s, but just to be fair to everybody concerned we’ve only looked at the permanent land take here. There will obviously be a significant amount of temporary land take, and again I’ve detailed that on the chart in front of you.

120. If we move now to slide 4, I’ve no intention of reading this slide to you. I’m sure Me mbers have more than had the chance to read that, but I would also just remind you again during our visits we noted what an enormous recreational area this was. This is an area based around recreation and leisure pursuits, where people come from a very wide

area to enjoy those benefits. In the area there is the Great Moor Sailing Cub, there is the Claydon House, which is a National Trust property. It’s the home of Flo re nce Nightingale. It has something like 30,000 visitors a year. It has links with a large number of local schools. School children come to the site to actually learn about Flo re nce N ightingale and the nursing profession. There’s the Jubilee Lake SSSI that’s owned by the Wildlife Trust. There’s Sheephouse Wood, SSSI. There’s Finemere Wood, SSSI, which is home to one of the best collection of native butterflies in the country, and there’s Decoy Pond, ancient woodland as well, and it’s also on the national cycle route 51, which traverses the area. So this is an area that relies very heavily on tourism and leisure for its local economy, which again for the local people they’re very concerned that people will avoid this area for a period of up to 10 years while this construction takes place.

121. If we move now to the next slide, 5. I’m just going to remind Members of the area. You did visit it and there were a large number of stops in this area, in fact quite disproportionate just to the length of the route, and I think that demonstrated the acute sensitivity of the environment in this area. There were no less than 16 stops by the Committee on their coach on their first visit round in this particular area, and you had the opportunity to meet many of the local people, who I know expressed those concerns to you very personally, and they’re very grateful to you for your interest.

122. We move now to slide 5. Sorry, slide 6, I apologise. What we have from HS2 is what I would describe as a fairly mundane, technical response to these issues. I understand entirely as engineers what they’ve done is they’ve looked at an issue, they’ve given us a very routine, mundane technical response in terms of mitigation. However, our contention is that none of the proposals counter the cumulative detriment in the area. There is no adequate community gain. There’s strong feeling in the area, and we have run a large number of public events in the area. We’ve run three major workshops with all of the parish councils and local stakeholder groups, and two very well attended public meetings in the area.

123. Their view is they want to see some form of better mitigation, and they also would ask the Committee for significant tangible benefits. They want to maintain the connectivity between their villages and hamlets. They want to see the recreation use of the area maintained as far as possible. They want to see the rural economy maintained

as far as possible, particularly the farming aspect of it, and they want to see the local environment protected. So we believe none of those aspects – although technically I understand why they’ve been put forward, adequately meet the needs of the local community.

124. If we move on to slide 7, this has been an area, as I said just now, where we’ve had extensive community engagement. I have believed, and I know I’ve been supported by our colleagues in our district councils, that it is important that the local community has a big say in determining what is right, what is wrong and what they’re looking for. That is why these six major asks are based very much on community build up rather than us dictating to the local community what we feel would be good for them. There will also be appearances on our behalf on both transport and noise, and these are separate petitions which will be brought before you, I believe in the next few days, but the area is obviously affected very significantly on transport and noise grounds as well.

125. What I’m going to do now is just very briefly summarise the six asks, and then I will go to deal with each separately in turn. So in terms of the asks, what we’re asking fo r is to relocate the proposed FCC rail sidings, and I’ll show you on a map in a moment where they are, to remove the spoil tip at Shepherds Furze Farm, to provide a new unmanned station on the East West rail line to provide both connectivity but also to facilitate a more sustainable means of bringing workers to the site of the infrastructure maintenance depot.

126. We move to the next slide. Residents are very concerned about the impact of the proposed lighting of the depot on the current dark skies nature of that area. They’d like to see revised screening proposals, particularly from the southern aspect, to shield the IMD from some of the local communities, and they’re looking for the connectivity in the area to be both maintained and preferably enhanced. So we’re looking for commitments from HS2, hopefully via your Committee, on each of those points.

127. If we move now to slide 9, I’ll deal first with the relocation of the rail sidings, and it might help actually if we go straight to slide 10, and I will talk through the points with the map in front of you, which will help, I suspect. What you have on the map in front of you shows that the sidings which are currently alongside the FCC tip are proposed to be moved further north. The current sidings are in green, whereas the new proposed

sidings are in red, and what will happen there is that they will impact quite directly on Calvert village. There’s Calvert Green just near the top purple left hatching there, which is a small hamlet, and then there is a larger housing estate which is shown again just slightly below that to the left. The rail sidings will be very near those houses. It’s a very close correlation between where the sidings are and those properties. It also demolishes much of an ancient woodland, and also a local wildlife site that are actually located in that area. Residents are very concerned about the noise and the visual impact.

128. It’s going to be on an embankment. That means it requires an overbridge across HS2 and East West rail. We believe that overbridge will be something like 15 metres high, so will be extremely visually intrusive into the area. And it will also require a very large number of lorry movements, because the waste that comes out predominantly from London to Calvert comes into those sidings, it’s offloaded, it’s then transported by lorry to the waste site, which is shown on the map in the large boxes just below the red sidings that you can see, but the active waste site is further down near the blue EfW site.

129. The relocation of the sidings, we would argue, have not been properly thought through in ecological or social grounds. We believe, and we’ve been working with FCC, who are the operator of the local waste site, that there is an alternative site that would meet both the social, community and ecological needs of HS2, and that is shown on your map with a yellow line going diagonally away from the track of HS2 just south of Sheephouse wood. Now, we are aware that HS2 have looked at alternatives, but we do not believe this alternative has been studied, and we believe it will meet all of the requirements for both the local community, the local bat population, which I know is a major concern for HS2, as I heard yesterday, and particularly for the local community, and for FCC it will mean a smaller number of lorry movements from the proposed sidings to their existing tip site.

130. MR LOWE QC: The FCC themselves are coming to petition separately on this.

131. MR TETT: Yes. FCC, who have done an extensive study of this, will be here petitioning in front of you very shortly. Do we know when they’re planned? 28th I’ve been told, 28th, so you’ll hear that in detail then. If I move now to slide 11, the second major ask of the local community, particularly the farming community is the removal of the sustainable placement. This is actually a spoil tip. We believe that there should be

better use made of the excavated material. We believe that actually this is not in accordance with the waste hierarchy, and there is a much better alternative, which is the use of the current FCC waste site, which is immediately adjacent to the line. If we move to the next slide I can show you where that is.

132. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The sustainable placement on top of the landfill that’s there already?

133. MR TETT: There is a landfill site – le t me just – if I can help you, it’ll be much easier if I show you. I’m sorry to do this to you.

134. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you’re going to cover it –

135. MR TETT: I’m going to cover it, yes. Yes, I am. I will show on a slide in a mo me nt the actual map, which makes it a lot easier to understand, but fundamentally we’ve seen the response from HS2, again Members will be familiar with the sort of lo gic the y’ve used on this, and we have a number of issues with it. So if we move to slide 13, our response to the HS2 position is that we have asked but been given no rationale for why the spoil tip at Shepherds Furze Farm was chosen, why that particular site. There does not appear to have been an options appraisal. If there has been we have not been given sight of it. We have asked for such. It seems to be contrary both to national and local waste policy, which these days deplores the use of spoil tipping. It prefers much better use of recycled material, and ultimately we would argue there is a much better ultimate destination for a surplus material, which is the Calvert waste site operation, which I’ll show you on the coming up map, which is literally less than one mile from this site.

136. So if we move now to the next slide –

137. MR LOWE QC : I think the fourth point, if I can just intervene for a moment –

138. MR TETT: Of course.

139. MR LOWE QC: – is about the dairy farm, and I think the dairy farm was part of the visit.

140. MR TETT: The Woods brothers, yes. You did actually have the opportunity to

meet them. They are a family that have been in this area literally for generation after generation after generation. They’re a very long established family in the Calvert and Steeple Claydon area. They have enormous commitment to farming in this area, and they are extremely worried. O ne of the problems that have is given the uncertainty over this it’s almost impossible at the moment to invest in the land, so this land is in danger of becoming derelict, given the great uncertainty as to what’s going to happen to it.

141. MR LOWE QC: And I think your last point on the slide goes to the points that Peter was asking for information about. Perhaps you could just mention –

142. MR TETT: Yes, if you don’t mind we’ll move to 14. What will become clear from this hopefully is that the current waste site, which is shown in the crosshatching there, is less than a mile from where the Shepherd’s Furze Farm is. That waste site has the capacity for 10 million cubic metres of waste. We are looking at Shepherds Furze Farm at a maximum, I believe, of 1 million cubic metres, so there is massive capacity there. That site took the spoil from the 2012 Olympic site in East London. It’s also taken waste from Crossrail, and we just do not understand why HS2 seems to think that it’s not suitable for them. It would just seem so logical, and I’m sure Mr Mould will tell us why.

143. If I move now to slide 15, this is the station at Steeple Claydon. I will just briefly introduce this, and then I’m going to ask Edi Smockum, who’s one of the local parish councillors, to come forward and add to my introduction. The local residents of Steeple Claydon and the local area believe that the importing of a significant number of construction works into the area – I think there are going to be six construction camps in the immediate area here – is going to really help break up the local communications, because there’ll be a lot of traffic on the roads, there’ll be obviously the need for people to come in and out and egress the site on a regular basis.

144. We think there should be both a mitigation of the required transport during construction but also a legacy that goes beyond the construction of HS2 by the provision of a very simple, we’re not asking for anything sophisticated here, a very simple, two platform unmanned station at Steeple Claydon. We’ve already carried out as a County Council the first stage feasibility on this. National Rail have said they’ll provide passive provision for this during the construction of the East West rail route that goes through

here.

145. We think a two platform unmanned station enabling local workers to come in and out, and for the local community to gain easy egress and access to the site, would be a significant gain. And going back to my point about the leisure function of the area, they believe that in the longer term it would enable greater access to the area for leisure pursuits, so for example school children visiting the National Trust site at Claydon House, and accessing other areas for walking and cycling. So we believe this could be a significant community gain in the longer term, but it is needed urgently in terms of the – for many people it’s half a generation. It’s a significant period of time for local residents, many of whom are quite elderly.

146. MR LOWE QC : I’m just going to now interrupt Mr Tett’s appearance, if I may, to allow Edi Smockum to give the local community’s feelings about this, and then he’s going to return to finish on the points, and he can then be questioned.

147. CHAIR: Okay.

148. MR LOWE QC: The slides are A1448.

149. CHAIR: Morning. How long have you been on the parish council?

150. MS SMOCKUM: I’m sorry, I’m no longer on the parish council. I left the parish council in May of this year, but I was a member for 10 years, over 10 years, and I’ve lived in Steeple Claydon for approximately 13 years.

151. MR LOWE QC: I’m going to ask you to go to your second slide and tell us about Steeple Claydon.

152. MS SMOCKUM: I thought perhaps I won’t read through my slides for the benefit of the Committee, but I’ll tell you a bit about why I came to live in Steeple Claydon.

153. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: Is that dawn or dusk by the way?

154. MS SMOCKUM: I think that’s dawn, actually. I came to live in Steeple Claydon and you’ll recognise, possibly in my accent, that I’m not from those parts, because I was looking for a place outside of London; I had previously lived in Toronto, London and

Paris and I was looking for a place outside of London which was a big enough community but that reminded me of where I grew up, which was surrounded by agricultural land and was thoroughly in the country. Steeple Claydon came to us as a family because we were told it had a very good doctors’ surgery, and I do support it as being one of the best doctors’ surgeries in the country. And it’s a place where I think that – although it’s not a chocolate box community by any stretch of the imagination, and I know the committee kindly visited us there – it is a village that I think is a working village; it’s a proper village. We have a post office, we have services, we have pubs, we have one of the first community libraries in the country and so for me it was a proper village. Most importantly, I didn’t have to get in my car to go and get milk. So it was a place that I thought was very liveable.

155. I think we’re a very active community in Steeple Claydon; I think we’re cyclists, dog owners, horse riders, we’re walkers. You can leave my house which is in the centre of the village and you can be on lovely footpaths with beautiful views within about 15- 20 minutes. It’s an area where other – as I said, I’m not from the area myself – lots of people return to live there, so they go have a few years in London working, and then come back to raise their children there. We have many people in the village who were born and bred in the village.

156. So I think the committee probably got an impression of Steeple Claydon when they were there, but from a human point of view, I think it’s a village that we like it as it sort of appears to us. Can I have the next…

157. MR LOWE QC : Ye s, ne xt s lid e p lease, (3)?

158. MS SMOCKUM: I think you won’t have been – you will have been struck by the landscape and as you’re all aware, HS2 is proposing the construction of the infrastructure maintenance depot, almost twice the size of Wembley Stadium when it’s finished, and it’s going to be in our back yard. I hate to be NIMBY but it is going to sort of hugely alter our landscape as we know it. It’s for this reason that I think we have – if you move to the next slide – we have a very big ask of HS2 and of the committee, which is for a station. I should point out that this wasn’t thought of by Bucks County Council and it wasn’t, unfortunately, thought of by Steeple Claydon Parish Council, but it was thought of by one of our parishioners very early on. I think it – when I first heard

it, I wasn’t sure it was a fantastic idea, but as time went on, I think it is a very good idea, and the reason I think it is a very good idea is that it mitigates things such as the traffic that’s going to come into the area; I am hoping it takes away some of the workers’ journeys that will be travelling to the IMD; it am hoping that when the 300 permanent workers on the site start travelling, that they will be able to use it.

159. I think that it – which Martin pointed out – Steeple Claydon for one reason or another, which often has to do with geography and people sort of grow up, is the hub of many communities which are going to be really badly affected by HS2. I think that having a station there, is an important consideration for the committee. I think HS2 has a lot of justification for siting the IMD in our village, because it’s the intersection of HS2 and East-West rail; not many people have that on their doorstep and we certainly do, and you will have seen where it is on our doorstep. But what we ask is that with both of these very big projects in our back yard, could we see some of the economic benefit that is being so promised by HS2?

160. CHAIR: In the back of the pub, your village looks down, which is the other problem; you’re higher?

161. MS SMOCKUM: Unfortunately for us, yes; you’re quite right. Strangely enough, that is where most – there’s two walks in the village, if I’m able to point out: there’s a walk down to the old railway tracks which is quite nice, because you can see the sweep up to the village; or you can walk between, the other side of the village, walking up towards Hillesden which I think you also went to visit. So I realise that the station is a very big ask, but I think that it is an idea that certainly grew on me and I hope it eventually grows on the committee?

162. If we can move to the next slide please? I think that Martin has pointed out what is actually happening to our community and when we came up with a list of benefits to the committee for something like a station, we’re hoping that it improves the transport links for workers, for the IMD and for the railhead, by taking vehicles off the road. We have reasonably busy roads already; they’re not great through Steeple Claydon, which I think we didn’t make your bus go down because we weren’t sure that you would get around Co-Op Corner, as it’s famously known. But they are quite small road within the village itself.

163. I think it would be a real benefit for Steeple Claydon to have improved rail links to Oxford, Aylesbury and London because the one thing that Steeple C laydon – for all that it has going for it – suffers from is very poor public transport links. So this would really help the economic future of the village by providing better employment opportunities, the ability to visit hospitals and things that you have to do outside the village of Steeple Claydon. We’re hoping that this would leave a positive legacy. We’re going to feel the effects of HS2 for some time to come, and I think that this would be a legacy that is almost of a comparable size. It’s not something that’s going to be gone in five years; I think it’s something that I think will really help Steeple Claydon in the long run. I think it will help our local tourism for Claydon House, where the proposed site is for the station, is within walking distance of Claydon House and Bernwood Forest. We’re hoping that – as I said earlier – there is a positive impact for all the village around us: Twyford and Calvert and Charndon, who I think are also going to feel the lo ng-term effects of HS2 and, again, not many of the benefits of it. All of these villages have supported Steeple Claydon’s request; it’s been the one idea that I think has held from the first community forums that were organised. I think that is my last slide, but I just wanted to say to the committee that we absolutely understand the fact that this is a very big ask, but we do think that HS2 is asking a lot of Steeple Claydon and its surrounding villages and in terms of mitigation, I think this is quite reasonable.

