Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday 3 February 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham Mr Ian Mearns

______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Ms Melissa Murphy, Francis Taylor Building

WITN ESSES

Mr Geoffrey Wilson and Mrs Caroline Wilson Mr John Dunlop and Mrs Hazel Dunlop Mr Ed Green, Chief Executive, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Mr Adrian Colwell, Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy, South Northamptonshire Council

Mr Peter Miller, Head of Environment and Planning, HS2 Ltd

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION INDEX

Subject Page

David Wilson and Others Submissions from Mr Geoffrey Wilson 3 Submissions from Mr Strachan 17

John and Hazel Dunlop Submissions from Mr Dunlop 38 Submissions from Mr Strachan 43 Questions from the Committee 45

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Submissions from Mr Green 48 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Mould 63 Mr Miller, cross-examined by Mr Green 76

South Northamptonshire Council Submissions from Ms Murphy 79 Submissions from Ms Colwell 87

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome, good morning everybody to the HS2 Committee. We start off with Mr David Wilson and others, represented by –

2. MR WILSON: No, no.

3. CHAIR: No. By himself. It’s cheaper. Okay. Right. That’s where you are. Okay.

4. MR WILSON : Let’s go.

5. CHAIR: Do you want to kick off?

David Wilson and others

6. MR WILSON: Yes, that’s fine, yes. Thank you. Good morning everybody. Thank you for your time this morning. My name’s Geoffrey Wilson and attending with me today is my wife, Caroline. I farm in partnership with my parents, David and Patricia, as the farming business of R A Wilson & Son, and we are your petitioners. We own and occupy the holding known as Cedars Farm, Lower Boddington and I’d quite like P3940 up please, and that’s edged red on the exhibit. This extends to 375 acres, approximately 151 hectares. We’re a mixed family farm, running approximately 1,000 breeding ewes, 450 head of cattle to include a suckler herd, and an arable operation growing predominantly wheat, barley and oats. We farm on a rotational basis, with around 80% of the land within the rotation and the rest being permanent pasture. Our farm buildings are located in the centre of the holding, you can probably see the buildings right in the middle of the holding there. That’s it, yes and together with the farmhouse which is located slightly to the north of the holding.

7. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just on the line – just there.

8. MR WILSON: Just across a bit. That’s it there. Yes. So that’s the farmhouse for the holding, and the access, our access drive currently is from the Lower Boddington to Wormleighton Road. Be quite useful, on my petitions…

9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There…

10. MR WILSON: Yes, can you see it on there? Yes. It’s underneath the – so that’s our current access. So the current access is severed by the line of the new railway. A large percentage of the farm can be seen from the farmhouse, and all movements to and from the farm are controlled by access past the farmhouse, where my parents currently reside. Just to summarise the effects on the holding, the holding known as Cedars Farm is severed east-west by the proposed HS2 rail link, with approximately 50% to each side of the line. Our existing access is taken as part of the scheme – is there the aerial photograph of the exhibits? I think at – my own exhibits I think… Just clear it to see because it’s – we’ve had the…so you can quite clearly see on that our drive running from the north to the farmhouse. Farmhouse just to the east of the drive, and then on into the farm buildings. Obviously the…

11. MR BELLINGHAM: Is tha t a so lar fa r m?

12. MR WILSON: No, that’s greenhouses.

13. MR BELLINGHAM: Glasshouses. Yes. Are they your glasshouses?

14. MR WILSON: Sorry?

15. MR BELLINGHAM: Are they your glasshouses?

16. MR WILSON: No, they’re not ours, no. They’re…

17. MR BELLINGHAM: Next door holding.

18. MR WILSON: Next door holding, yes.

19. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

20. MR WILSON: Yes, thank you. Our existing access is taken as part of the Scheme, and HS2 propose a new access to be constructed from the west, the Claydon Road. If we go back to P3940.

21. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That green…?

22. MR WILSON: That’s it, yes. That’s it. So not quite from the west, but it’s coming in from the Claydon Road to the west to service the house and buildings. To date, HS2 have given no provision for access to the severed land to the north of the rail

line. Landtake is in excess of 100 acres, 40 hectares, being approximately 30% of this holding. The majority of which is temporary la nd take for the period of the Scheme, which we understand is proposed to be returned as graded grassland following completion of the construction. If we could just have a look at P3944. Eventually that’s what we understand comes back, with the green areas running up to it being graded following the construction of the embankment. 100 – just over 100 acres temporary landtake. 22 acres permanent landtake. So there’s quite a big temporary landtake to construct the embankment. If I come on to – so that’s just set the scene a little bit. If I come on to the specific points of the petition.

23. Our points of petition are driven by the need to have assurances for the ability to farm the holding during the construction phase, and the desire to secure the long term viability of the unit going forward.

24. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just – sorry to interrupt you.

25. MR WILSON: Yes.

26. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Clear why – going back to what you said just now. You’ve told us about how much it’s taken for the works, and you’ve told us that a lot of it will come back as graded farming land.

27. MR WILSON: Yes.

28. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How much do you lose altogether permanently? Roughly.

29. MR WILSON: Roughly we think just under 25 acres. In broad terms.

30. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry to interrupt.

31. MR WILSON: That’s alright, no, that’s fine. We would draw your attention to the specific points of petition. Land taken: The draft Environmental Statement incorrectly identifies details and size of the subject holding being Cedars Farm with the knock-on effect that the percentages of la nd tak e n are now considerably higher and, by definition, the impact on the farming business. The Promoter’s response to petition did not adequately deal with this error, maintaining additional farmland as part of its

calculations. Including land farmed some distance away and on short term rental agreements. The subject holding, as edged red on the plan – if we could go back to P394 – should stand alone for the purposes of these discussions as it is the viability of this unit which is in question.

32. Following on from recent discussions with HS2 agents, which have proved constructive, this point has been accepted and the areas agreed, although nothing in writing has been received to date. The details of this are significant as, depending on the outcome of this petition and ongoing negotiations with HS2 on various matters, the issue of blight on the holding may result in your petitioners considering a blight notice.

33. MR THORNTON: Which would be requiring them to buy everything?

34. MR WILSON: Yes. Because of the amount of la nd take, so it is significant. If we move on to temporary la ndtak e. Due to the embankment construction on our property and the large amount of spoil to be imported, this is – there is a disproportionate te mpo rar y la nd take in our opinion. In order to construct the embankments, spoil is being brought, we understand, off – from off our holding and deposited on our land. Whilst we can see some need for mitigation to the north of the railway line for the villages of Upper and Lower Boddington, we question the large area of landtake to the south. The Promoter’s response does nothing to deal with the points raised. We do understand that the lands – the temporary la nd take may now be addressed under Schedule 15, although we have not had time to digest the detail on the implications of that.

35. We have an additional issue; you’ll see that there’s an area of land to the north of the Boddington to Wormleighton Road which we believe is flood plain replacement. A significant area of land in the scheme of our holding, but we’re not really sure on the detail and whether or not that couldn’t be better incorporated within some of the land to be taken.

36. MR THORNTON: Can you point on yours, and perhaps Mr S trachan can…

37. MR WILSON: Yes. That field there.

38. MR THORNTON: F ine.

39. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Do you want to…

40. MR WILSON: It seems a bit odd. It’s on the other side of the road…

41. MRS WILSON: And the canal feeder.

42. MR WILSON: And the canal feeder.

43. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ve just asked for 3945 which just shows the land drainage area.

44. MR WILSON: Yes, we’re not quite sure what that…

45. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: To you that’s prime land, and it’s close to some of your plant?

46. MR WILSON: Yes, that’s right, and that sticks in the middle of it. I’m not really sure what implications of that are, and if that couldn’t be located – well, from our point of view, preferably to the south of the Banbury Road.

47. MR MEARNS: There’s a sort of shark’s fin of land just where it says, ‘Banbury Road’. Just underneath there.

48. MR WILSON: Yes.

49. MR MEARNS: Which like looks like it’s going to be virtually unusable in the future.

50. MR WILSON: I agree.

51. MRS WILSON: Yes.

52. MR MEARNS: I mean would that be sort of a topographical problem in terms of moving the water drainage area there or?

53. MR WILSON: I suspect it might not work. There’s a brook that runs from Upper Boddington heading south…

54. MR MEARNS: Right.

55. MR WILSON: Which runs to the western edge of that – the proposed la nd take. It comes down and then it hits something that’s called the canal feeder, next to the road, and the canal feeder joins the reservoir with the canal and it’s used to top up the levels on the locks I understand. At certain times, if they’re letting a lot of water down the canal feeder and there’s a lot of runoff, it can flood at the top of our drive.

56. MR MEARNS: I mean I just can’t help thinking though with the amount of earth which is going to be moved for this whole project, the sort of landscape would look probably very different anyway, once it’s all done. Compared to now.

57. MR WILSON: I agree, but you know it’s the taking of the land that’s the issue from our point of view.

58. MR MEARNS: Yes.

59. MR WILSON: I think it could be incorporated within, you know, the less disturbance from the landtake point of view, the better.

60. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Forgive me again, clarify. If we take the light green to the east of the line, between that bluish thing, that is supposed to become useable again as farmland, isn’t it?

61. MR WILSON: Supposedly, yes. I mean there’s a gradient. I think we’re looking at grassland I think that that’s a possibility, yes.

62. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

63. MR WILSON: But I think from a preference point of view I’d rather have less land disturbed and the land that is disturbed reinstated to a flood plain…

64. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Steeper embankments…

65. MR WILSON: Yes, and less la nd take, yes. The – so yes, I mean whether there’s anything that designers can look at in respect of that flood plain replacement, that would be appreciated. Coming on to the issue of severance. As already identified the farm is severed by the Scheme with approximately 50% to each side of the line. What was previously a few metres to cross the road now means a significant road journey, approximately 3 kilometres around the road. I don’t know if I can take you to where

our drive currently hits the road. You then have to go – we go west…

66. CHAIR: Tha t’s down…

67. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Along here.

68. MR WILSON: Keep following that road. We then come round, back down, round, and then in on the new access. So it’s a long way round from there. At the moment all – we’re obviously – we’ve identified we’re a mixed farm. All our stock is currently brought from the land to the north of the Banbury Road to the farmyard on foot, down our access road.

69. MRS WILSON: Photo.

70. MR WILSON: Yes, we have a photo of the – my exhibits, there’s a photo of the driveway.

71. CHAIR: It’s your second exhibit. 8052, and after that…

72. MR WILSON: Yes, after the aerial. Next one I think. So I’m standing right at the top of our drive. You can see the house at the bottom. At the moment, the stock crosses the road onto the drive, and it’s fenced on either side, and they make their way down to our handling pens…

73. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Next picture.

74. MR WI LSON : And that – and that’s – you’ll see…

75. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And again.

76. MR WILSON: That’s on the railway line. And that’s on the work – the edge of the working and we’re going down the railway line. I’ll come back to those photos when we look at the residential element. But probably best if we went back to the P3940. Access down this occurs on a virtually daily basis, and obviously it’s not feasible to bring stock the long distance now required around the road, the implication to the farm and the livestock health and welfare, in addition we shepherd and feed the stock daily, machines moving up and down the drive, and then there’s the arable operations as well. When that land’s in arable cropping, grain carting, spraying,

fertilising, all of which now has to go 3 kilometres round as oppose to up the drive and across the road.

77. We’ve had discussions with HS2 on this. Our preference would be a crossing of some description, or an underpass. We would probably manage or mitigate the loss by having a stock underpass. It needn’t necessarily be an underpass that we could take an articulated lorry or a combine under, because I think there’s issues with depth and going down to get under, and I don’t think you can go over. But there’s engineers cleverer than I to tell me whether that’s the case. So we’ve looked at a possible stock underpass, and this would be a concrete tunnel. Sectional concrete tubes, sort of the height of maybe 10 feet that you could walk through, the stock can walk through, and we could take a quad bike or a mule through for shepherding and feeding.

78. In addition, we have looked and discussed with HS2 about some temporary pennage on the other side of the road, to allow, you know, routine handling matters to be dealt with up there as oppose to having to bring them back to the main – down to the main pens or round. It simply isn’t feasible to load everything up and bring it all the way back round whenever we need to do anything. So I think there’s two points of petition here. One is we still feel that the severance hasn’t been dealt with in respect of providing an underpass or similar, and secondly we’ve had discussions with HS2’s agents on the pennage. I think we have agreed in principle on that point, but we do need confirmation in writing on that if possible.

79. The pennage is a significant step forward. It does mitigate the loss to us. It mitigates the diminution in value of that additional land. It doesn’t resolve the issue, obviously, we’ve still got land that was 10 metres across the road that’s now 3 kilometres around, so that’s the point I wanted to make on that.

80. In respect of access. Obviously now our access is – our main access is proposed to be taken. The proposal is to construct a new access, as we’ve identified. The issues from our point of view, although nothing we can do about it, but this is additional landtake of course, so we lose more land to construct the new access. We’re happy with the Promoter’s response document. We were concerned that that could be used as a construction access for the purposes of the construction of the railway, but they have confirmed in their Promoter’s response that that is not the case. That shading is purely

for the construction of the new access. So I think we can – we can move on from the access issue because that has been clarified to our satisfaction.

81. That brings me on to the residential farm layout implications. Currently the farmhouse stands just to the north of the farm buildings. Looks directly at the proposed new railway line. Was built there for two reasons: About 26 years ago my father had the house built there. One, it controls the security of the access, all the movements up and down the drive have to come past the farmhouse, the second is it looks over the permanent pasture fields that we have around the farmhouse and paddocks where we calve the cows. We have, you know, young stock, the things that we need to look at on a daily basis.

82. From our house, from the downstairs windows we can see the fields immediately adjacent. I can go upstairs with a pair of binoculars I can see the majority of the farm from there. If – the problem we have in respect of farming terms is that you can’t just turn that farm around, and we can’t now utilise those fields for the purposes that they’ve always been utilised for. The house itself is about 40 metres from the edge of the working width now. Because there is quite a large working width to the south, and about 200 metres from the line. So it’s just outside the – the blight area but, you know, it’s very close. My parents live in the farmhouse and they’re age 71 and 66. We can’t really serve blight on the house, as we need to be on the site from a stock welfare point of view. That’s the point. So we do need to be there. All our sheep and that – we’ve got 1,000 ewes there. We calve 70 or 80 cows there. All our stock is there over the winter, so you have to have a presence on the site.

83. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So we’re still talking about the farmhouse to the west of the line?

84. MR WILSON: Yes. Yes. We have discussed with HS2 a proposed solution. We would like to look at the building of a second farmhouse, adjacent to the new access road which is coming in. So effectively the farmhouse would move from its current position to the west. We could probably – I don’t know if you could point out, just to, have you got that? Just behind the building. That would deal with the security issues in respect of controlling the movements. It’s still adjacent to the farm buildings, and it would – we could reconfigure the farm to have the stock that’s most vulnerable, calving

etc., in the fields. We could orientate it to face the other way. It’s – I do accept that there would be betterment in respect of there being a second dwelling. That’s not an issue as far as I’m concerned, you know. That would be offset against the diminution of the value of the existing farmhouse.

85. I don’t see that – I think the real issue comes during the construction phase, but obviously that is the best part of 10 years, as oppose to when the railway actually runs. When the railway’s running, and the la nd take’s reduced, the significance and impact on the farmhouse is probably a lot less. But it’s that 10 year interim period that, you know, as a business we’ve got to deal with. We feel we’d have a good planning case anyway for a second dwelling, because of the amount of stock we have. So the agricultural need could be justified. But we – really I’ve been looking for HS2 to work with me on that. I’m not exactly sure, you know, we’re not saying, ‘Take the house’. I’m not saying that it’s blighted. I’m saying, you know, there is an issue here and how best can we work together to resolve it. To my mind, that would be acceptable from both the viability and continuing running of the farm, and also from the residential amenity of the existing house during the construction phase. Now I appreciate that if we were a house without la nd take we would be outside the corridor for – we’d have to come in under Hardship Scheme. But, you know, this is slightly different in my opinion due to the points that we’ve raised in respect of continuing to run the farm.

86. MR MEARNS : Mr Wilson, sorry to take you back but I’m trying to kind of look at the map and look at the Google map image at the same time, and it seems to me, just looking at the Google map image, and I know they’re a couple of years old, but the track that kind of runs towards Boddington Road seems like a farm track, whereas the road – the farm track that you’ve got leading towards Banbury Road is more of a proper road surface, is that right?

87. MR WILSON: Yes, at the moment, yes.

88. MR MEARNS: So that’s your main farm access I would take it?

89. MR WI LSON : Ye s, it’s the only farm – it’s the only hard farm access, yes.

90. MR MEARNS: So in other words, in terms of the way in which things are configured at the moment, because of the route your main farm access is being deprived

of you…

91. MR WILSON: Yes.

92. MR MEARNS : And then you’ve got basically what is a farm track, and unmade road, heading off towards the Boddington Road to the sort of north-west, is that right?

93. MR WILSON: Yes, that’s right. But I mean they’ll upgrade that to a – they’ll –

94. MR MEARNS: And they’ve already agreed to upgrade that, have they?

95. MR WILSON: Yes. It’s got to be – well we’ve got to bring articulated lorries and, you know, combines and things like that, so at the moment it’s just a grass track for us to service those fields for shepherding purposes. But they are now proposing a complete new farm access. There is a slight issue, but they have confirmed as well, and I think, you know, I’m not too concerned about it. There’s a bridge across it’s the canal feeder, just at that point. I don’t know. That’s a bridge that we had – we put in, which is a farm bridge. Just on that red line in fact, that’s it, which will need to be upgraded presumably if that’s going to be now the new farm access, because I mean we do have…

96. MR MEARNS : Is that just kind of adjacent to the hedgerow…?

97. MR WILSON: It is, yes, and it crosses what they call the canal feeder. We would – I suppose the biggest, heaviest wagons we’d have in would be the grain lorries. They carry 30 tons of grain plus the weight of the thing itself so, you know, we need a proper concrete road of suitable construction. But I think that HS2 have been, you know, haven’t disputed that. They’re quite happy that that needs to be done. So that’s not the issue I don’t think. I think it’s more to do with the orientation of the farm once that is now accepted as the new access.

98. MR BELLINGHAM: Mr Wilson, do you do any contract farming for neighbours as well, which would necessitate more heavy movements along the track?

99. MR WILSON: Not now, no. We farm our own land so we’re – all our stuff is contained within our, yes. I mean really I suppose we’re a – if I was saying we’re a predominantly livestock farm with some arable. But the majority of the arable would

be to feed the stock that we hold and produce the straw. We do sell some produce off. I mea n we sell milling wheat, we sell oats to Jordan’s. So we do sell some off. But a lo t o f it’s milled ourselves to feed back to the stock. So I don’t think – we’re not running a bigger business from there. We are just farming our own holding.

100. So really I think my point is there I think I’d like to have some undertaking in respect of the residential element and the farm layout, once the new access drive is constructed. If that’s the main access in I think it needs some – it kills a couple of birds, I think, if – my thoughts on the matter. I’m not saying there isn’t a degree of betterment, because we would end up with…

101. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And you don’t mind recognising that?

102. MR WILSON: I don’t mind recognising that. I’m quite happy, and that can be offset or dealt with as part of the overall compensation package. That’s, you know, that’s accepted that that would overcome a lot of the issues I think, associated with the construction phase.

103. MR MEARNS: Mr Wilson, I mean the one thing that – which kind of strikes me, having heard other representations from people in the agricultural community, you know, you’re having, for the period of construction, a significant proportion of your land taken for construction purposes. So were that land out of production, and giving you a sort of fixed overheads, how marginal does that make your farm in terms of productivity?

104. MR WILSON: It makes it very marginal, on a holding of this size. I mean we’re looking at a third of the – we’re looking at 375 acres, which we farm quite intensively. We do take in some rented land, about five miles away, but that’s on a short-term arrangement so it could be terminated, you know, at any stage. So I can’t really plan for the future based on that. So I’ve got to look at my main holding. We’ve always farmed quite high stock – we’ve always stocked quite highly for the size of the farm. It’s right on the edge, and it’s a daily battle I have with myself as to whether it is viable. But you have a sentimental attachment to the holding where you’ve grown up, and my fa ther’s created and, you know, you’ve always thought it would be there for the next generation, my children. So, you know, hence I’m probably hanging on there.

105. But I think if I was – I think if I served a blight notice it would probably be accepted, you know, in clinical terms. Because I think the impact on the business is significant, and I, you know, I think daily about how we absorb 10 years worth of losing 100 acres and I’m not, you know, it can be done. But it would mean changing things dramatically and, of course, you know, my expertise and the farm’s expertise are in, you know, it would mean change. You can’t just sort of get rid of all your stock and start an arable farm, you know, because that’s not where the expertise or, indeed, the inclination lay, I think, and you know the land is designed for rotational farming. But yes, I mean it is – it’s a big consideration, and I, you know, I haven’t discounted the fact that it may not be viable. But I would – I’m look ing at everything I can do to continue it and mitigate my loss. That’s the stance I’m coming from.

106. So I think that’s sort of probably bottomed out the residential and farm layout things. There was three further points, but I think I can move fairly quickly through those. Services was an issue, because all our existing services follow the existing access road. Or certainly the water and the telephone do. The electricity does come in from a different vendor. I’ve had adequate assurance in the Promoter’s response that all services will be maintained so they can work out how they’re going to do that. So that’s fine. And flooding and drainage, equally I’ve now had adequate assurances that they will be dealt with to a satisfactory standard.

107. My last point was concerning tax. It is a little bit generic, but I would like to have my moment, if that’s alright, in respect of the implications, because it is pertinent to us as individuals. The situation is at the moment is we’re a generational farm. We’re a working farm. A farming business. The land is primarily still owned by my father. If anything happens to my father, he wishes to leave it to me or A N Other. He should benefit from 100% agricultural property relief on that land from an inheritance tax point of view. If he, however, that he does decide either to sell the whole or, indeed, just as a cap ita l co mpe nsa tio n fro m the landtake element, he would be then left with cash in the bank, which he would then have to – he has two choices with: one, he pays the tax on it, capital gains which will be at 10%, assuming he can get entrepreneurs relief, or he has to roll it over into another business asset, which is purchasing more land.

108. The issue I’ve experienced with other schemes, not obviously of this nature because there hasn’t been one yet. But there are localised markets where there’s a lot of

landowners, I think, who all have a desire to roll over capital and a finite period to do it, which is three years, and it creates a false market. Land prices in the area – because everybody wants to retain – go up. It’s not good for HS2 because obviously land values are – it’s forcing land values already in this area to increase so compensation – base compensation is higher, and a lot of that is due to the fact that the capital gains has got a finite period on. So I think, you know, it – if that needs – that could be unpicked, I think, slightly. I know it’s a bigger argument and it’s not for today, but I think it’s something that I wanted to draw to the Committee’s attention. Because – and with the age structure of our family it is certainly a consideration, that capital tax planning is now come to the forefront. We have already had it all sorted and done as far as we were concerned, for transfer to next generation, but now issues potentially arise.

109. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s very well and in fact you won’t be surprised to hear that both the NFU and CLA have put those points to us, and the Committee is very well aware of that and we are going to be making representations to the Treasury.

110. CHAIR: It might be an appropriate point to say that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, David Gauke, has actually written to me because he’s been following the proceedings, and set out in a letter his thoughts on this, which I don’t think actually goes far enough. But it does say that the period you get for rollover can actually be extended, if there are special circumstances such as shortage of farmland etc. So what we’ll do is we’ll put the letter up on the website, and I think there’s still discussions to be had, I think, with the Treasury about this. Because basically it says that the Inland Revenue, or HMRC, have discretion. It doesn’t say necessarily will use the discretion. So – and I think they need to be moved a little bit farther…

111. MR WILSON : I have seen that, and I – that’s the point, yes. Yes.

112. CHAIR: But the Treasury are following what’s going on, and I think both Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax are a live issue. It does seem terribly unfair if you have to give up land for a compulsory purchase that you could end up paying add itio na l ta x.

113. MR WILSON: Yes, absolutely. Potentially twice as well, I think. Because you can pay Capital Gains and then you could get paid the money, pay Capital Gains on it and then die with the money in the bank and pay Inheritance Tax on it. So there’s a

double whammy there if you don’t get – if you don’t roll it over. I appreciate you’ve got…

114. CHAIR: The other point I would mention at this point, just as well as we’re on it. I did write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on planning policy. To do with greenbelt and areas adjacent to the railway. I haven’t had a response yet, but they are mulling it over. They’ve also had a letter from Mr Fabricant, Member of Parliament for Staffordshire, and they have a meeting – the Planning Minister had a meeting with the Country Landowners Association I think at the end of this month, and I think that’s one of the issues that’s going to come up. So we will – at some point we’ll get a response. But clearly Communities and Local Government are thinking about the extraordinary situation this causes in terms of planning policy.

115. MR WILSON: Yes. I think my understanding is that South Northamptonshire have been very pragmatic about applications relating to HS2 issues, and quite supportive in fact. So I feel sort of quite heartened by that, because they understand that these things are being, you know, as long as within the overall planning policy, that these things are being dealt with because of the scheme, as oppose to, you know, the extraordinary nature of the scheme, and that concludes the points of my petition, thank you.

116. CHAIR: Okay. Would you like to add anything, Mrs Wilson?

117. MRS WILSON: No, thank you.

118. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Strachan.

119. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Mr Wilson’s already outlined the effect of this Scheme on Cedars Farm. The areas that have been assessed or identified in terms of landtake are, indeed – I’m going to revert to hectares, because they’re in the Environmental Statement – but it’s 45 hectares required initially for the scheme, and the area given back after the scheme is 36.7 hectares. So the extent of permanent landtake is 8.6 hectares, which I think broadly corresponds with the 25 acres that’s been…

120. MR WILSON: 21, 22 acres, yes.

121. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So there’s a slight difference. The – nothing substantially different in the figures we’ve got. The – just for clarity the – in the Environmental Statement the Environmental Statement assesses the impact on Cedars Farm in terms of the holding as a whole, which was identified as 303 hectares. Mr Wilson has identified, in his petition, the difference of – in the way he holds the land. So he’s identifying approximately 150 hectares, which gives us obviously a different percentage impact in terms of the permanent effect on the holding.

122. Can I just deal with the points as they cropped up? There’s an overriding point which is, of course, as Mr Wilson’s indicated. Because of the extent of the la nd take it is open to him to survey blight notice, and he’s already indicated that his views on the effect on the viability of the farm and, if a blight notice was served requiring us to purchase the whole, that would have to be considered. But he’s already indicated he thinks there’s a case for requiring us to buy the whole, and I can see why he says that. But that’s obviously going to be a matter for his choice.

123. If, however, he wishes to simply deal with the land just taken there will, o f course, be compensation paid for the land that’s taken. There is also corresponding compensation for, as it’s known, injurious affection where, effectively, the effect of the Scheme on the property, including the farmhouse. So to the extent there’s diminution – fall in value to the farmhouse as a result of the Scheme, that is something that will sound in compensation, and I raise that because one of the issues that he’s raised is the possibility of building another farmhouse on the land in a location he would prefer. I’ll come to the – whether that’s required under the Scheme, because we say it’s not. But just in principle it will be open to him, if he wishes, to pursue that with the local planning authority and to use money, effectively compensation money, to pursue that, given that he’s acknowledged the betterment point he would have of having two farmhouses. He can use any compensation money he wishes to pursue that with the local planning authority to see whether they, themselves, consider that’s an appropriate – and appropriate form of development, bearing in mind the location.