164. MR LOWE QC : Okay, thank you.

165. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Do you think I could just ask a question or two?

166. MR LOWE QC : Sorry.

167. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Not at all. Good morning to you; just looking at the slide in front of you – get our bearings. The station that you would like to see serving Steeple Claydon, is a station that would be provided as part of the east-west railway project?

168. MS SMOCKUM: That’s right.

169. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And that is a project that is being promoted quite independently of HS2, by Network Rail, I believe?

170. MS SMOCKUM: Yes.

171. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And indeed, I believe it has the support of Buckinghamshire County Council I believe, and no doubt your Parish Council as well – obviously your Parish Council because you want to see a station serving Steeple Claydon upon it?

172. MS SMOCKUM: Mm-hmm.

173. MR MOULD QC (DfT): My understanding is that railway project, if it proceeds according to current plans – and these things don’t always go to plan – would see the railway coming into operation by the end of 2019, is that your understanding of the position?

174. MS SMOCKUM: I know it’s 2019; I didn’t know it was the end of 2019.

175. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And plainly if one ties that into HS2 on its current plans, that means that the station – if a station were to be provided on the East-West railway line to provide transport to and from the maintenance depot construction site, it would not come into operation until that work is well underway, because the HS2 project is due to start work during the course of 2017?

176. MS SMOCKUM: That’s right, but the one thing that 2019 does do is that that is the height of the number of workers that are supposed to be at the IMD and the railhead, so I think by 2019, that figure, according to HS2 is going to be 1,000 peop le –

177. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is –

178. MS SMOCKUM: So the station would hopefully coincide with that pattern.

179. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, there’s obviously a prospect that it could coincide with a part of but not the whole of the HS2 construction period?

180. MS SMOCKUM: Not unless they’re very quick.

181. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and as you say, we’re predicting a peak number of 1,000 workers a day during construction, and I think the consultant who Mr Lowe mentioned a few minutes ago, has made an allowance of 20% of those construction

workers finding rail access to their place of work, via a Steeple Claydon station to be convenient, so of those 1,000, 200 would come via the station?

182. MS SMOCKUM: Mm-hmm.

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then during operation of the depot from 2026 onwards, the HS2 workforce at the depot would fall from 1,000 to 200, yes?

184. MS SMOCKUM: I thought it was 300, sorry.

185. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, 300 is I think what I’ve been told, but let’s say 300 to test it. If you assume again, 20% would be conveniently served by the station, you’re talking about 20-30 people a day.

186. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, it’s about 75, actually. If you talking about a quarter of 300.

187. MR MOULD QC (DfT): My maths is always tremendous.

188. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A quarter.

189. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Anyway, a relatively small number. It just gives you a sense – I don’t deny that if there were a station provided at Steeple Claydon, it would no doubt be a convenient means of getting to and from work for a proportion of the HS2 workforce, the case for providing that station – business case, if you like, for providing that station, clearly has to come from something other than HS2 doesn’t it?

190. MS SMOCKUM: No, I don’t think so.

191. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think Mr Mould is really trying to get us to the impression that it would be an additional reason to have the station; it wouldn’t be the lo ng-term, main reason, for having the station?

192. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, yes. I perfectly accept that it benefits the community, thank you.

193. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As always, you put it far better than I. And really, the real benefit to it would be that you claim – is the benefit to the local community who would have this railway station to get to and from Oxford – well, as Sir Peter would put

it – to mimic, if you like, the journey though not necessarily the objectives of Zuleika Dobson.

194. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, I’m interested in the last sentence of the first book. There is a separate book about her in Cambridge, which causes much chaos!

195. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, but we can assume that the basis of those using the station would be more benign than those of Zuleika Dobson but in any event, leaving that aside. It would be for the local community’s benefit primarily wouldn’t it?

196. MS SMOCKUM: Well, both things are going to benefit the local community, because the more workers from HS2 that actually travel by rail, the fewer that are going to be on the road, so you can argue that the whole thing is community benefits.

197. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, it is always helpful, when one is considering how one might construct a business case for a facility such as this on another project, to think about what the components of that case might be. I think we’re clear that whilst I don’t deny that there might be – part of that case might be that it would help – it would provide a means of transport to HS2 workers, that in itself as Sir Peter – my position is that wouldn’t be enough. I suggest –

198. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just join the point a second. Can you give us the slightest indication of what the additional cost is of having a request stop – a halt – on a –

199. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think the contribution that has been suggested that the Secretary of State might make via HS2 is £5 million. Our position – let me just cut to the quick – our position is that the sensible thing, and the prudent way of managing public resources in relation to this, is for the promoter of the East-West railway project, to consider whether the combination of HS2 demand and other demand justifies the provision of the station and then consideration will no doubt be given at that point as to how that should be resourced.

200. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Sorry, to put this into context, can you say £5 million out of a total cost of what…?

201. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Of the overall East-West Rail project?

202. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: No, of the provision of the halt? Is that the total cost?

203. MS SMOCKUM: That is the cost.

204. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: So you are asking HS2 to pay the total cost?

205. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So two platforms and access to the local footpaths and roads costs £5 million?

206. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You’re looking at me, when in fact that figure I think has come from those who are promoting the provision of the station. I am content for today’s purposes to take that as being a cost that they have got from their consultants who regrettably as you know, are not here today. But working on that basis. I just question – I ask the committee to question whether really this is something where it needs to intervene now, or whether this is something that is best left to be addressed as part of the promotion of that railway project. I acknowledge that part of that case may be that it would provide the transport facility, along with others, green travel plans and so forth, for HS2 workers, but it cannot sensibly be said – and I don’t think it is being sa id – that the case for such a station depends upon its custom coming from HS2.

207. MR LOWE QC : It’s never been put that way.

208. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I know. I’m just emphasising the point.

209. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Just again, putting it into context: where are the next nearest stations? How far are the next nearest stations?

210. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think the next station is - is it Wilmslow [sic]?

211. MS SMOCKUM: Winslow.

212. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

213. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: How far is that?

214. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Winslow, which is just to the east.

215. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: How far is that?

216. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m afraid –

217. MS SMOCKUM: About five miles.

218. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It shows on 1449(1)?

219. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Anyway. I hope you don’t mind me short-circuiting. I can’t really say more than that on behalf of the promoter on this.

220. CHAIR: Okay.

221. MR LOWE QC: Is there anything more you wanted to say?

222. MS SMOCKUM: No.

223. MR LOWE QC : Thank you very much.

224. MS SMOCKUM: Thank you very much.

225. MR LOWE QC: Can I now go to the Parsons Brinckerhoff slides, and just introduce them without the expertise of the witness?

226. CHAIR: Okay, is Mr Tett coming on in a moment?

227. MR LOWE QC: Yes. These are A1449? The first slide just shows the intersection of the two routes and I won’t say more. The second slide identifies their status, or their former status, as technical advisors to the County Council and their partners, the request made of them, what stage we’re at – early stage – assumptions and outputs to a high level. It summarises the evidence which was contained in a feasibility study, a strategic outline business case, and a demand study and economic appraisal to central government standards, of which you are no doubt familiar.

228. Then, set out in slide (3) please? The summary of the business case with the initial BCR set out between 1.83 and 3.15; and the adjusted BCR between 2.11 and 4.32, against the grading, which would put the minimum somewhere between medium to high; and the adjusted high to very high.

229. Over the page, the strategic case is set out in terms of being a transport legacy, the benefit of bringing some HS2 workers to the area, commuting for the area, leisure for

the area; mitigating against damaging effects on health and the environment; and supporting economic growth. The next slide is slide 5, that sets out the –

230. MR TETT: Could I just make one comment, and it refers to this slide? He mentioned 20% of the IMD workers might come. That is a minimum that’s been assumed as a prudent case; the County Council in terms of a sustainable transport plan would seek to obtain a significantly higher percentage of the workers coming by rail.

231. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. Then there’s the policy case, familiar national policy is set out; regional policy including that of the LEP and local policy.

232. Move on, I if can, to slide (6), which talks about the feasibility of this in terms of its operational feasibility, they’re satisfied the timetable is achievable of three trains per hour in both directions; technically, passive provision will be provided by East-West rail, and it could be deliverable by 2019. Economically, it has a positive business case; HS2 instruction and employee use add to the benefits.

233. Turning to (7), the design and technical summary is provided and in the box we can see an indicative area for passive provision for the station, which is about 1km from the centre of the village. It’s said to be the only sensible option for providing sustainable transport access to the HS2 compounds; and the IMD. Minimal land take, and it is an opportunity to develop an integrated station design, in parallel with the Queen Catherine Road level crossing replacement design, and it has immense stakeholder support.

234. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Can I stop you there?

235. MR LOWE QC: Yes, do.

236. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Could we have that slide?

237. MR LOWE QC : Yes, (7).

238. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Presumably you’re going to need car parking and other facilities, so where will they be provided?

239. MR LOWE QC: As I understand it, the take is sufficient to provide for some car parking but I look for instructions on this.

240. MS SMOCKUM: Yes it has. I think there’s currently -

241. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: So will those buildings – are they houses? Yes, so it will be quite close to those houses. But what I’m saying is the station will be quite c lose?

242. MR TETT: Yes. Just to add to the car parking, should it be the case – because we’re envisaging it’s being used predominantly by local residents who will walk to the station. We’re not envisaging this as a major hub for commuters because there are not that many people who live in that area. Should it in the future be a requirement for additional car parking, that clearly isn’t something we would look to HS2 for. That would be an additional expansion, should it ever arise.

243. MR LOWE QC: So, slide (8) please? Just sets out where it would be in the network and the service. East, three trains per hour to Milton Keynes; Southwest, two to Aylesbury and London; and one to Bicester and Oxford. The inter-regional service won’t stop there and it gives opportunities for better and wider connections which one can see there illustrated.

244. Then the economic case, on the next slide, sets out the present values, in the conventional way: the initial BCR and adjusted BCR –

245. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Benefit cost ratio, I think?

246. MR LOWE QC: Yes. Benefit cost ratio which has been explained earlier, so I won’t go back to that unless you want me to. Then there is a rose on the next slide whic h summaries the significant wider benefits for workers, commuters, leisure, health, business and infrastructure.

247. The next, (12) gives the appraisal approach which I think shows for those who are interested in how you build up a benefit cost ratio for a railway station, how you do it with trip catchment assessments, fare assessments and future developments. To make it simpler, they’re set out in the next slide in a list, which are the assumptions that are being used for the study. That’s 4,000 residents in the catchment, which includes those neighbouring villages we’ve heard; 100 new homes from committed developments – that’s not any speculation about the sort of growth we have heard from Mr Tett

yesterday; a minimum 20% mode share for HS2; 10% mode share for Natio na l Tr ust; and a 1% demand growth based on the Network Rail route strategy for this particular route. So as far as they’re concerned, it has three qualities: it’s evidenced-based, it’s robust, and the assumptions are conservative. They haven’t taken any speculative growth, they have taken a very low mode share for the workers and for the National Trust for example.

248. Then on the next slide (14), they have justified their demand forecasting assumptions by using Kings Sutton Station as a comparator for the trip rates. They have then applied the other demand drivers: that’s the use by the 20% construction workers, the Calvert Depot, Claydon House and 100 new homes on the timelines that are set out; and they get their demands that will provide a peak of 123,900 single trips in the design year of 2019. They then set out in (15) what assumptions have gone into the appraisal; they have to have an appraisal period, so they have looked at 60 years. They have assumed growth or demand will stop after the first 20. The capital cost is £5 million with a 66% optimism bias; a £75 million operating cost – that optimism bias is identified – and the £5.21 is the average yield per single journey, which is based on a local fare analysis in the opening year.

249. Then you can see in the next slide how they have adjusted that benefit-cost ratio. They have looked at the variations in the station capital cost; they have assumed a higher proportion of HS2 workers; they have taken a different level of growth; and an increased proportion of London commuters because of increased connectivity. If those were to come right, then you would get that high to very high benefit to cost ratio.

250. The next slide (17) and the final slide just identifies in a diagrammatic form, the facilities that are proposed. The two platforms, up and down; the fact that it will be unstaffed; it will have ticket vending machines, footbridges, small car park, and cycle racks. There would be the opportunity to develop cycling and walking routes to the co mpo und, the villages and Claydon House. That is, amongst other things, what Mr Cooper would have told us.

251. CHAIR: No coffee shop?

252. MR LOWE QC: No coffee shop! But I’m sure there’s always an opportunity for one; I’ve never known a station exist without one for long.

253. MR TETT: If I can just sum up on this?

254. CHAIR: Okay.

255. MR TETT: You’ve heard very much from the local community, how passionately they feel about this. I spoke yesterday about the cumulative impact of so many developments and the danger of looking at things purely in isolation and saying, ‘We ll… ’ – I paraphrase Mr Mould, ‘Not our problem’. But the reality if you’re a local resident is, the cumulative impact of all of this, for which I would put forward HS2 is not a major tipping point, its impact is completely disproportionate to the preceding infrastructure developments in that area. It will have a major impact on this local community, probably greater than any other community who appear before you before. We believe that we can get well above 20% in terms of mobile share, with a sustainable transport plan. We think HS2 owes this to the local community. In terms of the timing, of 2017, that coincides with the planned peak period of construction. I would also put forward that projects rarely run on time, and I would also hypothesise that HS2’s peak period of construction may actually be post-2017, but let’s assume 2017. So we would certainly catch the maximum period of construction with most of the traffic in terms of workers coming to that station; and indeed, it will provide a tangible community benefit into the future, which we believe is proportionate to the degradation to that area that HS2 visits upon it.

256. MR CRAUSBY: Is the £5 million the total cost or are there – the £5 million for the station, is that all of it, or do other contributions come in from others?

257. MR TETT: The £5 million is the total cost. As Mr Lowe says, it contains 66% optimism bias, so we would hope that it would be significantly less than that in practice.

258. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: The previous witness said that this had been much discussed at community forums. Is there unanimous approval of this, or is there a body of locals that actually don’t want it.

259. MR TETT: I will answer that question very honestly. Originally, it was unanimous. There was a point just after the election where there was a view amongst a very small minority that this might be a dangerous thing because it would bring speculative development to the area. However, we ran a subsequent workshop, we had

boards in there that showed much of the information you have seen today, and I believe I’m correct in saying – and I stand to be corrected – the Parish Council is unanimous now in its support of this project. Everybody believes that this is the sort of community enhancement that is proportionate to the degradation in the area.

260. CHAIR: The Member of Parliament?

261. MR TETT: The Member of Parliament has supported this as well.

262. CHAIR: Okay. Do we want to pick up your asks with Mr Mould at this point? Mr Mould?

263. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I just ask a couple of questions, then I’ll respond if I ma y?

264. CHAIR: Yes.

265. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Tett, just on this question of the station: you’ve emphasised the advantages of the station in terms of providing sustainable transport to HS2 workers, following the – this would obviously be after the East-West rail project has been constructed and has come into operation and a Steeple Claydon station has been provided as part of it. Your Council is a local highway authority, familiar with handling major development schemes and the need for the developers of those schemes to provide for sustainable transport, multi-modal transport, travel plans, that kind of thing, yes?

266. MR TETT: We would hope you would do so, yes.

267. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, we will; I can tell you that straight off. But obviously, if you’re going to foresee rail travel on the East-West rail line when it comes into operation as being part of that, whether it’s sensible to assume 20%, 10% or 30% now, the practical reality is, it will only be attractive to those whose place of abode means that access to and from their place of work leads them to choose travel on the East-West rail line over travel on a shuttle bus or in their car or whatever it may be. That’s a statement of the obvious, but it’s worth bearing in mind isn’t it?