124. But can I – before we get to that, can I just deal with the way we, so far as the Scheme affects the farm, what we were proposing to do. There have been some useful discussions with Mr Wilson. We’ve agreed quite a lot in principle and I’m grateful for him confirming, for example, flooding and drainage are all issues which he’s broadly

satisfied with.

125. MR MEARNS : Yes, but Mr Strachan, before you move on though, I mean you’ve talked there about, you know, HS2 don’t think the replacement of the farmhouse is necessary, and compensation that Mr Wilson gets can be used potentially for another property, depending on planning permission, and that’s a big, ‘If’ is n’t it?

126. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is. But that is ultimately a matter for the local planning authority to make a decision on.

127. MR MEARNS: Yes.

128. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Depending up on the…

129. MR MEARNS: But the trouble is, you’re asking us to think about making a dec is io n, kind of assuming that planning consent will be granted.

130. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, not necessarily – I mean if planning consent isn’t granted it will be for planning policy reasons relevant to this particular parcel of land, the development that’s proposed, and whether it can – it’s acceptable in policy terms bearing in mind the circumstances. All of which is quite a detailed consideration of the application.

131. MR MEARNS: I think the point that I’m trying to question you about is if planning permission is subsequently refused, where does that leave Mr Wilson in terms of his concerns about the security of his farm buildings?

132. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I can address a substantial part of the security concerns so far as what we’re proposing. It may not fully address Mr Wilson’s view, but let me just explain that and I’ll, if I may, come back to the scenario if planning permission’s refused. As you can see, we do sever his access track, so the proposal, as Mr Wilson’s already helpfully indicated, is to put in… Let’s – no, call it a track. It’s his access road, and…

133. MR THORNTON: It looks better than some of the roads around my house.

134. CHAIR: And well-maintained.

135. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well-maintained access road.

136. MR THORN TON: Could you pop round to my village and sort out our roads.

137. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I wasn’t intending to cast any aspersions on the quality of the road. But that is obviously severed by the proposal, and so if we look at P3945 the HS2 are – have agreed, and Mr Wilson hasn’t got an issue about this particular part of it, to put in a equivalent access road, to a similar standard, which will be able to accommodate the necessary vehicles running along where it’s proposed private access to Cedars Farm. To give him the same access to his farm and buildings and his farmhouse. That will obviously have to be of the necessary standard to get over the canal feeder as he’s indicated and, of course, as part of that we’d be prepared to provide the necessary fencing and security arrangements for that access. That can include, obviously, fencing, gating and, potentially if we discuss with him if he was concerned about the security of the track, things such as CCTV if it were necessary. One other option, I’m not sure this has been discussed with him, is to align the track itself so that it actually passes, before going into the farm buildings, passes in view of the existing farmhouse. So that’s plainly something that could be looked at if he were interested. But certainly security fencing and, if necessary, security measures if he’s concerned about surveillance of who’s coming to the farm.

138. That is the revised access arrangement. That would, of course, mean that his field up here for the north is not connected in the way it was before, over the Banbury Road and we have discussed with him, as I think he’s already kindly indicated, that that field, which we understand is also used for cattle…

139. MR WI LSON : Ye s, it’s all rotationary, so some years…

140. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Rotationary.

141. MRS WILSON: Some o f it’s arable.

142. MR WILSON: Some of it’s arable and some of it’s – depending on the year. Yes.

143. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We had discussed with him, in principle, the provision of cattle handling facilities, by way of accommodation works, on that parcel

of land. To enable him to continue to use it, and that has been looked at and I think that subject – we’ve had some details from him as to what sort of facilities are required. We’ve looked at that and we – I hope, anticipate going back to him later this week, having got those details, about the principle of that.

144. MR WI LSON : Tha t’s fine.

145. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): But that is under an advanced state of negotiation, and so that would enable that part of his land to continue to be used. Obviously not in the sa me way, but with the accommodation works of the cattle handling facilities. Can I…

146. MR MEARNS: I’m aware that they use that land at the moment, that land sort of north east of the proposed line. That looks like six different – five or six different land areas at the moment.

147. MR WILSON: One enclosure’s permanent pasture. All the rest can be ploughed up and sometimes will be arable and sometimes will be grass.

148. MR MEARNS: So it’s not one single…

149. MR WILSON: No. No, no.

150. MR MEARNS: It belongs to you but it’s not one single parcel…

151. MR WI LSON : No, it’s six fields, yes.

152. MRS WILSON : And some of that is very deep ridge and furrow as well.

153. MR WILSON: Yes, but the – the point’s taken, and I think you’re agreeing with where we’ve got to in negotiations. I think the only qualifying thing I would say on that is that it – it mitigates the loss, but we still have to go three miles round to get to that bit of land. What it does mean is my regular…

154. MR THO RNTON : The most relevant point, Mr Strachan, what I’m waiting for, is your answer to the access tunnel underneath – footpath, and whether or – and the size you could put in, and whether or not, say, a Land Rover could go underneath as well.

155. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That has been looked at as well in addition to the –

well, by way of alternative…

156. MR THORN TON: Yo u’ve left the best till last, have you?

157. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well know I’ve just talked you through – by way of alternative to the cattle handling facilities which we’ve had costed with…

158. MR WI LSON : It’s an either or I think…

159. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, exactly. So the alternative would be to put in an underpass or, more likely, an overbridge, and both of those have been looked at, and they’re not considered practicable, and the reason for that is the underpass would involve going obviously underneath the railway. It’s going to take out quite a significant amount of – to get the necessary depth – cutting into the embankment, and because of the flooding area, which I’m going to come to in a moment. It would potentially require a pumping solution for an underpass, because of the hydrology in this location. I’m going to come back to that in a moment, about the flood plain storage area. So we have looked at that. We don’t think it’s practicable. An overbridge is the alternative…

160. MR THORN TON: It’s about the costing though isn’t it, rather than – you could do it, but it’s the cost doing it.

161. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well there is an element of cost, but it’s also the idea of permanent pumping solution for an underpass. An overbridge wouldn’t involve pumping, and that’s also being looked at. That would go over the embankments which are a false cutting. That has been, again, looked at and costed. The costs difference between that solution and the one we’re proposing, which is with the cattle handling facility, is just under £1 million, and therefore having put all of that together the view – our view – is that the proportionate response is the provision of cattle handling facilities rather than the cost of £1 million to provide the overbridge.

162. MR THO RNTON : Mr S trachan, I’m sorry to interrupt. I completely disagree with you. And the reason for that is we’re not talking here about a minor inconvenience to a businessman. We’re talking about an incredible inconvenience. Even if you have cattle handling, storage facilities there, you’re still – a) you’re talking about, when you

do that, taking away some land. Because if you’re going to put buildings there that takes away more land for whatever else he wants to put in there. But 3 kilometres to go to somewhere that, before, he could stride across on foot in his wellies is just – it’s not – it’s not – I mean if you’re running a farm you can’t do that.

163. I don’t see how anywhere you could say that there is any way that you’re giving him anything even close to what he’s got now, even with farm buildings there. It seems to me totally and utterly disruptive to his whole business. Disruptive to his way of life, and incredible – not just an inconvenience, but I could see it actually causing him to give up farming. I mean this is not – this is not just a minor thing if you had a paddock there and a couple of horses because you were amateur horse farm or you had a couple of…this is a major part of his business which, if you were running a car factory, and you said, ‘Right, we’re going to move the whole production facility, that’s connected at the moment to the rest of the car factory, 3 kilometres away, would you say, ‘O h, that’s alright, we’ll put in a couple of extra things there.’ You wouldn’t, would you? But because it’s a farm I genuinely don’t think you understand that this is a business, and this is part of his production facility. This is his plant and you’re –

164. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I can assure you that the Promoter does understand that it’s a farm. Does understand…

165. MR THORNTON: Well then if they understood it then they wouldn’t just say, ‘This is a practical solution to put it in…’.

166. CHAIR: Could we let Mr Strachan finish please?

167. MR THORN TON: Yes, sorry, Chairman.

168. CHAIR: He’s in the middle of his –

169. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I can assure you that the Promoter does understand it’s a farm. It does understand the disruption to the farm business. That’s part of what the Environmental Statement looked at in detail to assess the impact. It’s accepted there’s disruption. It’s accepted there’s severance, and it’s accepted that that would cause a diversion to an alternative facility on this other field and, of course, for Mr Wilson there is a decision to be made, as I indicated at the outset. If he regards the

situation as intolerable then he’s able to resort to the blight procedure. What we’re trying to do is provide a proportionate response, which balances the compensation bill to the taxpayer of buying the farm outright, with a proportionate compensation bill which enables the farm unit to continue, either through Mr Wilson or, if he wanted to sell, to someone else, and what that – that solution that we’re providing enables those fields to continue to be farmed and operate in the way – with, of course, the disruption of having to travel there.