268. MR TETT: Again, I need to be very clear what your point is. If you’re saying

during construction phase, my understanding is, you’re going to have six construction camps around this area. We would look to require you to ensure that the construction workers in those camps use the most sustainable means of travel to the IMD site and the construction site, and as far as possible – and we’d obviously need to have detailed ne go tia tio ns with you on the sustainable transport plan, we would wish to see those workers using the East-West rail station.

269. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, that depends on the location of the travel camps, whether the station is available and whether it’s sensible. I mean, an alternative to that might, for example, be that we provide a shuttle bus service which brings construction workers from the construction camps to the site. That would be a sustainable mode of transport. It would reduce the number of individual car journeys and it’s a very – it’s a tried and tested way of accommodating a spike in travel to a major construction site whilst the construction site is going on, isn’t it?

270. MR TETT: It’s perfectly true you could run a series of shuttle buses. There needs to be a significant number of them to cope with something like 1,000 workers.

271. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And you could save £5 million on that basis?

272. MR TETT: Hang on, I hadn’t quite finished my response. You’d need a substantial number of shuttle buses to cope with something like 1,000 workers. It would also leave no community legacy in terms of any compensation for the significant detriment to that area, which HS2 fundamentally is.

273. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Whether or not it makes sense to devote £5 million to creating that legacy through the station is ultimately a political judgement; I’m not a politician, despite what was said yesterday.

274. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are the petitioners saying that HS2 or the government pay the £5 million or make a contribution towards it.

275. MR TETT: We’re suggesting, with all honesty, that they pay the £5 million – and that would include 66% optimism bias; again, we think it should be significantly less. We have already contributed, as the County Council and indeed, colleagues in Distric t Councils have contributed substantially towards the costs of East-West rail, as required

by the DfT, but again, candidly, in the current financial situation, we could not contribute further funds to this. You’d be talking about several millions pounds which, candidly, we just do not have now.

276. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Again, to continue my interruption; I’d be interested to know if you were able to guess as to what the cost of the junction – the flyover or fly- under between the East-West railway and the HS2 – just a comparative idea of costs. But also, at some stage, it might be interesting in answering Mr Mould’s questions, if having the station is economically viable, or at least economically worthwhile, and if the HS2 traffic – it says here traffic – is not critical to its viability, why won’t the promoters of Eas t-West rail do it anyway?

277. MR TETT: I can’t speak for the promoters of East-West rail, but if I understand your question which is, if the business case stacks up, why not do it anyway? The answer I guess is, at the moment, in terms of the incremental capital cost on it, the promoters of East-West rail do not wish to incur that additional incremental cost. However, we believe – and we put it to the committee – that actually the main detriment to the community in this area is due to HS2. That is the major tipping point. If it were not for HS2, quite frankly, we would not be sitting here arguing for this station because the community would be, by and large, intact. HS2 significantly divides and breaks up the communications across that area, and we believe the community should see some significant gain from it. It will also, we believe, help the actual construction traffic into HS2 and the building of the IMD.

278. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Could I just follow Sir Peter’s question, Mr Tett? Have you had discussions with East-West Railways about whether they want this station or not? Because when I’ve tried to get a station created in my constituency, GWR say, ‘An extra station is going to mean extra stops, that’s going to slow our timetable down, we’re not sure we want to create an extra station’.

279. MR TETT: If I can get advice from –

280. MR KIRKHAM: If I can help? Andy Kirkham, Aylesbury Vale, the original East-West rail project only proposed a single line up from Aylesbury to Calvert, and linking in with the dual track running between Bicester and Bletchley. That is now – on that basis, I think to get sufficient train paths, there was only room for one station at

Winslow. It is now proposed to double track the line between Aylesbury and Calvert –

281. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 1449(8) just while we are having this discussion please?

282. MR KIRKHAM: So an additional station can now be provided on that line without interfering with original train paths. To confirm to the committee that East- West Rail has just started their stage two consultation, or whatever they call it, which does include passive provision for platforms and station at Steeple Claydon.

283. MR TETT: So the promoter is prepared to make passive provision and Network Rail are prepared to make passive provision and as I understand the study, at the slide Sir Peter has just mentioned that we have up at the moment, that this feasibility study – which was been produced in consultation obviously with the network operators – is there to demonstrate that the service can be provided without detriment to existing lines.

284. MR LOWE QC : To directly answer your question, the answer is yes.

285. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: So got that out the way. Has anybody thought about having discussions whether this could be co-funded between East-West railway, the County Council if they’re serious about this proposal, and HS2?

286. MR TETT: I’ll give you a very straight, honest answer to that: the County Council cannot afford to put any more money into any major project at the moment. As I said to the committee – and I’m quite happy to disclose our finances – we are teetering on the edge in terms of demands for children’s services and adult social care. We are facing a major overspend in adult social care this year, there will be no money available for any significant infrastructure project such as this from the County Council.

287. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: What about East-West railway providing some money?

288. MR TETT: Well, East-West rail, the consortium involves the County Council. So if they put more money in, we would be forced to put more money in, so we cannot do that.

289. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Mould.

290. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay, I don’t think I can add to what’s been said

already about this, and I’ve set out the position of the promoter from the perspective of HS2.

291. Can I just ask one more question Mr Tett, and then I’ve got one or two more points to make in response to that. It’s just on this question of connectivity. If we can put up P8448 please? This is a plan showing the permanent position, following construction of the railway, the HS2 works in this area. I just want to understand as a matter of fact the routes that will be available. I think we can blow this up slightly? Now, we can see Steeple Claydon to the northeast I think it is of the East-West railway line to be –

292. MR TETT: That is indeed Steeple Claydon.

293. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and then we can see Calvert, Calvert Green which lies where this cursor is now?

294. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Northwest is top left corner is it?

295. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think so, yes, it’s broadly speaking, that way. So, what we have at the moment – those are the two settlements which are where people interact with each other. You mentioned people going to the doctors, going to get a takeaway and that kind of thing?

296. MR TETT: People from Calvert Green will go along Addison Road, past the spoil tip, up towards Steeple Claydon. There’s also quite an extensive footpath network, by the way, from Steeple Claydon to the other villages in the area, which will be completely obstructed by the IMD.

297. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Now we know that, at the moment, there is a minor railway line which runs up to the east of Calvert, don’t we, which amongst other things, carries the FCC waste trains?

298. MR TETT: Correct, out of west London.

299. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Then there is this Bletchley Line which is, I think, currently – if it functions at all – is a freight railway?

300. MR TETT: That’s the path of what will be East-West railway when it’s restored.

It’s derelict.

301. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and then we have the path of the old Grand Central railway line which just runs – just as we move northwards, runs just to the south of the proposed trace for HS2 as it passes to north – away to the north and towards Chetwode and so forth?

302. MR TETT: I believe that’s the case.

303. MR MO ULD QC (DfT): So what we have is a situation where those two settlements, Steeple Claydon and Calvert, Calvert Green, as you say – because there’s already either an existing or the line of a former railway which runs between the two – indeed, there’s two such railways, as we can see on the plan. People get access in vehicles via Addison Road and as you can see from this plan, what we’re proposing is to maintain that route; we’re making minor adjustments to take those roads over the railways in the form of new over-bridges, but essentially, the existing position will remain unchanged?

304. MR TETT: Except you will destroy most of the footpaths that actually run currently between Steeple Claydon and –

305. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well I asked you about vehicular routes?

306. MR TETT: I know, but I am talking about communication.

307. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am going to come onto footpaths now, so just bear with me. I know it’s a tedious process, cross-examination. Now, the footpaths routes, we can see, they sort of fan out with the orange dashed lines you see on the map base, can you just make those out?

308. MR TETT: I can just about, yes.

309. MR MO ULD QC (DfT): And at the moment, there’s a footpath, SCL8, that is the principal footpath across the route of the Bicester-Bletchley line, do you see?

310. MR TETT: I have to admit I don’t.

311. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, you can see –

312. MR TETT: I can see your arrow.

313. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The arrow is on it?

314. MR TETT: Yes.

315. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the idea is that we’re going to maintain that line, that footpath which provides part of the route on foot between Calvert and Steeple Claydon – we may maintain that, but providing an over-bridge as is shown in the box on the p la n, do you see?

316. MR TETT: Yes.

317. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Now, there will be – you can see that there are presently some other footpath routes just to the east of that, which exist at the moment, but will be severed in a limited way by the presence of the depot. But those are very local changes, aren’t they? Essentially you can see from the plan that in terms of those who wish to connect – to find a connection between Calvert and Steeple Claydon on foot, the project maintains a clear route through on foot, via that over-bridge.

318. MR TETT: There will be an over-bridge on Addison Road. However, unless you make the changes I’m also proposing in one of the other asks, it’s not really a footpath; it’s a road you can drive down, but at the moment, a lot of people walk that route. It’s quite a dangerous route at the moment, because there is no footpath provision whatsoever, and with traffic speeding down there, we believe there ought to be a footpath provision alongside Addison Road, otherwise people will be forced into cars.

319. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, there’s Addison Road which we provide an over-bridge to carry that over, and then just to the east of that, we provide a separate over-bridge to carry a footpath. Footpath SCL8, do you see.

320. MR TETT: That’s the one to Calvert Green, but my point is also, is that you’re interrupting the footpaths to the other adjacent villages, and if you – again, I haven’t got the footpath numbers, but from Calvert Green, they come out almost like a spider’s web, through where the IMD is, the links down to places like Twyford and the other villages, and they will be broken up.

321. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, we haven’t got it on this plan, but as you move northwards towards Twyford, which is the next settlement of any significance, it’s off the plans to the left, we accommodate footpaths and bridal ways which are severed by the railway line, in that vicinity in the same way. We provide over-bridges and so forth to take them back over the railway.

322. MR TETT: But they are more circumlocutious than the current routes.

323. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Alright, so it’s not so much that we prevent people from connecting in the way that they do now; it’s just that in a very local – to a very localised extent, we perhaps require them to take a slightly more circuitous route?

324. MR TETT: By zooming in, what you do, is you tend to mislead slightly because you’re giving a very narrow picture of it. The point I was making earlier is that on the wider perspective, you have a network of footpaths coming out from Steeple C laydon to the surrounding villages, not just Calvert, many of which will be broken up and interrupted and/or diverted to a longer route by HS2. I don’t argue that those are probably appropriate mitigations in terms of – you know, if this project goes ahead, that needs to happen. Our argument is that, actually, the provision of something like the station will bring benefit in terms of the workers coming into the site, who can access slightly more sustainably; and leave a long-lasting community gain which we believe is in the spirit of what the Prime Minister has promised in terms of communities affected along the route who don’t directly benefit.

325. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we – I’ll leave this point after this. Can we agree at least on this? For those who have to make the decision as to whether a substantial amount of public money should be devoted in this case to the provision of a station at Steeple Claydon, essentially be devoted whether or not that is justified in the overall business case for the promoter of the East-West rail line – because that’s the logic of your position – can we agree –

326. MR TETT: No we can’t; I would not agree to that.

327. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No because you want £5 million to be devoted to that now, whether or not there is in fact an overarching business case to provide that station as part of the project that’s to be promoted over the next couple of years. That’s your

position?

328. MR TETT: What you seek to do is to push the community gain onto a business case for East-West rail. Our argument here is that the detriment to the area is caused predominantly – and I go back to my original slide that showed that pie chart in terms of the impact on the area from the infrastructure overall, some 80-90% of that comes from HS2 in the form of either the rail track, the IMD or the spoil tip. You are the predominant cause of the problems that will afflict Steeple Claydon and surrounding villages into the foreseeable future and probably in perpetuity. We believe that, if the Prime Minister’s intention is to provide a legacy for all the communities along the track, that the minimum mitigation should include HS2 funding a very small halt, effectively, at Steeple Claydon, to benefit the local community which is, quite frankly tiny money if you take into account the optimum bias in terms of the overall costs of this project.

329. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Tett, I can’t match you for your political argument, but what I can do is just to remind us before I move off, that the basis upon which you have put this in the outset of your presentation on this issue was you focused on the loss in connectivity between the settlements, and you said that was the key driver for the – that was the justification for the HS2 budget funding £5 million towards this station. I’m s imply pointing out that in order to judge whether that is a proportionate balance between loss and gain, one needs to understand quite how significant and quite how extensive – or limited, however you put it – quite what the extent of impact on connectivity is, and I suggest to you that when you look at the facts, which I’ve been seeking to take you through by reference to this slide, the degree to which the project in following construction will actually affect connectivity – whether in cars or on foot or on horseback between these settlements and other settlements, is very limited?

330. MR TETT: You’ve added two words that are significant. That’s post- construction. If you look at the 10 years of construction here, in an incredibly rural, tranquil area, that does have that web of connectivity described earlier, that Ms Smockum described as well, you will have 10 years here of significant disruption to that connectivity. We believe and we would argue very strongly that this is part of the community gain and benefit that would, in part, compensate for that, along with the other factors I’m going to raise in one of my further asks.

331. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the construction period, as is set out in the Environment Statement and shown on the slides, we also make provision for temporary re-routing of footpaths, as we do elsewhere along the route?

332. MR TETT: But the reality is, it’s a construction site that’s gouging a large trench, effectively, through this area; this will be a very busy, intimidating area for people to cross for a significant period of time.

333. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Do you want me to deal with…?

334. CHAIR: If you could deal with the other items, and if the petitioners could allow the promoter to deal with the other items, then we will come back to you.

335. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The other items, firstly, the FCC sidings. The position there is that we – yesterday’s publication of AP4 included proposals for a revised re-provision of sidings for FCC. There’s a report in the pack which we will no doubt look at in more detail when we hear their petition. But key to the revision of the scheme – essentially the proposal is to re-locate the FCC sidings to the eastern side of the HS2 railway line, just in the area that’s being shown on the plan in front of you here, going up to the loop to the Aylesbury line. As Mr Tett said, the choice that’s being presented is between that solution or a solution that would take the sidings to a location to the south, crucially, beyond the nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites, of Sheephouse Wood and the attendant woodlands.

336. In a nutshell, HS2 has commissioned advice on this and the advice that it has received which has some support from Natural England – there’s a letter in the pack – is that on balance, locating the sidings to the south of Sheephouse Wood would create so significant a risk to the nationally and internationally designated nature conservation, the interest there, that it cannot be supported. In particular – as against that, as we report in AP4, and you’ll be seeing this in future days no doubt – although there will be some impact in terms of noise from the operation of the sidings as we propose, some impact in terms of noise on residents living at the very eastern end of Calvert Green, we are not reporting that that impact will be serious. Therefore, on balance, the balance of environmental advantage clearly favours relocating the sidings, as we propose, and avoiding that very serious risk of additional harm to those nature conservation interests. It’s not just Mr Tett said – HS2 was concerned about this. This nation has to be

concerned about that because these are European protected species; this is a statutorily designated, Site of Special Scientific Interest, and we do have to be careful that we get the balance right in terms of environment impact in this kind of case.

337. What I should make clear is that we are confident that the sidings arrangements that we propose meet the operational needs of FCC and I’ve not heard anybody thus far say otherwise.

338. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you could just go back to 1447(14)? If someone could put their finger on the present sidings between, I think that’s green isn’t it?

339. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, our proposal is the red.

340. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Close by?

341. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

342. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And you’re saying no to the one further down where the –

343. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And this is the area of very significant –

344. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The wood, and below that is the proposed – the yellow is –

345. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yellow is – I understand that’s where it’s not being proposed. It’s a variation on the theme, but the key point is whether it’s there or whether it’s a location that we’ve looked at that’s in the pack, it comes to the same point, because in either case, we would have to carry out works which would give rise to those significant risks to interference with and an impact upon the nature conservation interest. We question whether it’s in the public interest to undertake works of that kind and to provide a facility of that kind where the solution that we have put forward yesterday is one that meets the operational needs of the waste undertaker – there’s no operational case for shifting the sidings to the south, as you perhaps would; and where, although there will be some limited environmental impact on the local community as I have acknowledged, that is very substantially outweighed by the risks of impacts on the ecological interests of the site.

346. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: When FCC come, I don’t know what their view is on whether sidings should be – perhaps we can do it then, but it’s not blindingly obvious why the ecological value of the wood is more threatened by sidings to the – in effect, south – than they are to a landfill on the other side of the HS2 –

347. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, the landfill itself is the source of considerable controversy in terms of its impact on ecological. Mr Prideaux – who I think is one of your petitioners – brought a case in the High Court in which he challenged the legacy of the decision to grant that planning permission precisely on the grounds of the impact it would have on nature conservation.

348. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In effect, what I’m really trying to say: is this the right time with these right petitioners on that bit or...?

349. MR LOWE QC: Well, I think as far as we’re concerned, Sir Peter, it’s going to come out in AP4. We haven’t studied the FCC –

350. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So we can wait –

351. MR LOWE QC: You should wait and we should wait until we see what was published yesterday and FCC see what was published yesterday.

352. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes.

353. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You’ve both put a shot across the bows I think, yes.

354. MR TETT: If I may just beg the committee’s indulgence for a few seconds just in response to that. I completely accept the point – and it’s a back route, which is the key point here – the options that were evaluated clearly were found inadequate. We believe and FCC propose that the new route, the yellow route shown on that map has not been evaluated and in fact, would not have an adverse effect on that blight paths, so that is what we’re asking the committee to look at. If that is indeed the case, we believe the gain in terms of the social gain to the residents of Calvert will be massive.

355. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’re looking at that as well, and no doubt we’ll try and have a view on that by the time we get that. But I’ve just explained our position as things stand at the moment.

356. The next thing was the S hepherd F urze Farm sustainable placement plan. The starting point on that was just to show P8397(1) and (2). This is a letter that we wrote to the County Council waste authority, just explaining our current position. If we can turn to the next page, page 2, the top of the page, you’ll see that the position of the Secretary of State now is that he will require the nominated undertaker to – I’ll go to (b): ‘To examine all other options for the management of surplus excavated material currently planned for sustainable placement at Calvert and only place such material at that location if no other option is considered to be reasonably achievable when all aspects, including environmental impacts, including traffic and transport are assessed’. So, in colloquial terms, sir, it’s a site of last resort as a result of that assurance.

357. Now, we are continuing to consider whether we can go further than that and we are doing so particularly with a view to the fact that the woods – the farmers are coming to the committee in the course of the next few weeks. We met with them last Monday, 6 October, and drew their attention to this assurance that we’ve given. So this is work in progress. The rationale for that site is actually shown on Mr Tett’s slide, A1447(12). Whether you agree with it or not is a matter for debate but there certainly is a rationale for its inclusion within the Bill, and it’s set out on that slide: to provide certainty of disposal and to avoid the very substantial number of lorry movements. But as I say, we have set out our position on that.

358. We recognise, lest there be any doubt about it and any attempt to make play on this, we recognise that when one is drawing the balance between a thriving agricultural enterprise – I think this is a dairy farm that provides milk to one of the major supermarket chains, and the needs of this project, we are seeking as things stand, compulsory powers albeit circumscribed by that assurance, we bear the burden of demonstrating a compelling need to have those powers, and thus to interfere possibly seriously with a thriving agricultural business. It is that question that we continue to review, hopefully, getting to a decisive position on whether we should retain those powers over the course of the coming days. If we do so, we will report to you when we have done so.

359. MR LOWE QC: I think if I can just add one rider to that: we would say, what about the 10 million cubic metres capacity so nearby that is already served by rail?

360. MR TETT: And has serviced the Olympics and Crossrail.

361. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We have that point in mind.

362. CHAIR: Okay.

363. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think I have covered the points that have been raised so far.

364. MR LOWE QC : Thank you very much, so if we go back to where we were before a station, which was lighting, slide (16) and I think this is to be taken, in fact, by Andy Kirkham, an officer from Aylesbury Vale who is leading on that.

365. MR TETT: And I will hand over to Mr K irkham in a second, just to say an introduction again, remember the width and size and bulk of the IMD; the lighting that’s proposed there will be a major intrusion into a very dark skied, rural area.

366. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just a reminder, this is the infrastructure maintenance depot?

367. MR TETT: Infrastructure maintenance depot that lies in the curve of those two railway lines. It’s a major intrusion. The residents are very concerned about the lighting pollution, as the Chairman remarked, they look down on it. So therefore it is a significant issue.

368. MR LOWE QC : Mr Tett’s slide, which dealt with areas, gave that an area of 91 acres permanent. That is not the construction area.

369. MR TETT: And twice that size during construction.

370. MR LOWE QC : Thank you very much, Mr C hairman.

371. CHAIR: How many more witnesses do we have today? Mr K irkham?

372. MR LOWE QC: Mr Kirkham, Mr Bellars and we then we have landscape as a further topic. Mr Kirkham, I think it is your first appearance in front of the Committee. Can you just tell us your responsibilities and your knowledge of the area?

373. MR KIRKHAM: My name is Andy K irkham. I am forward plans manager at

Aylesbury Vale District Council and I would just emphasise to the Committee that I am not a lighting expert, either. I am a planner and we are here with a concern over the process.

374. MR LOWE QC: Right. What is your concern? Just take us through your two slides and explain what the concern is.

375. MR KIRKHAM: You have heard from the two previous witnesses, Martin and Edi, about the impacts here on lighting. One thing which does concern us is how the lighting will be treated. It is not just on the IMD, of course, it is on the railhead. You heard earlier that the rail actually doubles the land take in this area. Effectively, all the land between Calvert and Steeple Claydon, the railway line, will be, for 10 years, a construction site. We fully understand the approval process through schedule 16. Our concern is that temporary lighting for construction sites is one of six construction stage matters which are in the BIM and the planning memorandum, which will be subject to what they call ‘class approvals’. Essentially, as I understand it, that is where the Secretary of State grants generic approval for temporary lighting facilities up and down the line for construction sites.

376. We acknowledge that that may well be appropriate for temporary usage. You have smaller construction camps where things will move around. You will need to move lighting around, you will need to suspend it. This is 10 years. The railhead and the IMD effectively start, we understand, on day one of the HS2 work starting and it seems to end in the 10-year period afterwards. On that basis we think it is wholly inappropriate that the temporary lighting in this area for that 10-year period should be considered under class approval.

377. Could we move on to my final slide? You have heard all this, light pollution and everything else. What we are looking for is just an assurance that HS2 will bring forward any artificial lighting proposals for the infrastructure maintenance depot and the Steeple Claydon railhead under schedule 16, that it will not be considered under a class approval. Indeed, if you look through the exhibits put in by HS2 –

378. MR LOWE QC: Can we just do that with P8454, for example.

379. MR KIRKHAM: My main reference to the importance of that is that with class

approvals, of course, there is practically non-involvement. You have some involvement at the start. I would just emphasise the need for involvement.

380. MR LOWE QC: I am sorry, I asked for the wrong slide. I should have said 8455. That is the visual.

381. MR KIRKHAM: Apologies to the Committee. What I am referring to is a reference to a link which, for copyright reasons, HS2 couldn’t put in as an exhibit, I am afraid, but it relates to Reading Train Care Depot, recently opened, and developments down there. The firm emphasised there that light was a significant factor. This was within an urban area, not a rural area. There was a significant impact and that benefited from over two years of discussions with the local authority and local residents. So, it just emphasises the need for involvement here and this is, as has been painted, almost one of the unique areas along the line in terms of impact. So, that is our ask.

382. MR LOWE QC: These have been presented in the exhibits of HS2 as visuals of lighting. Do these assist you at all in providing any guidance as to what might happen or why one should not have concerns about a class consent?

383. MR KIRKHAM: I assure the Committee we are not arguing against sunlight in any way whatsoever. These are daytime pictures. They could be anywhere. I suspect they are the Folkestone area near the motorway. This isn’t near a motorway. This isn’t near any major significant fields. Things move on with lighting.

384. CHAIR: Okay, I think we’ve got the point. Shall we get a response from HS2?

385. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I am not sure that there is very much, really, between us. It is right to say that there is, under paragraph 5 of schedule 16 a class approval regime which extends to lighting but it does make clear, and I read out subparagraph (4) of paragraph 5, that before making a class approval, the Secretary of State must consult the planning authorities who would be affected by it. It also provides that a class approval may make different provision for different cases. So, what we have here is a situation where unless there is a class approval, a decision by the Secretary of State, the local authority for the maintenance depot will have the power of approval under paragraph 4 in relation to artificial lighting and in that respect they will be able to consider whether the arrangements for lighting should be modified to preserve the local

environment or the local amenity and whether they are reasonably capable of being so modified.

386. That is the basic framework. It follows from that that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether or not he should extend the class approval to the maintenance depot given the scale of that facility – whether that is a case which is appropriate for class approval – must consult with the local authorities for the area and hear what they have to say. We can rest assured, I think, that they will say that this should be dealt with in a more bespoke way and he will have to decide whether, in those circumstances, he should leave the regulation to them under the bespoke arrangements, or whether he could have a class approval and if he does decide to have a class approval what arrangements he should make to cover this particular circumstances of the depot.

387. So, within the regime of the Bill there is a clear framework within which the local authorities are going to be consulted and will be able to have their say about what action the Secretary of State should take.

388. MR KIRKHAM: Will there be 24-hour working on these sites?

389. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I think there will be. The other point I would like to make, just to complete the picture on the statutory regime, is that whatever arrangements may be in place as between the local authorities and the Secretary of State, the nominated undertaker is also empowered to request in any given case that he should move away from a class approval and go back to seeking specific approval from the local authority and in those circumstances such class approval arrangements that are in place would then be substituted. So, if there was a powerful groundswell, as it were, amongst the local community voiced through the local authority that the case needed more specific consideration, there is then a route to seek to persuade the nominated undertaker to that. I am simply pointing out the statutory regime which applies here, which I suggest provides a regime which enables the concerns that Mr Kirkham understandably puts forward to be accommodated.

390. MR LOWE QC: All we would say is that we would like an assurance so that we have certainty now rather than have to go through this whole rigmarole again in front of the Secretary of State merely to persuade the Secretary of State that bespoke provision should be made for a working area of the scale of these two areas. That is our response.

391. CHAIR: Can I ask, Mr Mould: the villages looking down on the site, what provision is there to try and obscure the site from the village, which also needs some lighting?

392. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You can see that, actually. Front bunds is the answer. You can see that on the plan. It is P8464. This is the completed depot. We have substantial bunds running along the northern side of the depot along its full length and you can see where Steeple Claydon is. As you know, the ground falls away gradually from the village down to the depot. Those are going to be planted and the bund at the northern section, which is closest to the village, which is the section that has been pointed out, will be created early in the construction phase and planted early in the construction phase so that it provides screening not only from the permanent works but also during the course of construction. We are more constrained as you move away from the village to the south where hopefully distance between the village and the works will itself provide some amelioration. We are more constrained here because the sheer scale of activity which is required within this lower half of the railhead and construction site means that there is much less room for creating the bunding at the early stage so we would be relying on some temporary bunding but also perimeter fencing to screen. But then, as you can see, once the works are getting towards completion we then introduce this.

393. MR LOWE QC: The next witness, I think, is dealing with the issue of screening.

394. CHAIR: All right.

395. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will save the cross-sections until we hear that but that is the answer to your question.

396. MR KIRKHAM: That doesn’t include the railhead, and again it comes back to our concern that the railhead is there for 10 years, so something needs to be done to address the railhead, which is possibly a larger land area than the final IMD.

397. CHAIR: But, Mr Mould, the planning authority would still have to go over these plans, presumably?

398. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It will, yes. Mr Kirkham is quite right. At the moment

the Secretary of State retains the power under the Bill to embrace this site within a class approval for temporary lighting. I have sought to explain that whilst he retains that power, it by no means follows that that is the approach he will take.

399. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr K irkham.

400. MR LOWE QC: Could I have Mr Bellars next, please?

401. MR LOWE QC : Your name is Jonathan Bellars?

402. MR BELLARS: That’s right, yes.

403. MR LOWE QC: And your role?

404. MR BELLARS: I am a landscape architect and urban designer for Aylesbury Vale District Council and have been for the last 25 years.

405. MR LOWE QC: You are dealing with slide A1447(18).

406. MR BELLARS: That is right.

407. MR LOWE QC: This is the screening and landscape issue at Steeple Claydon. Can you just explain your slide?

408. MR BELLARS: Essentially there are two quite simple points. Just to pick up on where the last point was being discussed, this slide might be helpful. It shows the railhead and this is the construction phase. If we flick to the next slide, which is the operational phase, slide 19, you will see the bund that was being talked about by Mr Mould that runs all the way down the northern side of the finished scheme. If you keep that bund in mind and flick back to slide 18, you will see the bund line in the middle of the yellow area. What that shows you is that where the arrow is now pointing, that is the railhead, which is outside the bunded area that for a period of 10 years will be occupied by construction work and all the paraphernalia with what is going on in that area.

409. We are making the point that was alluded to earlier on, that this area will be fully in view of Steeple Claydon for a long period and we believe that there is scope and that HS2 should carry out mitigation works along the northern edge of the railhead. They

are proposing, as I understand it, as Mr Mould again alluded to, as much of the permanent bunding as they can during this time but that obviously has no effect on the impact of the railhead. We are asking for the temporary stockpiles to be provided around the northern edge of the railhead of a sufficient scale and in keeping with the landscape to act as temporary mitigation for the duration of the operation of that land. We anticipate that that will be a suitable in scale bund that would be grassed over for the 10 years and we are asking that it would have permanent planting on it of the right profile and height to provide adequate mitigation for the duration of that construction phase.

410. So, that is the first point. The second point on the following slide, 19, is to do permanent mitigation but this time on the southern side of the IMD. As has already been explained, the northern side has this extended bund and planting but if you look to where the arrow is pointing on that slide you will see that the IMD is open to views from the south with virtually no mitigation proposed that we can see on these drawings on the land to the south and there are a number of farms and footpaths in that area which we believe would be significantly impacted upon. The scope provided by the Bill limits in that area is absolutely minimal.

411. So, we have been asking for some suggestion from HS2 as to how they would anticipate that mitigation being carried out and have, as yet, received no confirmation on what the proposals would be. We are asking for an assurance that there is sufficient scope within the Bill limits in that area to provide adequate and appropriate mitigation. We don’t believe at the moment that there appears to be and would suggest that actually the Bill limits need to be adjusted along that edge to allow for more significant and appropriate planting and bunding to protect and mitigate visual impacts to the south. In a nutshell those are the two main points I would like to raise.

412. CHAIR: Do you want to either ask questions or respond?

413. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As far as I know this is T8449. The first point is that we will, of course, continue to review in collaboration with the council how we can fine tune the layout of this site whilst meeting the needs of the railway but providing as much screening during construction as we can. Just to illustrate that, here you have a plan which shows some work we have been doing and the areas in the brown notation,

which are being shown with the cursor now extending along the north eastern side of the railhead site are all areas of stockpiling. What we have sought to do within this is to show how we can deploy the stockpile areas along that boundary. That is with a view to doing exactly what the witness is saying, which is to try and secure screening through that mechanism.

414. No doubt there is further work to be done to see whether we can improve on that, but that gives you an idea of the arrangements we are looking to achieve. We are not persuaded that there is a case for extending the Bill limits for this purpose.

415. MR LOWE QC: We certainly do not seek extended Bill limits.

416. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, well that is very helpful, thank you. So, that is where we have got to and I am not sure I can add to that, really. We shall continue to review this and continue to engage with the local authority who, as you know, will have an interest in this under the Environmental Minimum Requirements in any event.

417. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What about protection for people to the south of the line?

418. MR MOULD QC (DfT): First of all there is very little habitation to the south. The existing line, the Lister to Bletchley line, as you know, is between the railhead depot site and those who do live to the south. We are not predicting any significant noise effects during construction or operation on those who do live to the south and whilst, obviously, I have no doubt there will be visual effects, they are not such as to be, in our reporting in the Environmental Statement, serious. But whilst it is not shown on this plan, one of the things we told you about our worksites, particularly our large-scale worksites, is that the Code of Construction Practice requires us to think carefully about the boundary treatment of such sites and if there is a case here for some sort of fence to provide some shielding from all the apparatus and workings that are going on within the site to the south, then the Code of Construction Practice encompasses that.

419. MR BELLARS: There is Rosehill Farm.

420. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: If you point on the screen, magic will happen.

421. MR BELLARS: Rosehill Farm is there and Great Pond Farm is not actually

shown. Those are the two nearest residential areas but, as was discussed earlier, obviously as you can see on here there are a number of footpaths moving through this area, all of which, as I think was agreed earlier on, are well used and HS2 themselves are encouraging the use of Addison Road and people moving through that area, all of which would have a clear line of site northwards up into the IMD. I just don’t understand how significant earthworks and plants are required on the northern side and none at all on the southern side. It is just inconsistent. It is the same impact and the same landscape just viewed from a different angle. You can see from that plan that there is virtually no scope whatsoever along this section here to introduce any significant form of planting or certainly not earthworks along that side and if the suggestion seriously is to put effectively a wall along there, I don’t believe that that is an adequate response to a sensitive location.

422. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are these matters which the promoters and the councils will go on talking about?

423. MR BELLARS: We would but our concern obviously is that without the space to introduce appropriate mitigation, we cannot ask to have a schedule 16 stage. We need sufficient space to ask for those provisions at a later date. At the moment they are saying there is not.

424. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be that the promoter’s proposed land take isn’t great enough.

425. MR BELLARS : That is what they are saying, yes.

426. MR LOWE QC: That is certainly the argument there.

427. MR BELLARS: No, we weren’t arguing about land take on the northern side.

428. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, on the southern side.

429. MR BELLARS : On the southern side, yes.

430. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

431. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As I say, I focus, and I think there is common ground, although it might not be acknowledged ,that we should be focusing on trying to mitigate

the impacts on Steeple Claydon because that is where the majority of people live. I do not for a minute suggest that we should ignore impacts on more isolated dwellings and footpath users to the south but I pointed out that those are people who are beyond not only the depot but also the line of the East West Railway Line. We have been told that there is strong encouragement to bring that line back into operation during the course of construction of HS2. There will be works associated with that, no doubt, and I pointed out that whilst it is right that it is difficult to see how one could have any sort of appreciable bunding or planting along the southern side of the depot alongside the existing railway line, there is certainly room for some sort of perimeter fencing and it may be, and our position is, I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge it frankly, that that is an appropriate response to the level of impact that we are predicting at the southern side of the depot during construction.

432. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And I am suggesting that the promoters reflect on the discussion that has taken place just now.

433. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We will do that, certainly, but I cannot say that we won’t propose adding to the Bill.

434. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

435. MR LOWE QC : Mr Tett, please. Slide 1447(20). We come to the end.

436. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just out of interest, can this be built without the Bill?

437. MR LOWE QC: Can it be built without a Bill?

438. MR TETT: It is on existing lines.

439. MR LOWE QC: Yes, it is a Transport and Works Act Order that is proposed.

440. MR TETT: And to a very large extent it is utilising the dormant track.

441. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, I understand that.

442. MR TETT: Can I bring the Committee back to our last ask, which is Ask 6 in terms of enhanced connectivity, which has been a theme that has run through this

particular petition? I would remind the Committee that one of the big areas that the community is very concerned about is the impact, not just on their own local connectivity but on the major industry in the area besides farming, which is tourism and leisure. So, just harking back to some of the previous discussion it is not just the fact that people don’t live south of the IMD in significant numbers but tourism and leisure, but a lot of people who walk on and use that area for recreation feel that that will actually lead to people avoiding the area because of the size and bulk of the IMD during construction.

443. So, linking into the last three asks within Ask 6, we would like to petition the Committee for three things that again the local community raise with us as what they believe would be appropriate mitigation. The first of these is that we would like to address the area of broadband provision. This links very much to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport policy in terms of rolling out broadband nationally across the country. As a county council we have funded up to 90 per cent connectivity by premises across the county but unfortunately that is premises not geography and a very significant part of the geography of Aylesbury Vale lies outside that scheme. A lot of it lies in the Calvert area. There is some limited broadband provision in Steeple Claydon. Areas such Calvert and Charndon, Twyford and Chetwode in this area still currently do not have broadband provision. What we suggest is again in line with what, I believe the Secretary of State said, which is that there would be high speed fibre provision alongside the track for HS2. We suggest that HS2 makes interconnectivity for that fibre available so that local network operators can offer network high speed broadband to those local communities at a reasonable cost. So, that is our first ask on behalf of the community.

444. Secondly, in terms of the walking route between Calvert and Steeple Claydon, perhaps we could bring up the next slide? That would be very helpful for the Committee. I am sure the Committee will remember that we had this discussion earlier between Mr Mould and myself about the walking route, or rather the driving route, that currently exists between Calvert and Steeple Claydon and I hope that there will be new overbridges in due course to enable that activity to continue for car use, but what it really requires, we believe, is pedestrian access via a footpath. At the moment there is no footpath there and we would ask that HS2 help the community in terms of enabling

that connectivity by providing a new footpath along that particular route linking those two communities.

445. Lastly, the bridle path that runs alongside the track is shown, I believe, in red on the map you have in front of you. That is actually a bridle path that is used by horse riders at the moment and links on beyond that. The proposal, I believe, is to turn that into just a footpath. Again, in terms of enhancing the area for walking and cycling, etc., the community would like to see that actually retained and the surface there reinstated so that it provides a good surface, particularly for cyclists using the area. Again, they believe that that would help the local economy.

446. Those are our three what we believe to be very modest final asks under the theme of connectivity.

447. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould, do you want to respond to this?

448. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just taking it in reverse order, my understanding is that the red land, the bridleway, is within Bill limits so I don’t see any difficulty with working with the council to improve the surfacing of that facility. We need to check that but we can take that forward for discussion. With regard to the new walking route, I think that will follow, broadly, the line of the existing carriageway, wouldn’t it?

449. MR TETT: Yes, there is land alongside the carriageway.

450. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But if it is within highway limits I would have thought there can certainly be a discussion about whether there are ways in which that could be improved. I say no more than that now. What we can’t do is get into adding land into the Bill because one immediately gets into the problem with neighbouring landowners and so forth but if it is within the highway the other thought I had is that we touched yesterday on the funds. A modest proposal of that kind I would have thought is the kind of thing that the Secretary of State has in mind as being a candidate for the fund. My task is to point out the opportunities that are available.

451. I am not going to dive and ditch about that. The broadband point, as Mr Tett alluded to there is a power in the Bill for the nominated undertaker to make passive provision for electronic communications alongside the railway works. How, when, if

and to what extent that should be actively used is a matter for commercial negotiation and the Secretary of State I think has indicated that he is going to be pursuing that. The point made by Mr Tett I would have thought is something that as usual with these things we should report to the Secretary of State for him to take into account when he is considering that issue.

452. MR HENDRICK: On that, there is no point clearly getting the fibre alongside the track on the route, which obviously forms the spine of any broadband network – the problem is always getting the local loop between the house and the spine of the network. Now, presumably an operator like British Telecom would be required to provide that local loop from a farmhouse or some cottage to get it to the line where obviously the spine of the network is. Presumably that would involve considerable cost to somebody to be carried out by British Telecom and I presume that the petitioners are asking that yourselves, HS2, bear some of that cost. Are they the sort of discussions that you are going to get into?

453. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As I say, the Bill empowers the provision of the ducting, passive provision for electronic communications along the route. How that is deployed is a matter for commercial consideration. That is the next step, isn’t it, as you say?

454. MR HENDRICK: Yes, and the bit that is already there from all the other cables which you will need to operate the line anyway.

455. MR MOULD QC (DfT): My instructions are that the Secretary of State has decided that he should promote a Bill with the arrangements in Schedule 2 for passive provision as part of the construction work. How that is then taken advantage of is a matter for the Secretary of State to engage with the private sector. I am fully aware of the general policies which the Government has through other departments about rolling out the broadband network. I am not instructed to offer any specific assurances about local connections in this area or any other, but simply to leave the matter as per the Bill powers that I have mentioned.

456. MR HENDRICK: We could ask Mr Tett how he feels about that response.

457. MR TETT: I think you have put your finger on a very good point, Mr Hendrick. Fundamentally, there are two issues here. One is the ability to access that final chord of

fibre that will run alongside the track so that a network operator or several network operators can access that and then there is the cost of providing access from that network point to a suitable distribution point nearer the communities, so running it, effectively, to a cabinet, if you like, in old speak. We would like and obviously would request in the spirit, again, of the DCMS Government policy, that HS2 makes a contribution towards that in terms of making it viable for a network operator and then obviously I would expect – I will use BT in this instance but it could be another network operator – to be responsible for the cost from the cabinet to the household or the business.

458. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It would be helpful if the promoters and the Department for Transport could let us know that they have had proper discussions with DCMS about possible exploitation of the HS2 route, not necessarily a financial contribution but that all the opportunities are being considered and can be built in rather than trying to be bolted on afterwards.

459. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will try and get a report, a brief note for you on that before you conclude.

460. SIR P ETER BO TTOMLEY: But more on what they can do rather than what they have or haven’t done in the past.

461. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I understand, taking advantage of the opportunity.

462. CHAIR: They were more positive, those last three points.

463. MR LOWE QC: Yes, they were – not quite green, perhaps orange, but very he lp ful.

464. CHAIR: I thought I heard ‘yes’ at all three points, did I not, Mr Mould?

465. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There is no point asking me questions; I don’t know anything.

466. CHAIR: Where do we go next, Mr Lowe?

467. MR LOWE QC: I wonder whether we could have a five minute break because I think things have been going on in the corridor about the next topic and I should just

point out what they are before I call my next witness.

468. CHAIR: Okay. I adjourn for five minutes. Order, order.

Sitting Suspended

On Resuming—

469. CHAIR: Order, order.

470. MR LOWE QC: My next witness is Bettina Kirkham, who will be familiar to the Committee.

471. CHAIR: There are quite a lot of slides, so I hope you can go through them.

472. MR LOWE QC: What I am hoping is that we can take some as examples. There is one point where there have been discussions today between Mr Bellars and AVDC, that is Aylesbury Vale, and HS2 and he can introduce that point. Now, your slide, 1450, please. Number 2 is purely introductory. I think we could move on to number 3, which refers to the enormous improvements which we hope will be introduced or were introduced last night through the proposed AB4 and the further options at Wendover, and to the next slide which introduces the fact that your new evidence is all about alternative mitigation. Perhaps we could move on to slide 5, which sets out the hierarchy for mitigation. Again, I think it will be familiar from the submissions I made on the closing of the tunnel case yesterday but it is set out there in an obvious three level way. Is that right?

473. MRS KIRKHAM: That is correct, yes.

474. MR LOWE QC: And you are seeking further assurances from HS2 on design and means of achieving them. I think we will come back to some recent correspondence about that. Is that right?

475. MRS KIRKHAM: That is correct, yes.

476. MR LOWE QC: Shall we then go on to 6, which is the tunnel extension similar to C5 that is an extension to Leather Lane.

477. MRS KIRKHAM: That is correct, yes.

478. MR LOWE QC: Again, I suspect that all this will be rather familiar to the Committee but can you take us swiftly through it?

479. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. I have come back to this because we have the extension to South Heath through your good selves, but in order to really mitigate the impact on that part of the AONB the best option is to continue a tunnel as far as Leather Lane. Just to go through the main objectives of that, it would be because the portal when it comes out of South Heath is right next to South Heath; it is very close.

480. MR LOWE QC: Shall we look at the next slide, number 7, which shows this?

481. CHAIR: We will call it the South Heath Portal. We named it something else so that house prices wouldn’t –

482. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, it does get confusing, yes. So, the next slide, number 7, if I can jump to that first and then we will go back. The top one is the old Hybrid Bill scheme. The middle one is the A4 proposal as of exhibit U last August and the bottom one is the C5 proposal. We would actually prefer C5 to have gone a bit further and to continue the tunnel to the north side of Leather Lane. That’s why there is a slight deference, but that is a small point. Just to illustrate that you can see that the middle one which shows the 85 as it was in August, and the portal. Actually, you can see Frith Hill is just to the north of that. It is a very large piece of infrastructure with buildings and so on extremely close to South Heath at that point. So, that is one of the main concerns that we have.

483. Moving to the left of that drawing you can see a triangular wood, which is Jenkins Wood. I apologise if it is not labelled. You can see that the footprint becomes extraordinarily close to that wood. They don’t actually go into it but that is an area of special landscape value.

484. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you point to it with your pen and the magic will work.

485. MRS KIRKHAM: That there is Jenkins Wood. So, we are concerned about that, which is extremely close. AP4 – because it is deeper they come out of the tunnel at a deeper point. At that point the top of the cutting as it is designed is another 60 metres

wider than it was with the Hybrid Scheme, which brings it closer to Jenkins Wood, and as you already know, the ancient semi-natural woodlands are particularly sensitive. They have been there for very many hundreds of years and are sensitive to change. That is why we are concerned about that.

486. If you move onwards to this point here, which is Park Farm, there are some unique small scale landscapes there, which are very similar to the ones I brought to your attention back in July. As a result of that the route as it is at present will remove all those landscapes. They cannot be reinstated even outside the line itself because of the need for bunding and so on.

487. The other effect of this is that we have several well used parts of rural roads that would be badly affected. The roads have sunken lanes, which you already know are particularly valuable. The footpaths are a very important part of how people enjoy this landscape, so obviously by tunnelling we could actually protect all of those and they would remain as they are now.

488. Our last point is the need to come to this hilly bit of the Chilterns across here, which is continual. Across here, you are continually getting these very deep cuttings, needing several route crossings and extensive embankments to screen HS2 because you have a lot of communities there. There are a lot of people looking at the route and you have a lot of people crossing the route. So, a lot of people will actually see the line at that point. This is why we would still prefer to have a tunnel extending further north up to just before Leather Lane.

489. MR LOWE QC: I suspect that the Committee is familiar with them but at the bottom of that slide using the tunnelled route that you would prefer to take, can you just indicate where the sunken lanes and footpaths are?

490. CHAIR: We know where they are.

491. MR LOWE QC: You know. I will move on. Could we turn to slide 8 please? We are now at Wendover and request for the mined or bored tunnel. Do you want to just quickly refreeze the main points?

492. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. This is particularly so because I am very concerned

about the landscape and visual impact of not having a mined or bored tunnel, which probably won’t surprise you. We have seen the options that have come from HS2 and we are not comfortable with either. They might address some of the noise problems but they introduce new, other problems. So, the reason we support a mined or bored tunnel – we think that the bored is slightly better but I think we are very happy with both – is particularly because these would remove the very high levels of visual impact along the whole of that route, which if joined by Wendover will be affected but also obviously the community. People don’t stay still. They move around the community. They go into the la nd scape for a walk, they take the roads. But specifically there are adverse impacts on those residents who live south of the line because the works that are required to achieve the current scheme are very expensive at Ellesborough Road, Bacombe Road, Small Dean Lane and on the A413, which I am sure you are very familiar with.

493. I am also particularly concerned that on the stretch from Bacombe Road to Small Dean Lane you have a lot of existing infrastructure there and the introduction of HS2 and S mall Dean Lane viaduct all increases the enormous amount of infrastructure at a very narrow point. It is very difficult to mitigate with that much going on. Then, added to that is a possible box or noise barriers all along that route to attenuate the noise which I quite understand is extremely important but it does have a knock-on effect of this amount of infrastructure that is cluttering up that very narrow corridor as it goes through the gap and is also so close to Wendover.

494. So, obviously the next thing, of course, is to reduce the visual impact on Wendover Dean itself. It is just to the south of Wendover.