170. The other units will continue to be on the same part of the land that he will continue to have access to, and that’s why Mr Wilson talked about moving his main cattle facilities close to his farmhouse. So that’s certainly possible and enables him to continue in that way, but the cost of putting in an overbridge, leave aside the environmental impact of adding a further structure in this location – remembering we’re close to Lower Boddington here – is, as I’ve indicated, just under £1 million, and that is why the – balancing those considerations together the Promoter considers that this is the correct solution. Recognising the disruption that it will cause to Mr Wilson, rather than putting an overbridge at the cost of £1 million – effectively £1 million, it is to pay for the compensation and the accommodation works that I’ve described. Of course there’s disruption. I accept that. But it’s a balanced judgment to be made as to the overall cost of the Scheme and the effect on the farm.

171. So can I just finish with the explanation of the – one other issue was the flood plain storage area in that location, and the reason for that is – I don’t know if you can see it in this plan, but there is a – the canal feeder comes off the bottom of the flood plain storage area and you can see, under the line of route there’s a canal feeder sign marked, which is taking water down to the canal which is further to the south. That area where the flood plain storage area is liable to flooding. It’s identified in the flood plain maps. It does flood, and what we’re doing with a flood plain storage area is simply by way of a scrape increasing its capacity. It’s not taking the land away from agriculture. It will be liable to flooding, as it is currently, but it allows –

172. MR WI LSON : It doesn’t flood now.

173. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Alright, well our flood plain maps showed there is flooding there, and that’s why it’s been located…

174. MR WI LSON : It’s never flooded. Yes.

175. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If there is scope…

176. MR MEARNS: Look, there’s obviously a dispute about – I mean when, in your knowledge, was the last time that piece of land was flooded?

177. MR WI LSON : I’ve never known that piece of land to flood. It floods on the road, and it comes across the road occasionally towards our farmhouse. So it will flood this way rather than that. It will flood south rather than north. The natural flow is from north to south I thought.

178. MR MEARNS: Mr Strachan, I think that’s an important matter of detail that really does need to be sorted out.

179. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, can I – I was going to go on to say, if there is a dispute about the precise location of the flood plain storage area we can certainly look at it with Mr Wilson again, to see if there’s scope. Our understanding is with the effect of the Scheme, can I just show you, where the green areas are we’re putting in embankments here, obviously. They’re in – they’re all graded, under this AP2, or Additional Provision 2. They’re graded to be farmable so they can be returned to agriculture. That does put in a effective blocker, so that may be that that causes flooding to go back onto the other field, but I’m certainly happy that that could be looked at in further discussions. But I’m just trying to explain why, hydrologically, it is designed where it is.

180. MR MEARNS: I mean it seems to me that from the landscaping perspective that the HS2 are proposing a solution which is making a situation, which doesn’t exist, worse in the future than it has been in the past and therefore, from that perspective, I would actually ask, suggest, that HS2 go look and – go back and look at this design of that. Because, in essence, you know, by doing that and what you’re proposing there is you’re creating this sort of – and odd shaped, irregular, polo mint of land, which will have a significant potential impact on the productive capacity of that land in the future.

181. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well that…

182. CHAIR: Sorry, Mr S trachan. You were getting interrupted by the Committee

today, I think…

183. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I’m trying to answer the questions that come a lo ng.

184. MR MEARNS: I’m sorry, Mr Strachan. We all had steak tartare for breakfast, I’m so rr y.

185. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The…

186. CHAIR: Okay, so Additional Provision 2 proposals. So…

187. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

188. CHAIR: Presumably there are changes here?

189. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There are.

190. CHAIR: Which means that if you have to go out for an Additional Provision then there is – you could actually finesse or alter this a little?

191. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s right…

192. CHAIR: Oka y.

193. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And certainly we can look at that again and, in addition, we were discussing the cattle handling facilities being included in the Add itio na l P ro vis io n.

194. CHAIR: Oka y.

195. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I just – but I just, I hope by way of clarification as to what’s going on here. You may recall we looked at this in the context of Lower Boddington and an earlier petitioner. These embankments are there to provide a false cutting, shielding Lower Boddington from the railway, and yes, that may have the effect that if you put lower embankments in you have to have drainage solutions which may affect farmland, and I accept that that may be what’s going on. I’m no t – hydrologically – I’m not going to give you a definitive answer to that. But that’s one of the considerations. Plainly we have got to recognise here that we are

trying to mitigate, as well, the impact on all the residents of Lower Boddington, and we talked about that in terms of the green areas to the right of Mr Wilson’s property last week. But that’s what’s going on. We have tried to accommodate here the floods – the land drainage area within the earthworks. That particular one. But we can go away and look at the flood replacement area to see what flexibility there is.

196. CHAIR: So the situation we’re in at the moment is that you’re having some constructive discussions with Mr Wilson on certain issues.

197. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

198. CHAIR: That there’s an additional provision, which affects his farm, so that gives the flexibility, if further minor changes were made, particularly on the matter we just discussed, that could be accommodated. Clearly, the issue of an underpass or an overpass have some bearing on the viability of a farm.

199. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

200. CHAIR: But then, if they’re not provided, would have some – there would have to be some recognition in compensation on the ability to farm that land in the overall package.

201. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely, and that £1 million is the additional cost, taking into account the compensation – sorry, taking into account the costs of providing the cattle storage facility…

202. CHAIR: The point I was trying to get is if a proportion of that went into the compensation package…

203. MR WILSON: Yes, it’s e ither – if I could come back on that, I think that it’s narrowed considerably. Because the diminution in the value of that land that is severed is considerable to the holding as a whole.

204. CHAIR: Yes.

205. MR WILSON: I mean in round terms, and this is just for illustrative purposes, but whole farms, with a house, buildings in a ring fence of this size are probably trading at £15,000 plus an acre. Bare land is probably trading at £10,000 plus an acre. So you

are looking at £5,000 an acre diminution in value potentially. There may be some negotiations to be had on that, but this is just for illustrative purposes. So on 100 plus acres you’re adding quite a big diminution figure, in my opinion, which closes the gap on the cost implication.

206. MR THORN TON: Can I ask another question, Chair, is that alright?

207. CHAIR: Please do.

208. MR THORNTON: I just want to go back – do you mind me just asking a question about the hydrology at the pumping station and the underpass?

209. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

210. MR THORNTON: Now, normally when you have concern about flooding in a normal environment, or normal business environment you can’t really allow water to get anywhere. On a farm, where you’re taking cattle through and maybe a Land Rover and all that, if it’s just a couple of inches deep in water now and then, or even a foot deep in water, it’s really not a major problem, unless it causes the viability – the structural viability in the underpass to be endangered by water wearing things away. Now I’m just wondering are they, when they’re looking at that, are they saying, ‘Oh it might get flooded now and then and there’ll be a foot of water here and there’ which really, for a farmer, I would have thought wouldn’t be a major problem…

211. MR WI LSON : No, I agree.

212. MR THO RNTON: Or are they saying it affects the whole ability of the underpass to last. I’d really like to know the answer to that before we sort of decide on anything.

213. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll get those who are more expert to give you an answer if I get this wrong. I don’t think it’s flooding itself that affects the structural stability of the railway above. There is an impact on the railway of having an underpass, because it creates a hard spot which has to be dealt with in terms of the engineering – I see Mr Smart’s nodding, I got that right. But the – of course, what this underpass would be is primarily the main access – the one I called the track, wrongly, the road to the – serve the farm, and so the reason why we’re saying that the pumping would be assumed is because a foot of water – I don’t know whether a foot of water is

acceptable to survey a residential dwelling. But certainly the solution we’ve looked at it, and we considered you can physically do it, but it would have, potentially, to provide for a pumping solution. But if Mr Wilson didn’t require pumping then he can no doubt communicate that to us. I don’t…

214. MR THORN TON: Perhaps you could look into that.

215. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): On both aspects the costs that I’ve indicated, o f either the bridge or the underpass, are quite considerably more than the alternative solution allowing for, as we’ll have to do, the potential compensation bill for the severance issues. So I just want to put that down as an indication. I fully accept we’d have to take into account diminution value. There’s still quite a big difference between the two.

216. MR THORN TON: If the diminution value is half a million, and if the constructions costs of the cattle would be, what?

217. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): £330,000.

218. MR THO RNTON: Tha t’s 950 – that’s nearly a million, and you’re saying the extra cost is a million. Are you saying that the actual extra cost is 2 million, minus a million, or are you…

219. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m saying the actual extra cost is that there is the cost of the different access roads, links etc. The extra cost that we had identified was approximately just under 1 million. 930,000 or so. That doesn’t…

220. MR WILSON : Less diminution.

221. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That doesn’t take into account all of the compensation elements.

222. MR THORNTON: So actually, if you take off the compensation, which could be as much as half a million, we’re now down to less than half a million difference, so it’s dropping all the time, the more we talk. A bit like a window salesman.

223. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think we’ve looked at the – I am not in a position to agree with Mr Wilson’s assessment. Because we would be providing here

these fields with cattle handling facilities, as part of the accommodation works, so there will be some diminution for severance, but it may well not be as much as Mr Wilson suggests.