495. MR LOWE QC: Shall we look at slide 12?

496. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, that is right. At this point here they are approaching Wendover Dean and coming through to the viaduct. Both of the two tunnel options mean that you approach that area of the landscape at a much lower level, so either with one solution you are actually at grade and with the alternative solution you get a viaduct with a much shorter length than that on a slope reducing the visual impact. That is what I refer to there.

497. MR LOWE QC : Thank you.

498. MRS KIRKHAM: Lastly, of course, if you put a tunnel in it would attenuate the noise impact of HS2 on Wendover but also the communities south of the line, which of course is just as important as the people of Wendover where the communities matter.

499. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. Shall we go to the next point please, slide 9, which is further mitigation that you are asking for, which you reduce to three points and we shall look at examples of them as we go through.

500. MRS KIRKHAM: That is correct, yes. The first one is particularly controversial. We are asking for small changes to the approach to land take. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the land take is to meet the engineering and construction needs. We agree with HS2 that this is landscape that is particularly important, and it is really important that we achieve a very high-standard design, which is an exemplar for this new great project.

501. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It said, ‘land take’. Does this extend to land use?

502. MRS KIRKHAM: No, it’s the area that HS2 introduced into their Bill limits to extend the land take, so it is a temporary measure to ensure that we get landscape mitigation.

503. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You are wanting the land to be used. The question of whether or not they need to take it is a separate issue, isn’t it?

504. MR MOULD QC (DfT): From my understanding, if we are going to extend our limits we would need to extend our powers of compulsory purchase to cover, otherwise we would find ourselves at the risk of being held to ransom by those who own the land.

505. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In effect it would be the same.

506. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It would be more extended.

507. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You would need a power either to acquire or to use.

508. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Over a more extensive area than we think is necessary, yes.

509. MRS KIRKHAM: The second one is to get some more appropriate landscape

mitigation for the scheme design, and finally we have some route-wide asks. We are coming back to those, but we had some dialogue with HS2 on the last one.

510. MR LOWE QC: Let’s go to the first, the changes to the Bill limits. In slide 10 you set out three main points which you rely upon in order to support this request.

511. MRS KIRK HAM: Yes.

512. MR LOWE QC: Perhaps you could just introduce those briefly.

513. MRS KIRKHAM: As I said, the HS2 land takes largely reflect the need for construction and operational needs and we are just asking that land take should be also extended to allow landscape mitigation to be undertaken.

514. CHAIR: If it is helpful, I don’t think the Committee are going to be persuaded into extending the land take – because it means more provisioning and it means adding several months to the Bill – unless there is a very good reason for doing it.

515. MRS KIRKHAM: Okay. Are you happy for me to run through why I think it is important?

516. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the Chairman is guiding you to go for your second point. Take some examples, I think would be the best thing to do.

517. MRS KIRKHAM: Could I just say, very briefly, that our concern is that it won’t be possible to meet what even HS2 say they will do. They say they can grade into the natural landform but we say you can’t do that within the landscape that we have at present, so we will not be able to achieve what I think both us and HS2 would like to achieve. I totally understand what you said, Chairman.

518. CHAIR: We understand that there is a difficult point, that some of the mitigation was put within the land take when there is logically some that should be outside. There are better areas for doing things, but that is one of the deficiencies of the Bill. I just think that if we start to extend land take we will have additional provisions and additional petitioning and you could add years to the Bill. I don’t know about my colleagues but I would prefer not to be here for more years.

519. MRS KIRKHAM: If there is another way, a third way forward, obviously I don’t

know because we have been told by HS2 that unless they have it within their Bill they won’t be able to deliver something.

520. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is not entirely true to say that that is our position. We put forward a document, if you remember, in July called, The Mitigation and Integration Plan, which I think Mr Clifton-Brown asked me about when we were dealing with tunnel heads. In that document we contemplated that we might seek by agreement to add further enhancements to the scheme that the Bill encompasses within its limits. So, there is room for further work but what it can’t do, as you say, is to be predicated on the notion that we should extend the powers of acquisition.

521. MR LOWE QC: We are grateful for that indication but can I just make this clear on behalf of my clients. Because these petitioners come late in the programme, they shouldn’t be disadvantaged over those petitioners who came earlier who the Committee were prepared at least to hear on whether the land take was adequate.

522. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: One would ask that indeed.

523. CHAIR: I would also point out that we have heard a lot of petitioners whose land is being taken, so there are two sides to this.

524. MR LOWE QC: There are always going to be two sides to this point; I appreciate that the Committee is put in the invidious position of having to choose between the two.

525. CHAI R: Oka y, le t’s crack on.

526. MR LOWE QC: I turn to examples. The first example is something that Mr Bellars knows most about but let us turn to an example that you have drawn up very clearly. What about 15? Is that one of your clearer examples?

527. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, that is a clear example and one I would like to just quickly take you through. This is actually at a place called Chesham Plain and also there is Rocky Lane, with which you are probably familiar, with Hartley Farm there. The route goes through cutting at this point with bunds on the north side so we are not concerned about the south side at all; it is the north side of this particular stretch. You can see that the orange dotted line is the existing land take. The purple dotted line is a possible suggestion. What we are asking for is for this to be reconsidered. These are

not firmed up proposals. The purpose of this is to allow the land form to be graded into that land form there. We’ve got a bund that goes down, the land take stops but it needs to be graded into the existing slope.

528. Also, you will see on that drawing Roberts Wood, which is just north of the Chesham Plain. We propose extending the landscape to achieve some additional woodland planting land. The purpose of that woodland planting, apart from actually reinforcing existing woodland in the area to provide views, is to screen those views from the footpath, which you can see crossing just above where it says ‘Roberts Wood’, which is just here, and from K ings Lane, which is up here. So, it is to enable mitigation closer to the viewpoint so that it could act as a screen. So, it has a dual purpose there. The third purpose is that there is a sunken lane, quite an important one here, which has been included in HS2’s documentation as an illustration of a good sunken lane, so I assume they attach importance to it, and this would enable that lane to be retained as it is and to be restored back to whatever minor works are needed to reinforce it. So, our proposal there is threefold to achieve three aims.

529. MR LOWE QC: Another example we might look at is 19. That is a very simple example of how the extent to which the current plans really make provision for landscaping and how they might be improved. Can you just take us through this one? This is the Annie Bailey vent shaft.

530. MRS KIRKHAM: I wanted to say that this was formerly for Exhibit U back in August, so I don’t know what is currently proposed but this is an example of where all this land at one point was part of the land take. It has been modified because we would only need a vent shaft there now. As a consequence, it has been modified by quite a considerable amount, obviously, but for some reason the land to the immediate left of here has been excluded from the land take and that has made it extremely difficult for them to actually design in this land shaft and to limit the harm to the landscape. There is a belt of trees along here which are at risk of being lost. There is a bund here and a bund here, all of which are totally out of keeping with the landscape and by adding an additional bit of the land take at this point – you have plenty of room down here – there is the opportunity to perhaps slightly move it and actually integrate that edge of that scheme into the landscape and mitigate the visual harm and create a scheme that actually is in keeping with the Chilterns.

531. MR LOWE QC: You say more land take but was that land originally included in AP2?

532. MRS KIRKHAM: It was, yes.

533. MR LOWE QC: So, it wouldn’t necessarily require an extension to Bill limits?

534. MRS KIRK HAM: No.

535. MR LOWE QC: We have taken a couple of examples. Are you content to take a couple or would you like to refer to any others?

536. MRS KIRKHAM: No, I think that will be fine.

537. MR LOWE QC: Right. Should we then move on, please, to slide 20 and to a different topic, which is additional mitigation in key locations. You have shown the line of the route, and the key of the plan shows the topics you are covering here. Perhaps you would just take us quickly through them?

538. MRS KIRKHAM: The top one – these are things that cannot be left to Schedule 16 because they are quite key to the design of the routes, which is why we’re asking for them now. The first one on the top is proposed lower vertical alignment, which is that black line with two little arrows. That goes from where the south east portal comes out. At the moment, AP4, back from last August came out at the lower level but came back to the original scheme quite quickly, and we are asking for it to actually continue at a lower level, until it gets to Leather Lane; I’ll explain in a minute why.

539. The second one is proposed changes to the land for these are all ones that can all be carried out within the Bill limits. The next one is proposed green bridges, which, obviously, HS2 have looked at elsewhere and included in the original scheme, which was the green tunnel at South Heath, and then we have proposed retained cuttings, which I believe you’re familiar with. And one alternative construction route, and one location for an alternative balancing pond.

540. MR LOWE QC: Right, so we go to slide 21, and this is the area around South Heath, the area at the top of the key, lower vertical alignment, and you give your justification for that.

541. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, as I explained, it’s between those two points; we’re already at a lower point at South Heath, we just wanted that lower point to be continued for longer. The benefits of that are we could actually significantly reduce the visual impacts of the scheme because it won’t be seen, it’ll be deeper down, you won’t need the same embankments, you may not need the noise attenuation. If you’ll allow for road and footpath crossings to be constructed, minimise construction needs there. It may reduce noise impacts, but that’s outside my area, but most importantly, we may not need the attenuation needed. My last point looks like an ecological one, which it is, but all of these things are tied up with ecological needs, heritage needs and other environmental and recreational – so, I cleared that, that has been a discussion with Ian – sorry, I’ve forgotten his name, from Bucks County Council, earlier.

542. MR LOWE QC: Now if we turn to 22, we have there the retained cuttings at locations where, I suspect the Committee are more than familiar, and you identify the protections that they will provide to Grim’s Ditch and Jones’ Hill Wood in terms of saving of land take of about 30% in both cases. And that’s a significant advantage in your view, or not?

543. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, because both of these assets are important for – as heritage assets, and ecological assets, and as landscape assets. So, 30% is a considerable – it actually means that they have only a very small section of those – both those assets being damaged by – as a result of HS2.

544. MR LOWE QC : And you, in the next slide, 23, identify how those at the portal, at these two places in Bowood Lane, would better protect the community at South Heath and reduce the impact on sunken lanes, which very much the sunken lanes which you identified earlier, I think.

545. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, what they haven’t – we only ask for these things where it really matters, where the landscape is particularly sensitive, we have particularly sensitive features, features that have multifunctional purposes, so we’re very restricted in what we’re asking for here, but where it really matters.

546. MR LOWE QC: If we turn to 24, here is your green bridge ask, where the green diamonds on the original plan on 20, and you’ve listed the locations and you’ve indicated what they would do, protect the landscape assets, provide wildlife corridors –

we won’t go into that, we did that yesterday – safer crossings, greater restoration of farmland and improve diversity. I think you turn to those in a moment. Shall we go to the next slide?

547. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes is it worth saying – it is a point – that we’re – our definition of green bridges probably slightly differs from HS2. We see them as serving more than just a wildlife link; they are there to restore the landscape to protect heritage assets, to protect recreational routes, to protect – Bowood Lane, which is a sunken lane, so it’s a broader description, which is in keeping with Natural England’s guidance, which is why we’re particularly asking under the landscape banner.

548. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. So, shall we go to 25? The additional ask is going to be for some alternative land form design at some locations.

549. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes the main – I mean, these are all achievable within the land take and we’re just asking HS2 to go back and look at how alternative methods of land form design and the main purpose of that is really to get something that is actually more akin to the landscape and could be more useable to – for agriculture.

550. MR LOWE QC: Okay, the last ask is in relation to a particular footpath, which you’ve – which has already been dealt with in detail on your slide 18, more sympathetic treatment of a footpath.

551. MRS KIRKHAM: No, this is actually what we’ve actually asked for the construction route to follow the footpath rather than cut across the landscape but actually follow up a footpath.

552. MR LOWE QC: Oh, I’m sorry.

553. MRS KIRKHAM: That would intake a minor additional land take.

554. MR LOWE QC : Thank you. Now, green bridges, again, should we take your best examples of those? There are some number of them.

555. MRS KIRK HAM: There’s two green bridges.

556. MR LOWE QC: Three green bridges. Shall we start with the first one, slide 27?

557. MRS KIRKHAM: Slide 27 is to illustrate what is possible. The intention of that is, as I explained before, to try and save and additional 30% of Jones’ Hill Wood, because this is a combination of a green bridge and a retained cutting. So the retained cutting reduces the amount of cutting width and then we just cap it, basically, cut and cover with a green bridge that’ll actually restore the landscape connectivity between the north and the south. It gives the opportunity to actually reinstate, albeit it’s never going to be able to reinstate woodland on the site of Jones’ Wood, which is not possible under the current scheme. It also provides the opportunity for Bowood Lane to be reinstated to more or less what it is now, with its corridors, its green corridors either side, and to reinstate the agricultural land between those two. So, I’ve only expanded it over that extent, simply because we want to protect Jones’ Wood – Hill Wood and we want to protect Bowood Lane. It makes no sense to have two separate green bridges, so I’ve put them together there.

558. MR LOWE QC : Thank you.

559. MRS KIRKHAM: The next thing to stage to show, what is proposed to the hybrid Bill scheme where you can see this extended cutting. You can see Jones’ Hill Wood, which actually goes – can we have slide 28 please? You can see that Jones’ Hill Wood here, comes right down to this point here, yes. So you can see by – if we just had a retained cutting and capped it, which probably – this shows it better, we would save a lot of Jones’ Hill Wood, we would also enable us to cap it and reconstruct that woodland.

560. MR LOWE QC: And you’d also have the appropriate landscape context for Bowood Lane, the sunken lane?

561. MRS KIRKHAM: Exactly, that’s right yes.

562. MR LOWE QC: Rather than going up on a bridge, or whatever it does.

563. MRS KIRKHAM: That’s right, yes.

564. MR LOWE QC: So shall we turn to 29? Next one, please. And this is an example of a narrow green bridge, and this is Liberty Lane?

565. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. There’s only two locations where we think we need a wider one, but there’s a strong argument for these grey bridges which are basically, a

bridge, as we know it, to be slightly widened to enable landscaping either side of the bridge. And this is an example of that, at Liberty Lane. Again, one of the sunken important lanes that drop off the plateau down the Chilterns, and it – it’s very strongly marked by two rows of trees, either side, one either side, and it will enable that continuity to be recreated over the top of that. So, we’re not talking about an awful lot, but just to widen that bridge so you can get the landscape back in, either side of the road.

566. And the next shot, slide 30; 30 illustrates quite nicely, you can see here in the – this same lane is going to diverted from the point at the south, to the point in the north. There’s the original alignment and you can see this curve that’s up on an embankment – so it was just coming down here – embankment at this point, going over this cutting, and then coming back down, totally unlike what there is at present.

567. MR LOWE QC: And 31? Now we’re at Grim’s Ditch.

568. MRS KIRKHAM: Grim’s Ditch, we’ve also asked for a green bridge here. Given the status of Grim’s Ditch, it’s a scheduled ancient monument, as you already know, and the scheme, at present, will virtually destroy it, just nothing left, there’s little tiny bit at the north end. What we’re proposing that if you put a green bridge in at this point, we could save almost all of that dyke, in conjunction with retained cuttings and actually, at any rate, the line back on the small section that would be underneath the actual rail route. This would considerably protect Grim’s Ditch which is something I know HS2 have acknowledged needs protection. I think they just need to go that bit step further to actually ensure that is protected through a green bridge, and through retained cutting. And in doing so, because it’s so close to the track, that goes from Hunts Green Farm, which is this one here, down to Cottage Farm, which is again, demarcated very distinctive planting, free planting on either side, because they’re so close, extend it to include that track, will enable us to put back the landscape as it is currently found.

569. MR LOWE QC: And then I think, the next slide, 32, shows what is proposed in this location.

570. MRS KIRKHAM: That’s correct. So this shows you quite clearly that the ditches go from here down to here, all this stretch disappears, and you’re left with just this part here. By narrowing it, we’d save all that and all that.

571. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. Well those are enhanced landscape mitigations that you seek at this stage. Now your next slide 33, deals with general asks for the Chilterns and you ask one, for the AONB review Panel, and the Colne Valley to be established immediately, to review and discuss design matters, and secondly, an assurance, that HS2 will enter into discussions now, I think that’s the emphasis, with the local authorities and the board, with a view to identifying further landscaping planting and enchantments, to be undertaken outside Bill limits. Can you just – we’ll come back to the Panel in a moment with some recent correspondence, can you just help us with the second?

572. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. The second one is that we’ve been asking for some time, for work off-site, projects that will seek to enhance the Chilterns, and similar projects such as chalk and grass enhancements, enhancements to the Ridgeway, projects such as this. We would like this to progress much more quickly. We have asked for the Panel and also for the progression of the mitigation and integration document that Mr Strachan referred to earlier and we were just – really, some assurance from HS2 that that is possible, but at the moment, nobody’s talking about where, when, why, what might be on offer, what could be done and we want this process to start from now. Rather than be left till later.

573. MR LOWE QC: Right, if we turn over the page, you’ve got a request that the discussions continue to an agreed timetable until the Schedule 16 submissions, and then you asked for the landscape design approach and the landscape mitigation and integration document, no doubt titles with which the Committee are familiar, to be progressed as a matter of urgency, and binding to ensure more appropriate landscape mitigation, and again, I think we’ll come back with that to one. And then you ask that all environmental mitigation measures should adopt the green infrastructure approach to design and by that, what are you referring to?

574. MRS KIRKHAM: You’re probably familiar with it; it’s – as a definition in the NPPF, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, and also this is supported by Natural England in their documentation. Green infrastructure is basic where if you introduce landscape proposals, in the broadest sense, so that it’s multifunctional, so the only thing that’s designed is not only meeting a landscape projective, but it’s meeting ecological, recreational, water, social, so it has a multifunctional purpose, which is more than HS2 is perhaps offering in some places where they say it might have two.

575. MR LOWE QC: Is this a means of auditing the proposals to ensure that the maximum benefit is taken from them?

576. MRS KIRKHAM: I think it’s more than an audit, it’s designing it with all those aspects, so they’re all brought together, rather than dealt with in isolation, ‘Well, we’re going to do something here, how can we achieve several objectives through it?’,

577. MR LOWE QC: Right. Now I’m going to pause and ask whether we can have copies of this recent correspondence. Ah, I don’t know whether HS2 have this correspondence with Chiltern – Chiltern’s letter of 7 October and their response, I think it was yesterday, 12 October, anyway.

578. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve certainly got the response from yesterday, it’s just – I don’t know if I’ve got the letter from C hiltern, but I can give you the –

579. MR LOWE QC: Right. I received it by email this morning, so I don’t have copies e ither.

580. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well the letter of 13 October is –

581. MR LOWE QC : Thir tee nth?

582. MR MOULD QC (Dft): Twelfth, sorry, 12 October, is P8517.

583. MR LOWE QC : Ah, thank you. If we could have the twelfth file up then? Things go up even before they’re written on. Anyway, now we have it, and it’s helpful to see it, because it starts out, the first substantive paragraphs, with the mitigation and integration of HS2 within the Chilterns AONB document. So it’s back to this assurance that you’re seeking, the landscape design approach, and landscape integration documents, be progressed as a matter of urgency, you asked for, I think. And can we just see what they say; they refer to, ‘The assurance that is sought, and your request that the design principles established by that process, that’s the process of identifying appropriate design principles for the AONB, shall be incorporated into mitigation integration of design of HS2 of the AONB. This document was produced in order to provide an illustrative example of what may be possible in the AONB during detailed design. However, whilst we agree with design principles developed…’

584. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Could we have a…

585. MR LOWE QC: You have it? Well, I won’t read it. Now, tell us…

586. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Could we move it up the screen?

587. MR LOWE QC: Oh, so sorry.

588. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Thank you.

589. MR LOWE QC: If I could, I would. Now, just tell us, can you explain why this is not a satisfactory response to your request with this documentation?

590. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is there is a second page to this? Is there a second page?

591. MR LOWE QC: There is a second page.

592. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There’s an assurance section.

593. MR LOWE QC: There’s a third page.

594. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On the last page, there’s assurance.

595. THE CHAIR: I’m going to have to go to a meeting with the minister, so I’m going to ask David to take the Chair for the last few minutes.

596. MR CRAUSBY: Please continue.

597. MRS KIRKHAM: Our concerns are that HS2 recognise that – sorry, I was –

598. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, you can carry on, don’t be distracted.

599. MRS KIRKHAM: The Chilterns are a bit of a special case; that is why they have offered the mitigation integration document in the first place. We are very encouraged to see the first iteration of it, back in June, July, I think. But we think it’s particularly important that this should be progressed now and not be left until the nominated undertaker takes over. These are issues that need addressing, so that the nominated undertaker understands what matters at the stage when they get to that point.

600. I took some hope, actually, from what was said earlier, that actually, there may be an opportunity, that HS2 aren’t against developing the mitigation integration document earlier. They’re actually starting continuing with it now. They are doing that with the landscape design approach document, and we’re very pleased about that and I understand that’s coming out soon, and we would like that same urgency and progression to be also applied to the mitigation and integration document, which we see as a key document, once it’s agreed on, to direct and, actually smooth over the process, once the nominated undertaker’s take over, because they already have – some agreement with ourselves, rather than having to go through it all at a later stage. And that’s why we think it’s particularly important that it’s actually brought forward and progressed as quickly as the landscape design approach.

601. MR LOWE QC : Thank you. And then the third part of the letter, which is on the third page deals with your request about the review panel and does give an assurance, which is set out there, in respect of the review panel, I think in terms, largely along the lines sought by your clients, is that right? But with one important exception.

602. MRS KIRK HAM: Exactly, yes, thank you.

603. MR LOWE QC : And can you just identify that important exception?

604. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. So, if you’re looking at point 1, and if you go to the second line, you can see that, ‘The Secretary of State will acquire the nominated undertaker to set up the panel’. We’re asking for this panel to be set up now, not to be left to when the nominated undertaker takes over from the promoter. Partly, because we want to progress the mitigation integration document, partly because we think that will progress much more quickly, if there is a review panel representing the views of all of the stakeholders in the Chilterns, and instead of having to deal with several disparate groups. We see this as a facilitating exercise to actually speed things now, don’t see it actually should hold things up, HS2 agree that consultation is particularly important, so that when we get to the later stage, when the nominated undertakers come in, they have – a lot has been sorted out and the forum is a means of achieving that and actually smoothing the progress of the M&I document through this early stage.

605. MR LOWE QC : Thank you. Those are the main points you have to make on those two matters, aren’t they?

606. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, they are.

607. MR LOWE QC : Thank you very much.

608. MRS KIRK HAM: Well, there was one other…

609. MR LOWE QC : Sorry?

610. MRS KIRKHAM: There was one part of this assurance to do with the costs?

611. MR LOWE QC: Ah, I’m so sorry, yes, you’re quite right, my fault. There is one further item; if we look at item seven of the assurance, ‘reasonable and profitable incurred administrative costs irrespective of the formation and running of the group will be met by the nominated undertaker’. What was – what is your concern?

612. MRS KIRKHAM: Well, what we asked for was some help with the costs from HS2, not just for administrative – help with administrative costs. We are asking for help, I presume in the form of a budget of some form, so that it actually is not restricted to administrative costs, but allows the authorities to employ the expertise that they need to help progress this. I’m not expecting it to be huge sums of money, but it shouldn’t be restricted just to administrative costs, because they are likely to be fairly small compared to the costs of getting expert advice as various proposals get developed, which I’m looking forward to, and as the various APs progress. Particularly AP4.

613. MR LOWE QC: Thank you. And if we turn to your slide 36, just to back up what you say about the MMI document and the role of the panel, you set out a number of asks which we can read there, of landscape nature, which you would expect, or anticipate to be incorporated into such an agreed scheme, to inform the submissions under Schedule 16, so that – but I understand you say you would like the nominated undertaker to know what is going to be required of him when he takes over?

614. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes, that’s right. So, for example, you would take the MMI might show a particular – I would like it to be site specific, but there will be – rather than changing the HS2 hybrid scheme, or AP4, but there will be notes or detailed agreement of rather – here, the land form would be modified, here the woodland planting would be modified, and so the purpose would be to be quite, not proscriptive, but like preferred options, guidance, so that actually the nominated undertakers know

what the Chilterns stakeholders actually have agreed with HS2, so there’s an agreement on these detailed issues. Otherwise, they don’t know what we want and it’s very difficult for us at a very late stage; I understand the Schedule 16 arrangements, but it would help considerably to actually talk about these in advance.

615. MR LOWE QC : Thank you. That concludes your evidence save for the final slide, A1451, which explains the extent to which there are route-wide landscape issues, other authorities which support your concerns, and that many of the principles in the Colne Valley report produced by Bucks to be rolled out route-wide and you refer to the HS2 landscape design approach, and other authorities would also like an assurance that they will be consulted in its evolution. They are, as it were, reminders to HS2.

616. MRS KIRK HAM: They are, yes, thank you.

617. MR LOWE QC : Thank you very much.

618. MR CRAUSBY: Is that it? Mr Mould?

619. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t know how you want to play it; I was going to call Mr Miller to deal with one or two matters and deal with one or two matters by way of cross-examination, do you want me to do the latter now and then –?

620. MR CRAUSBY: How long will that be?

621. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Cross-examination? Ten minutes, I hope, maximum?

622. MR CRAUS BY: Get on with it. Okay.

623. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right. Very well. Mrs Kirkham, you – just on that last point, if we can put up P84094.

624. MR LOWE QC : Sorry, is that the 11th?

625. MR MOULD QC (DfT): This is the – sorry, this is the letter of 26 June to the Buckingham – to the County Council – which is included in our exhibits. And you’ll see, if you turn to – actually, number 2, page 84 – 84092, sorry. You’ll see that, if we can just blow it up, there’s a reference to the landscape design approach document, an assurance was offered to South Bucks District Council, which was in these terms, ‘The

Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to publish a landscape design approach. The nominated undertaker will present the LDA to the planning forum and members of this forum will have the opportunity to comment on it. In drafting the LDA, the nominated undertaker will be required to take into account the environmental, social and economic aspects of the areas through which HS2 is planned to be constructed. The LDA will also take into account the HS2 design, vision and make it a requirement of the design of the proposed scheme, to respond to the local landscape and landscape character’. I think that – that deals, in substance with your request on behalf of other authorities, doesn’t it?

626. MRS KIRKHAM: Not quite because the request on behalf of all the authorities is for the LDA to progress, not by the nominated undertaker, but by the promoter and that is actually happening at present, as I understand it.

627. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry you wanted to be – you want the assurance to be made by the promoter rather than the nominated undertaker?

628. MRS KIRKHAM: Well – no, I’m saying that this should be a requirement of the promoter.

629. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, it is a requirement of the promoter; the Secretary of State has given assurance which will be entered on the register. He will be required to comply with it. Otherwise, Parliament will be breathing down his neck.

630. MRS KIRKHAM: I understand it, and correct me, I’m sure you will if I’m wrong, but the landscape design approach is a high level document to set out the general objectives of any landscape design. It was first shared with us back in July, it’s co me through as an exhibit and we’re expecting to see a more final version shortly. What we – the authorities want to see – so that they have an input into that at this stage.

631. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, which is – in July – your slide 8145(1), turning to read, it says, ‘In July 2015, within HS2 Limited’s tunnel evidence, was a draft document "HS2 landscape design approach". Local Authorities would like an assurance that they will be consulted on the evolution of this document’. That is what the assurance in substance, says will happen. Through the convenient egis of the planning forum, which is a body which is made up of local authorities; I don’t quite understand why that isn’t

sufficient for your needs?

632. MRS KIRKHAM: No, we are quite happy that it goes through the planning forum, it’s just that that paragraph, and again I’ll – correct me if I’m wrong – says it will require the nominated undertaker to publish it, not the promoter.

633. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, at the moment, the nominated undertaker is HS2 Limited.

634. MRS KIRKHAM: Ah, is that what this means, then?

635. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Well, until another nominated undertaker is appointed, it is HS2 Limited.

636. MRS KIRKHAM: Right. So, that’s clarified that matter.

637. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Right.

638. MR LOWE QC: So, are we to regard the reference to the nominated undertaker within the assurances, to be a reference at the moment to HS2, because it’s not as we’ve understood it.

639. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I don’t see who else is going to present this to the planning forum. If it’s necessary to clarify that, yes I will; I can clarify that. Where reference is made to the nominated undertaker in relation to matters of process, such as this, that need to take place – that certainly need to begin whilst the Bill is making its passage through Parliament, they may not necessarily end during that period, then faute de mieux, if I put it that way, the nominated undertaker is to be taken as a reference to HS2 Limited.

640. MR LOWE QC: Well that’s a very helpful clarification; that will dispel at least some of the concerns that have been raised.

641. MRS KIRK HAM: In relation to the LDA.

642. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Now, can we turn then to your – the letter of yesterday, P8517? And if we can go on please, to the final page of that letter, which includes the assurance.

643. MR LOWE QC: Would you mind giving me the reference again, it’s my fault?

644. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, it’s P8517.

645. MR LOWE QC : F ive, one, seven. Thank you very much.

646. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And if you can just scroll up, actually, to the previous page. You had two points on this; the first was you said that you wanted this review body to begin sooner rather than later effectively. Yes?

647. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes.

648. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I think that concern probably has gone away by my clarification of the fact that presently, we’re to read the nominated undertaker as meaning HS2 Limited. What does have to happen under three, is that four or more of those bodies mentioned in the inset, under one, that is to say, the Chilterns Conservatio n Board, et al, should agree to the formation of the group. So, the first task is for those whom you represent and others who are – their colleagues in this, to say, ‘Yes, we would like this group to be formed, please’. In which case, they can report back to the Secretary of State…

649. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How many are here now?

650. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P ut their hands up.

651. MR LOWE QC: They’re all here.

652. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: One, two, three, four, five.

653. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay. Right, in that case, I’m sure we can then move things forward.

654. MRS KIRKHAM: I’m very pleased to hear that, indeed, that’s excellent.

655. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, it’s always my ambition to try and be helpful. The next point was as to what this august body would actually be talking about, and if you look a bit further down, I think you’ll see that in paragraph 4, it says that, ‘The purpose of the group should be to discuss key principles to be applied – reasonably, to be applied to the design and appearance of HS2 works’. I think that’s another way of

expressing your concern that this body should seek to establish a series of yardsticks, if you like, which would then be taken into account by those who are charged with the detailed design of the railway and give them some guidance as to what is likely to be considered acceptable and what is likely to be considered unacceptable by local authorities who, with their regulatory hat on, will be asked to make decisions on under Schedule 16 to the Bill.

656. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we accept, or having put to us, that the second word in the second line of four, the word, ‘only’ means this group will not be looking at every detailed issue, they will be looking at the principles by which the detailed issues should be considered?

657. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, yes.

658. MRS KIRKHAM: There is a little grey area bit because obviously the key principles could be interpreted as, ‘We will grade in the landscape to –’, but in fact, we’re actually asking for slightly more than that, there’s a bit more meat on the bone, so that we can be sure that it actually can be delivered. I don’t see it’s a problem – it’s probably a matter of wording but I’m’ sure that we would like a bit more than just agreeing a few high level principles which are already set out in the LDA, we would like this to embrace…

659. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think that as we’re on a roll, we will trust the promoter to do all they can to do all you wish for.

660. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. And then if we scroll back to the next page, your final point, understandably, was about how participation in this group would be paid for in a world of limited resources, and you point to seven. I’m bound to say my understanding was that administrative costs, included not only the costs of the group secretariat, as it will, but also covered the reasonable costs of attending the group, as it were, but I will ask for clarification on that, because I can see that it’s a reasonable question for you to raise, rather than try and answer it now, I will ask for clarification on it.