224. MR THORNTON: I must say, I would very much like to have a proper calculation with an expert land surveyor, saying the difference to the cost, figures, to know what the actual cost is, because at the moment, I don’t want to insult anyone anywhere, but it sounds a bit like when the double glazing salesman came round to my house and the longer I talked, the more the price dropped, so I’m just…

225. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I haven’t dropped the price – if you –

226. MR THORNTON: It just seems to be changing as we talk to you, and not because it’s not – that’s not your responsibility, Mr Strachan, because you haven’t actually been – you’re representing; I would just very much like to get these figures looked at, worked out again and assessed before any decision’s made because I am not convinced about – that everything’s been taken into account as it should be. I’m slightly concerned that we would offered a – and it may well be accurate, I’m not saying it isn’t, but I’m slightly concerned that there is a possibility it may be inaccurate, and that, combined with what we’ve heard about flooding earlier in other parts of the area, I’m concerned that some of these facts might be wrong – I’m not saying they are wrong, I would like to know the absolute facts before we, as a Committee, come to a decision about the actual costs here, as well as what Mr Mearns has brought up on the other flooding issues on the other part of the farm. I don’t think we can make a decision until we’ve had those facts.

227. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): What I would suggest, and I’m subject to what the Committee thinks, is that, we had those discussions with Mr Wilson, because we can try and agree figures, or at least broad parameters and figures before we arrive at the ultimate solution here. I don’t think I’ve dropped any figures, I’ve just tried to explain how the figures are calculated. There is an element of trying to do all these things outside Committee rather than call detailed evidence of costings, which we can do, but I think it’s easier to have those discussions outside.

228. CHAIR: I think it would be most appropriate if you talked to the Wilson family and just had a look at what the figures are, because clearly, if we don’t provide either an underpass or an overpass, there has to be come compensation in terms of the viability of

the farm, and ultimately, the Wilson family can serve a blight notice on you anyway, so you have to buy the lot, so all of that in the mix is something that you’re going to have to consider.

229. MR BELLINGHAM: Chair, if I can add one point; I think that it’s quite rare for any major railway or motorway or dual carriage to be pushed through a landholding without either an underpass or a bridge being offered. Certainly, in my experience, it’s extremely rare for that to happen, and we haven’t seen many examples on HS2 actually, where a holding has been cut in half, where HS2 haven’t. The default position is to say, ‘We will ensure that access between the two sides of the holding is maintained’, through either an underpass or a bridge.

230. CHAIR: Mr Thornton did have a good point about the underpass is that it may not be the most perfect underpass and it might flood occasionally, but that still might be better for the farm and the farmer, if occasionally he had to put a pump in there than any other option.

231. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand that and I’ve taken all that on board in what we’re going to have to discuss.

232. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you Mr Strachan. Alright. Sorry, had you finished, Mr Strachan?

233. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No I didn’t necessarily ask the question about the house, the moving of the house and just to return to that. As I’ve indicated, with the access arrangements, and the security and any necessarily security arrangements for that access, we don’t see a basis for moving the house itself, diminution value would flow in terms of compensation, if planning permission is refused by the local planning authority, it will be on policy grounds applicable to them, which of course, then leaves Mr Wilson, he has to then to make a decision about what to do, I accept that. But we don’t consider it’s necessary, or a part of this scheme to either provide for a second dwelling on the property, and indeed, we consider that to be a matter for the local planning authority, ultimately to resolve, bearing in mind the local situation, planning policy considerations and all the other competing factors. But there’s no reason in principle why Mr Wilson couldn’t explore that with the local planning authority.

234. MR THORNTON: Normally, Mr Strachan, as I think you know in these situations, if we should destroy one house –

235. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think…

236. CHAIR: It’s not destroying.

237. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think Mr Wilson will want –

238. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think Geoff Wilson said that intensive farming can justify a second agricultural dwelling, or – I think there’s a…

239. MR WILSON : I understand that.

240. MR THORNTON: We have to wait and see at this stage.

241. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we don’t have to anticipate the planning council will say no.

242. MR WILSON: Well, they could, but all I’m asking for is a constructive approach from HS2, and even a supportive approach from HS2 is, ‘Yes, we’ll look at that’. It’s going to mitigate their costs in respect of we don’t have to worry about CCTV and electric gates and all the security measures, we don’t have to worry about the elements of the claim which are going to be bring in the reconfiguration of the permanent pasture so that we can use that appropriate to the location of the house, and it’s going to reduce the diminution aspects, so it would seem a sensible discussion because it’s helping us to help HS2, personally.

243. CHAIR: One of the reasons we’re contacting communities and local government is that they are not all reasonable.

244. MR WILSON: I’d be hopeful, but obviously, the flow of the thing has got to be – you know, we’ve got to establish the planning, and then there’s got to be a flow in respect of the offset for diminution.

245. CHAIR: The other point is your strategy seems sound, because then you’re effectively commuting some value in farmland into a second home, in other words, that may well solve some of the tax problems.

246. MR WILSON: It is, it’s a driver, yes. Well, it’s not lost anyway. But, no I agree.

247. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I hope I’ve answered the key issues; if there’s anything else you want me –

248. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: Up to a point. Can you deal with the question of the design, at the moment, the idea is to have landscaping so that Lower Boddington in effect sees continuous fields, and doesn’t see a railway. Mr Wilson was suggesting how about keeping the land at a lower level and having a steeper embankment, so you don’t disturb the extra, goodness knows how many hectares, acres –?

249. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, there are two considerations there. The first is that does have an effect on – a landscape effect because there are effectively steeper embankments in an area of landscape where it’s more of a rolling landscape, so that’s one consideration. The other is that with a steeper embankment, potentially, it lowers the scope for its farm-ability – and that’s probably not the correct word, but depending on how steep the embankment is, of course, but there is a balance again there, to be struck between land permanently affected and land temporarily affected, disrupted, but capable of much more beneficial use in the long run.

250. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I give my thought, which is that’s a discussion whic h then you can have with the farmers. If you take – the reason for it is Lower Boddington more than a few extra acres of farmable land. I think it might be worth considering with him, outside this Committee, whether you would accept, if he wanted it, to leave much more land undisturbed, to have a steeper embankment, and possibly have a screen of trees, so you break up – the embankment doesn’t look at thought it’s an artificial thing, but if you had tree planting in effect, a sort of embankment head, so that within five or 10 years, anyone looking from Lower Boddington will see a line of trees rather than seeing a sharp new embankment. Because it does seem to me that an incredible amount of his land is being used to get an aesthetic effect – have I interpreted this roughly right?

251. MR WILSON: Yes, absolutely, and I think, you know, from us to our neighbours, where it goes into the tunnel at Aston le Walls, you know, there’s no doubt that relative to the rest of the line, which you can see coming out quite thin, is disproportionate, that land take is massive, for the mitigation of Lower Boddington. Now, I mean, the

suspicion falls, obviously, all the soil coming out of the tunnel is quite conveniently lost on this area of land, and thence they’re more obliging to the mitigation of Lower Boddington, but I mean I can’t prove that, and that’s not the way it is, but the less land to be taken, is the preference for us.

252. And just coming back to the question of the flood issue on the north of the road, if that could be brought to the south and the embankment steepened, then I would be very interested in having that discussion, because the less land that can be disrupted, and whilst the land can come back as farmable, I’d prefer to have a steeper gradient on the land as being disturbed and I can’t do anything about, than to not have the flood alleviation on other virgin land, if that makes sense. Because then that block is unaffected.

253. CHAIR: The good news for you, Mr Wilson, is the fact that the project has an add itio nal provision, it actually opens the door to change. Because there’ll be resistance if they didn’t have to have additional provision, but the fact that they’re going to have to go out with an additional provision petitioning and everything else, does mean there is more flexibility in what happens here, so when you go away and discuss with the project what you would like, then clearly, that makes life a little easier.

254. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I just flag up this point? I think in answer to one of your questions; Sir Peter on this similar issue, where I explained that there are two functions for the embankments, not just the landscape and farm-ability function I indicated, but also, it is a accommodating materials and so there will be, almost certainly, an additional cost implication if spoil has to be taken elsewhere, or farm – but material coming out of one part of the scheme has to be transported elsewhere, so no doubt that will have to be considered – I’m not saying we don’t have the discussions, but there is the land – I said two factors, it’s landscape, the permanent versus the temporary affects, and of course, the knock-on implications for the construction of the scheme as to what happens in consequence. Because of course, there is an attempt to ensure that this scheme balances what it takes out and puts back in to the landscape.

255. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: I understand that, but I – it’s not for us to do your job, or Mr Wilson’s job, it’s to do our own job; I think that, as the Chairman has said, there’s opportunity for continued discussions, much of which has been productive. I

think that this particular issue is one where it’s quite clear that there’s no immediate need for Mr Wilson’s and his father’s land to be disrupted for so long, to such a great extent, for reasons which are straight engineering of the scheme going through his farm, the second leg of which, you are saying, is to accommodate some other economic factor or physical factor of surplus spoil.

256. I don’t think we can make a requirement on you, but I hope that those sitting behind you will have heard how some of this discussion has gone, and see what can be done, both on where the water holding area might be and on how much that embankment is actually seriously needed and what alternatives are possible.

257. If I can just come back to the possible new farm dwelling, I’m right in thinking, aren’t I, that normally, for blight, you will wait till a year after a scheme’s been opened to assess what the values been, I think, if some your land has been taken, I think it’s perfectly possible to do an assessment of what that blight might be and to make that money available earlier on, which could be used, if necessary, for funding the extra dwelling, and Mr Wilson has rightly said that there is an additional benefit of having additional building, so it might not be that the promoters would have to actually pay directly for the cost of part of the new building, but anticipating the blight on the existing building could be transferred across and could make a significant difference.