661. Thank you. Right, now, other matters mainly I can leave to Mr Miller, but I just want to raise a couple more points with the Chair’s indulgence; first of all, you set out in

your very helpful presentation a whole series of suggestions as to how the detail of the Bill might be amended, extended, developed, in order to provide an acceptable detailed scheme, as you would see it. And Mr Syms made the point that, insofar as that involved extending the limits of the Bill, and thus seeking extra compulsory purchase powers and so forth, that might prove difficult in terms of the timely passage of the Bill. It is fair to say, isn’t it, that these suggestions which you’ve made in this presentation, those are suggestions that have only been made available to us, very recently?

662. MRS KIRKHAM: What has been available for some time is that, back in early September, we sent documentation through called enhanced mitigation asks, which included site specifics, so you all – at that time, knew that we had specific concerns at specific locations.

663. MR MOULD QC (DfT): About a month ago? I’m just…

664. MRS KIRKHAM: A month and a half go. And that’s obviously has been a discussion with HS2, those asks for some time.

665. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I just want to put in context Mr Lowe’s comment that you’re a fair way down the program. The reality is that these are not matters that you’ll find spelt out in your petition in precise terms, and therefore it couldn’t be said that we have, as it were, sat on these matters for the duration of these Committee proceedings. I’m not seeking to criticise you –

666. MR LOWE QC: I understand that Aylesbury Vale have certainly been voicing their concerns for four or five months –

667. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So be it, but the other point was this, if we just look at a couple of them; if you can turn back to – just on this question of extending the land take, if we look back to the Annie Bailey slide, which I think is at A145019, my understanding is that in the case of Annie Bailey’s land, the AP4 proposal is to reduce the land take at surface, commensurate with the fact that one only now requires that site for the provision of a vent shaft, yes? And the freehold owners of Annie Bailey’s are petitioners against the Bill and their position has been very, very clear to us that they are unwilling to sell to the project any more land than can be justified as being needed for the project, and you can see, therefore, that we are into the very problem that Mr S yms

identified.

668. Conversely, if you go back to A4150(16), and Hartley Farm, I am told that there, 94% of the holding is within safeguarding, and that we have been served – have accepted a blight notice in relation to that land, which is expected to complete this month, with the tenancy back to one of the current landowner’s commercial occupiers. There isn’t a petition there, and so there may be some scope within our own landholding, as it were, following completion of sale under the blight notice, to make use of land that is within our ownership, albeit beyond the extent of Bill limits, so as to accommodate some discussion with you. So, there’s room for a pragmatic approach here, depending on the facts as they apply and I suggest that’s a more efficacious way of going about this, than having a debate about whether this or that little extra area of land should be added into the Bill. Do you agree with that?

669. MRS KIRKHAM: Yes. I would agree with that.

670. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you.

671. MRS KIRKHAM: As long as we progress very quickly.

672. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, very well.

673. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Can I just ask, Mr Mould, is there any difference in your legal powers between that landholding that you have that’s within the scope of the Bill and that landholding that you may acquire that’s outside the scope of the Bill?

674. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, well the potential difference that springs to mind immediately, relates to the scope of our planning permission, because, as you know, we are granted deemed planning permission under the Bill, which obviates the need to go and apply to the local planning authority. The more ambitious we are in extending our scheme at the detailed stage outside the scope of the Bill limits, the more we run the risk that we will do something that requires us to seek an extension to our planning permission under the Bill. Possibly because we will give rise to an environmental effect that is significant and which has not been assessed as part of the Bill Environmental Statement, and possibly because the works in question themselves, involve a change to the development which is authorised by the Bill. But neither of those things need

necessarily follow, there is room for judgement there, and certainly fairly modest changes into the detail of land levels and so forth, which involve the use of some land, some modest areas of land that are within our ownership, but fall outside the scope of the limit. There’s no reason, in principle why that shouldn’t be achievable within the envelope of the Bill. And we have extensive powers to carry out ancillary works under Cla use 2 to the Bill, which embrace, for example, structures, earthworks and so forth, which can be undertaken, as the name implies, as incident or ancillary to the scheduled work, so at that high level of abstraction, there’s room there for some finessing, if you like, of the arrangements.

675. I think, Mr Crausby, beyond that, if I could just invite Mr Miller to deal with a couple of other points, shall I do that now?

676. MR CRAUSBY: Yes.

677. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Miller, I wonder if we could just deal with the – sorry, I should say – I’ve jumped the gun a bit. I don’t know if Mr Lowe –?

678. MR LOWE QC: No.

679. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Miller, if we could just look at one or two of the other matters raised by Mrs Kirkham. First of all, A1460(22). One four five oh, 22, sorry, I do apologise. This is the suggestion of lowering the vertical alignment to the west of the tunnel portal. I think I’ve got the wrong slide there.

680. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Twenty one, I do apologise. Can you just help the Committee with the implications of this arrangement?

681. MR MILLER: Yes. I think in the evidence that I gave, as an updated when we came back in September, following the summer break, I indicated, or I think my colleague, Tim Smart, indicated the alignment through here, and what will actually happen with a slightly reduced alignment alongside Potter Row. In my previous evidence, what I’ve indicated is that the railway alignment is sitting just underneath the plateau in cutting, through the Chilterns in this location. So, what a lower vertical alignment does is, it would open up that cutting to a much broader and wider vista within the overall valley of the A413, the Misbourne Valley and I’ve given that evidence

on a previous occasion.

682. So, I think Mrs Kirkham was talking about earlier on, is that if you do go lower, you actually widen up the cuttings. So, I think that there are concerns about unintended consequences about – while on the face of it, lowering the alignment here sounds a good idea, actually what you do is you open up the cutting to the Great Missenden side of the valley.

683. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. The next point is the next slide. And this relates to retained cuttings. Just to help the Committee with this; based on your understanding of the powers that are available at the detailed design stage in Schedule 16, and indeed, the degree of scrutiny that local authorities can bring to bear in deciding whether or not to give approval to earthworks and scheduled works, is there room for further discussion as to whether cuttings should be drawn in, retained, that kind of engineering issues, as we pass through these sensitive areas?

684. MR MILLER: There is and yesterday and earlier on this morning, we talked about plans that could be modified, and being reasonably capable of doing so and that all comes through the planning regime, Schedule 16 arrangements. And I think on a previous occasion, I’ve also indicted that through this area, we’re cutting through chalk, we’re quite low in the chalk, we know that there is some fissured chalk in this loc atio n, we don’t have all of the information in terms of the ground investigation, but it may well be that when we get to the detailed design, and once we have that information, we can steepen up the side slopes anyway in the chalk without having to provide any concrete retention. So, the simple answer is yes, we can look at that, and I think there is a way to go in the design before you even get to a retained cutting situation.

685. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That would involve consideration not only of the environmental gain that might come from train cuttings, but it would involve consideration of the operational impacts; it would involve considerations of whether the extra costs was justified, having regard to other matters.

686. MR MILLER: That’s right

687. MR MOULD QC (DfT): At this stage in the development of the scheme, is the Committee any better place to make that decision now, than the nominated undertaker

and the qualifying local planning authority at the detailed design stage?

688. MR MILLER: No, the benefit that’s available at the moment is that this is to come and that the limits allow this and the planning regime allows this conversation to take place with the planning authorities in due course as the detailed design comes forward.

689. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we just turn to the green bridges in Mrs Kirkham’s definition of that concept that we’ve touched on. Jones’ Hill Wood, which is A1450(27). Now, I think we can agree that a structure of this size and scale would require an amendment to the Bill.

690. MR MILLER: Yes, this goes beyond – as far as I can see from the diagram, it goes beyond the sort of green bridge width that we’ve been talking about in these proceedings. This is a more a green tunnel and so I think this would be an amendment, as I understand it, it would be an amendment to the Bill to make that a tunnel structure.

691. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Because it would go outside the Bill limits or because it’s a different structure?

692. MR MILLER: I think it’s a quirk of the way the structure has got to be described in the Bill.

693. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You’ll find that the relatively modest bridges, such as footpath bridges and so forth, are scheduled works and it’s so described because that’s the approach that was taken, and this structure would certainly – which I think is, we worked out, is the order of about 100m in length, would certainly require to be scheduled.

694. MR MILLER: Yes.

695. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It couldn’t be said to be ancillary to any other scheduled work. There are operational considerations as well. But just, Mr Miller, with that thought in mind, trying to be helpful about it, just think about what we’re – the issues that Mrs Kirkham mentions as requiring mitigation here. The first was some impact on Jones’ Hill Wood, yes?

696. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right and I think that what was being talked about was to avoid the incursion into Jones’ Hill Wood by implementing such a structure.

697. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What do we actually propose by way of mitigation for the relatively limited incursion into Jones’ Hill Wood?

698. MR MILLER: Well, what we do is – and it was a point we were talking about yesterday as we were talking about connectivity, of the habitat and we were talking particularly about bat assemblages and the proposals within the Bill, take their cue from the landform in the C hilterns, and you can see that there are woodlands on this extracted diagram in the background here, and in this field, in this location, where the words Jones’ Hill Wood is on there, we have a plan for mitigating that with additional woodland, as similarly, we have woodland in this area to the other side of the railway alignment in the vicinity of Bowood Lane. So the idea of that is to bring back woodland as woodland blocks and to provide connectivity for species and the bats were of issue yesterday.

699. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. And then if we go onto –

700. MR MILLER: Sorry, just before we move onto that, I think, just to sort of follow up the point about the Schedule 16, you know, could you steepen up the side slopes of the cutting there. This is an incidence where if the geo – ground investigation shows that we can steepen up the side slopes there, that would have a beneficial effect on Jones’ Hill Wood on the edge of it, and you might be able to retain a little bit more of that woodland, you might even be able to retain all of it. So that would be something that’s worth going for and considering.

701. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Can I just ask, is this going to be difficult to achieve, or is this just an issue of cost?

702. MR MILLER: It is costly, and you can’t ignore that; it is technically more difficult to achieve. Ordinarily, what we would do is we would create the cutting slopes, then put a structure in, and then put material over the top. You could, at a pinch, do it with a diaphragm wall, but you add to the costs and I think we’ve given evidence elsewhere where we would employ that where we’ve got space constraints; I think that was up in Burton Green. That discussion we had earlier on in this process. C learly,

you’ve got to have the retained structure itself, and then you’ve got to think about all of the drainage beyond that structure, all of that’s got to be taken into account.

703. For this sort of length of structure, I believe we’re getting into the issue of aerodynamics that you’ve heard some evidence from Mr Smart on, we think that there would be a further degree of separation and a separation wall between the tracks in this sort of structure, so you get a bit of a widened formation here. So – I’ve only seen this in the last couple of days, so I’m talking out loud how this is likely to come about. We may be able to play tunes on that to get the land take down. It is complex in here. On this particular alignment, we think that this portal here would in fact stand proud of the landscape but again, we haven’t got all of the technical details to go through that. So there are some other things that get introduced if you start to wiggle the alignment around a little bit, either vertically or horizontally in one location; there are other things that are going on with the alignment further along the line of the route.

704. So if, for example, you were then to push this down, and what you then end up with, is you end up with deeper cuttings further along, and then when you get to the viaduct structure at Wendover Dean, whilst the viaduct – and people may say that’s a good idea – to have it a bit lower in the landscape, what you then do is you then open up the possibility of very broad cuttings in the side of the dry valley there, and so, what I think I’ve said in the past, is we’ve looked at that and we’ve tried to strike a reasonable balance between the height of the structure and the width and the depth of those cuttings and how that affects the landscape. Here, you look at it in isolation, not quite seeing the whole picture and you’ve got to look at the whole picture through this landscape, I believe, to get it right.

705. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So the – I don’t want to take time going through examples, if the point is clear, the point is that one needs to look at what can be achieved within Bill limits, and within the detailed design process, which is then subject to approval by the local authorities under Schedule 16 and the plans that we’ve put forward show a way in which one could address the detailed design stage through a mixture of planting and other arrangements. If, within the powers that we have, if it’s felt, for example, that the balance would shift in favour of a greater thickening of planting within limits, and that’s something that is acceptable to the land owner and therefore doesn’t attract objection from that cause, but then obviously, the shift at the detailed design

stage can be made to achieve that objective. But what we are resistant to is introducing now more ambitious proposals to effectively lid over the railway and almost build a Chiltern tunnel by degrees, if you like, where, on analysis of the mitigation that is already proposed, there doesn’t appear to be a clear need for that, in order to mitigate the railway effectively. That’s our positio n o n this.

706. Mr Miller, unless there’s anything else that you want to say, I was going to leave it there.

707. MR MILLER: Well the only thing I’d perhaps like to say on this is that the roads and the tracks through here are sunken paths, and taking a railway across this sort of landscape, it does affect those sunken lanes and sunken paths; there is no doubt about that. I think this is dealt with actually quite well.

708. When you look back at the existing C hilterns railway, if you go along and up the similar roads further back towards Amersham, the structure, and I think as Mrs Kirkham says, taking the structure across the cutting, sort of at the level, or following the grain of the slope of the land, is probably the way to do it, and actually, when you cross over the Chiltern railway further back towards Amersham, personally, I think it works really quite well, because you have the sunken lane, then you have a bridge, then you’re onto a sunken lane again, and so the time that you take to get over that particular railway, albeit that it’s well established, you don’t notice much of a difference with a sunken lane, you still retain the feature of the sunken lane on either side.

709. I think what we’ve been trying to do is produce our planting to bring that up and funnel it up towards the railway itself so that you limit the disruption to that view, albeit that you can’t emulate the sunken lane straight across the railway. So, I think we’ve done generally a reasonable job of trying to keep the structures low in the landscape here.

710. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you.

711. MR CRAUSBY: Okay?

712. MR LOWE QC: I have no questions, I think this is all now helpfully a matter of engagement between the authorities, subject to one or two comments that I’ll ask Mrs

Kirkham to make. I don’t want to ask questions.

713. MR CRAUSBY: Okay.

714. MRS KIRKHAM: There’s just two – shall I?

715. MR CRAUSBY: Okay.

716. MRS KIRKHAM: If that’s alright. Just in response to Mr Miller’s comments on slide 21, which was to do with opening up the cutting if they go down deeper. That’s’ true, unless, of course, as you quite rightly said, when we were discussing slide 22, you could go through steeper cuttings and you could go for retained sides, so there is not a presumption against lowering the vertical alignment because already, there are solutions that can be sought so that can be achieved without causing this wider top to the cutting, so that on that one.

717. And also just a couple of things on the green bridges. We went to the one at Jones’ Hill Wood – I disagree, this is not a limited incursion that’s a result of the current scheme – well over half of Jones’ Hill Wood disappears, it’s all cutting or works on the edge of the cutting. That’s the first point.

718. Secondly, is they have proposed some additional woodland next to Bowood Lane, but we don’t necessarily think that’s necessarily the right place for it. Bowood Lane is a distinctive landscape feature, which is linear, with planning on either side and banks and things, and that’s important in itself. If you put major planting next door to it, you lose it. But also of course, it’s better to preserve ancient standing natural woodland in situ, you can’t replicate it, so if you can limit the amount of harm to it, it’s always better than trying to – ‘Okay, we’ll put another 50 hectares over there for you’. It’s not the same thing at all, we can’t replicate – even allowing for translocation of soils. It’s an historical asset that’s taken, what 500 years to develop.

719. And the very, very last point, it does appear, from what Mr [inaudible]4.30.22 says, that these green bridges are technically possible, they have done – they proposed a green tunnel at South Heath originally. We were encouraged by that, but it is feasible. It may be just a matter of cost, but it is technically feasible, and I am sure we would like to discuss alternative options. You know, if they say 100m is too wide, perhaps we can

have two, one for Bowood Lane, and one to protect Jones’ Hill Wood, so it’s not a continuous one, I’m sure there’s scope for a middle road, but not at this stage.

720. MR LOWE QC : Thank you.

721. MR CRAUSBY: Okay, order, order