258. MR WILSON: Yes, as I understand it, I’d noticed we can have 90% of HS2’s agents’ assessment of the compensation, effectively as a forward payment, which we would have to seek because we couldn’t facilitate the building of the dwelling necessarily, out of our own funds, so that would be right, that’s our way of moving forward.

259. Just coming back as well, while I’ve just got the opportunity to get it recorded. On the second leg of the embankment, and the spoil issue, the only thing that occurs to me on that is obviously, we’ve had lengthy discussions about how that land’s going to be taken and originally, the thought was that it was going to be acquired; now I think that it’s going to be taken under Schedule 15, which is better as far as we’re concerned, but the commerciality of it has to come into account then, I think, in respect of – which the gentleman’s raised, is that there’s a cost saving there, considerable cost saving obviously to the construction, being able to get rid of that spoil, so if they’re going to

come to me and say, ‘We’re paying you agricultural rent’, I’m not sure that that’s equitable because, I mean, I’ve dealt with borrow pits and other things on motorways, and there’s a commercial value to that, and you know, I think that needs to be noted.

260. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think that’s a good bit of analysis which people will take account of.

261. MR WILSON: It’s just for the record.

262. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The only –

263. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I know those behind me are always attentive as to what’s said in the Committee, so I don’t need to respond to that, they will listen. I’ve indicated the – I won’t repeat, but the factors that will have to be taken into account so far as the scheme’s concerned, and then for a view to be taken but there are those at least, those three factors that are indicated. But we can go away and have those discussions.

264. CHAIR: Okay.

265. MR WILSON: Just on time lines, because, you know, we have discussed the viability of the overall and that the decision process that we’re in at the moment, and it’s taken us quite a long time to – from May petition to now, to get to this stage, and we’re a little bit in limbo, and we saw a lot of progress in the last month with this day looming, I think, to be fair, and that was good, but what are the – do we have – how does the timelines from now set, as far as you’re concerned, to bring these matters to a head?

266. CHAIR: Well, if you go away and negotiate, before the election, we’re going to have a report back, and I think what we’re going to do is go through all the files we’ve been through, or have similar issues, and we’ll be updated on where you are. And it may be – there maybe outstanding issues, but we want to hear the progress.

267. MR WILSON: That’s great.

268. CHAIR: To see where you’re going.

269. MR WILSON : Okay, thank you.

270. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we have taken the point that yours is the only farm, as Ian or Henry raised, which doesn’t have accommodation link.

271. CHAIR: Yes. I would also make one very obvious point that, because there’s an additional provision that affects your farm, you can indeed petition again in July. So, you know – sorry, Sir Peter?

272. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The canal feeder, I’m not sure if you call it a stream or a provision, is that going to go underneath the railway line?

273. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. It’s effectively that line that you can see there; it’s an existing canal feeder.

274. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And because canal feeders don’t need pumping out, that’s alright. There’s no structural problem with having a cattle way through the line?

275. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, as I said, there is an implication for the line itself…

276. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Height.

277. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The line itself creates a hard spot for the train which has an implication, it’s not desirable, but the…

278. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s enough – that’ll do. So long as it’s – you can discuss these things of course.

279. MR S TRACHAN QC (DfT): I mean, you obviously have to have it – the underpass has to be lowered to accommodate the traffic and the cattle. This is – the canal feeder is just a culvert, under the line.

280. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: although cattle will be slightly larger culvert. Anyway, you can discuss it offline.

281. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We can discuss that, the canal feed is not a large culvert.

282. MR THORNTON : But you could have it in the same place though, couldn’t you? There’s nothing to stop it being in the same place, because a land drain, we could

manage that, if it was a little dip – so if the water went through underneath, with an open topped culvert, if the land drain were going through that, cows can cope with that, and your Wellington boots can cope.

283. MR WILSON: Yeah, we do at the moment so that wouldn’t be a problem. Thank you.

284. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think that might be encouraging the flooding of the underpass, but we’ll look at that, we’ll no doubt – those far more technical than me will look at it in detail.

285. CHAIR: Okay, excellent. Good, thank you very much Mr and Mrs Wilson, and safe journey back.

286. MR WILSON : Thank you.

287. MR BELLINGHAM: Hope you get that sorted out.

288. MRS WILSON : Thank you.

289. CHAIR: We now go onto John and Hazel Dunlop. Right, we can see where you are on the monitor.

John and Hazel Dunlop

290. MR DUNLOP: Yes, if I just explain – let me introduce myself, John Dunlop, good morning all, my wife Hazel. We are petitioners. Actually, the map will probably show two properties for us, because when this first stated, we lived at the Old Bakehouse on Owl End Lane. Which, I believe is what’s being indicated there. Two years ago, we moved about 50 yards up the lane, to Merkins, so we now live slightly further away from HS2.

291. We moved into the village in 1999, and since we’ve lived there, we’ve had three children, and after the birth of our third child, we decided that the Old Bakehouse was getting a little small, snug, and the place – we sort of heard on the grapevine really, that Merkins was available for sale, and, through a private sale, we bought it.

292. It’s important to note that we had to move quite quickly. Properties in this area of

the size that we were looking at, don’t come on the market very often. It think we were given an average of about every 30 years, something of this size comes on the market, and we were looking for something that had sort of four or five bedrooms. When we heard about this one, we got – we kind of joined a queue, the queue gradually declined until we were the lucky owners.

293. Anyway, so, as you appreciate, we had to do all that quite off our own bat, we didn’t really have to rely on any compensation or anything like this, we were just concerned in changing our – the size of our house.

294. So, we moved into the Merkins two years ago, and we set about trying to sell the Bakehouse, and it’s taken two years to do so. So, we’re actually presenting five issues, the first is compensation, which applies directly to us. The other four are more general issues which you may well hear, also in the Boddington Parish Council petition tomorrow.

295. So the issue about compensation largely comes from the fact that we have gone through that process. We’ve bought, and then sold; we initially put our house on the market at £545,000, we were actually – we had several quotations for it from various estate agents, between £525,000 and £575,000, and we sort of erred towards the cautious end of that, £545,000, and we got nothing. We ended up effectively having to rent it out, because, after six months, I think we’d had one viewing. We dropped the price…

296. MR BELLINGHAM: Can we see a picture of your house, Mr Dunlop? I’m searching in vain for it.

297. MR DUNLOP: A picture of –?

298. MR BELLINGHAM: O f the house.

299. MR DUNLOP: I’m afraid not, the –

300. MR BELLINGHAM: I’ve got a picture of the – the photographs of the lane.

301. MR DUNLOP: Yes.

302. MR BELLINGHAM: Do HS2 have a picture?

303. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ve only got an aerial photograph, which won’t show the property – 3948 is just to indicate where it is in the village. That’s the –

304. MR DUNLOP: Okay. So you can actually see indicated on that Owl End Lane, and the area marked in red is our new property. Just about where the ‘O’ is, of Owl End Lane, is our old property. It was actually the old village bakery, an old cottage of three bedrooms which was extended – actually, it was extended to four bedrooms, but, too small.

305. So we didn’t get really any offers on the property, we had to keep reducing the price. We eventually sold it at £440,000 to a couple from Oxfordshire. Now the difficulty we’ve got is, well as you imagine, we’ve effectively lost £100,000 on a house that we thought was work significantly more. We weren’t owner occupiers, because we’d already moved, at the point that we sold the house, and I wouldn’t say we had a – an exceptional hardship type situation; I mean, we were – we moved because we wanted to stay in the village and we moved because we like living there, and a place became available. So, our point is that we have absorbed a 19% loss on the property, and our question is, whether you feel that is fair. I mean, we’ve absorbed cost, I would say, directly, because of the HS2, the – almost everybody who came to see us mentioned it on the first time of seeing it. The couple who eventually bought it, accepted that it was going to go ahead, and that was the reason they paid the price they did. So –

306. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: When did it sell?

307. MR DUNLOP: It sold in October, last year. And in fact, that’s almost two years, almost exactly two years since we moved out. And – I mean, our position is that the property is – not just our property, I mean we – there are many properties in the village that have been on the market, some have sold, some haven’t, we’re in a position where we’ve – we have had to accept a lower price in order to sell. We can’t sit on the property for ever. Obviously, our money was tied up – we had to get a bridging loan actually, to buy the new property, and – so our money was tied up, we needed to release those funds; it’s not an – it’s not a never ending story, it’s we’re – we’re presented now with this loss, in our view.

308. MR MEARNS: Can I ask – I mean, you’ve bought another property literally just down the road…

309. MR DUNLOP: Literally, we moved –

310. MR MEARNS: And – I mean, was the value of that property affected in the same way, so that you’ve actually taken a premium by buying that property from them?

311. MR DUNLOP: Yes, I would say you’re right, I would say all properties in the area have been blighted. My point is not so much about the difference that we’ve paid, it’s more that all the properties in this area have been blighted by this value and you know, these costs, I don’t see these being taken into account of. You know, effectively, the people who live in this village have lost 20%, let’s say, of the value of their houses. It’s a considerable cost.

312. MR M EARNS : I ’ m just wo ndering if we’ve got a similar petition from the former owner of the property that you’ve bought.

313. MR DUN LOP : No, actually the situation with her was her husband had died, it was a large property, she couldn’t stay in there and she’s actually moved to Byfield, which is five miles away. But I wanted to illustrate the point that we’ve been through this process now. And these figures that are banded around are directly affecting residents. And my question is, really, if we fit into a compensation measure, then it would be very nice to hear it. If we don’t, then are these costs being accommodated in the overall cost of the project?

314. CHAIR: I think if you’d left your wife in the other home, you would. If you lived in both properties and you could have served notice.

315. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And not sold one.

316. CHAIR: And not sold one. Yes. Then you would be – anyway, sorry – do you want to add anything, Mrs Dunlop?

317. MRS DUNLOP: No, not – I mean, it just appears that you know, we’ve being dictated to and how we can live our lives, you know, we’d outgrown the house, we needed to move because, as we said, this house hadn’t come on the market for 30 odd years, and we are looking on it as a forever home, so – and we know, you know, that would have happened, so we would not have got another opportunity, but in order to get the full value of the pre-HS2 price for our property, we’d have either had to live

separately, or not make that move, and lose out on that opportunity which is, you know, not giving our family the life that we would have had if we’d – HS2 hadn’t been on the scene, and we could have sold it much quicker, as our estate agent repeatedly told us.

318. CHAIR: Okay.

319. MR MEARNS : Mr Dunlop, you’ve been honest enough to say that you think the property that you’ve moved into and bought has also been subject to value loss and that you’ve benefited from – how much difference would you think that there’s been in the value loss on the property that you’ve bought to the value loss on the property that you’ve sold.

320. MR DUNLOP: Well, it’s slightly further away, so I would say, maybe a proportionately smaller loss, the difference in the value of the two properties – the new property is about double the price of the property we moved out of, so – we actually have – we’re slightly higher up – there is a – can I just refer you to – find which one it is, here, it’s – P3952 – okay, so it shows our – our current property’s the one on the far right hand side, our previous property is the one slightly further down the hill, slightly closer.

321. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Strachan?

322. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, sir, I think Mr Dunlop may have some other points, but I can take…

323. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They’re generic ones.

324. MR DUNLOP: I can do them all –

325. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you want to cover the other ones, do it first. If you want to cover the other ones, do it briefly, because they aren’t exactly new, and you aren’t exactly the closest people to the line.

326. MR DUNLOP: Exactly, no. I mean, we raised an issue on noise, which after reading a lot of the petitions, has been dealt with at some length, and will be dealt with by our Parish Council. Visual impact again – actually, we’re – it’s nice to see this drawing here because we’ve – this is new one for us, but it’s nice to see that provisions

are being made to reduce the visual impact. The highest issue of the rest will be the road closures for us. Boddington sits on Banbury Road, running roughly east/west, and effectively, if that road’s closed, in either direction, it isolates the village.

327. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So when we deal with that tomorrow, you’d be content for us to –

328. MRS DUNLOP: Yes, and if you could bring up 3953, which shows the –

329. MR DUNLOP : So Banbury Road/Welsh Road…

330. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Mr Strachan will pick it up, and we’ll go to the third thing, it’s a relay.

331. MR DUNLOP: Banbury Road/Welsh Road here, which is running sort of roughly – it’s not quite east/west, is it? Sort of – it’s east/west on this drawing. Is the main road in and out of the village. You’ve got the A361 Byfield Road, which runs between Daventry and Banbury, and then on the far left hand side, that would eventually get to the Southam Road, which is the A423, and that runs between Southam and Banbury. And effectively, everybody who lives in this area uses one or other of those two main roads.

332. MRS DUNLOP: Or the Claydon Road, which they’re obviously going to shut, which is the main access to doctors’ surgeries and to Banbury.

333. MR DUNLOP: We accept that road is going to close and we will have to go around. So, my point about road closures is that we – it’s impossible for us to have a situation where they are all closed at the same time…

334. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ll pick this up, I think tomorrow, on the more general petition, is sensible.

335. MR DUNLOP: Yes, I mean, we’ve spoken with the petitioners in the parish and they are picking up some of the points.

336. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you don’t mind, shall we do that?

337. MR DUNLOP: Of course, yes. So, from our point of view in that case, it’s just

about the compensation.

338. CHAIR: Right, Mr Strachan.

339. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. As I think has already been discussed, under the discretionary policies that apply in respect of compensation, it’s fair to say that Mr Dunlop would not be eligible for compensation but the reason for that is, as I think he, himself, has explained that where someone has sold an existing property after the recent announcements, so the property was sold in November 2012, and purchased another property in the same location, where, if there’s been an effect of generalised blight on the value of the properties, it’s been felt for both properties. The need to sell scheme doesn’t apply in those circumstances. Mr Dunlop’s new acquisition was subject to an effect of the same, broadly speaking the same order, as he experienced from the sale of his past property, and in those circumstances, the discretionary policy isn’t there to provide additional compensation. And so far as other owners of properties in Lower Boddington are concerned, and Mr Dunlop expressed a concern for other property owners, of course, the need to sell policy, the discretionary scheme, is there for anyone who finds themselves in the position of having an existing property, subject to the criteria which the Committee’s familiar with. But if they need to sell, under the policy, and they experience that generalised blight, then they may be able to apply.

340. So, that deals with the principle compensation issue. Mr Dunlop was kind enough to show the slide which showed the visual effects, we can have it back on the screen, but you’ll see from that, that both properties are some distance from the line, and it’s not anticipated either in terms of noise or visual effects that there will be significant noise or visual effects from the scheme, but insofar as generalised blight is having an effect on the properties, I’ve explained how the need to sell policy would work. Those were the two. I don’t think the two grey properties we were showing were specifically modelled on either his previous property. Those just happened to be properties further…

341. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In the line of sight.

342. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just to be clear. But I don’t anticipate them being significantly further away. But you’ll see from that the broad relationship as to why I say what I do. And so far as traffic is concerned, we’ll deal with that as indicated tomorrow, but I can repeat what we said last week, that we don’t intend to shut those

two elements of Claydon Road together, we’ll keep one open at all times, so if that was a concern. I explained that, I think, last week, in the context of one other petitioner in Lower Boddington.

343. MRS DUNLOP: And what about the Banbury Road, as it goes out towards Southam, which isn’t – the maps never go quite far enough, because we’re a border between two areas.

344. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No doubt we’ll look at it in more detail tomorrow, but the answer to your question is, that is a off line diversion, which, I’ll explain, means that we won’t shut the existing Boddington Road, Claydon Road, Boddington Road, until we’ve constructed the alternative diversion, so that there will always be a way through at that point.

345. MRS DUNLOP: Right.

346. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I hope that’s right.

347. CHAIR: Okay, Yes.

348. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. So, I think I did explain that yesterday – las t week as well, but you weren’t here, but that just to explain, so that particular closure only occurs once we’ve constructed the new one.

349. MR MEARNS: I suppose one final question Mr and Mrs Dunlop, fro m my perspective, in terms of the – I mean, am I right in thinking you sold your existing property – sorry, your previous property in October 2014, is that right?

350. MR DUNLOP: Correct.

351. MR MEARNS: Right. And of course, the need to sell scheme was being considered then, but hadn’t yet been brought in. I mean, was there an urgency about the transaction being undertaken at that particular point from your perspective, was there a danger that the purchase of your current property would have fallen through if you’d asked for a sort of delay…

352. MR DUNLOP: They were not done simultaneously. Our properties – we bought our new place two years ago, we only sold our place recently. However, I would say

there was an urgency, because when I had a potential purchaser for a house that was within distance of HS2, I took the opportunity to sell it when I could.

353. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the – the situation is roughly this. That up to the time when the need to sell scheme came in, people were expected to take up to a 15% hit – putting it in plain English, it can be dressed up in other sorts of ways. Your situation is undesirable, but I think that you’ve not been treated – because you’ve moved reasonably locally, it’s not been as bad as if you’ve moved completely to a totally unaffected area, and I think that we’re impressed by what you’ve had to bear, I don’t think we’ve got a solution.

354. MR DUNLOP: Okay. My point that I wanted to make was, to use your expression, a 15% hit, do we feel that is fair…?

355. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, no, I’m not suggesting it’s fair. I’m not suggesting it’s fair. We live – you live with it intensely, we live with it over a longer period, and we feel – we feel for everyone, and you plainly…

356. MRS DUNLOP: Are those figures of all the people who were expected to have that 15% hit, are those included in the overall costs of the building of the line, when the £15 billion is banded around, the actual cost to the economy…?

357. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That gets into the theology of when you’re doing it, taking a still photograph of a moving picture, and when you look at it – I – my expectation, not a prediction, is that when the line is built, that house values where you are, aren’t going to be particularly affected, in the end, and I guess it – the worst blight as you know from other schemes, is during the time, is, you’re running up to serious consideration and then possibly during construction. By that time people are beginning to see the disruption ended, not the construction traffic and so on – I’m not trying to give you any comfort, I’m just trying to sort of – we understand why you’re here.

358. MR DUNLOP: I suppose from our point of view, the deal’s been done, so we don’t – we can’t retrospectively go back and say, ‘I’m sorry, but the price has gone up now’, and our position is that £100,000, or whatever it is, that 20%, will never be recovered.

359. CHAIR: Well, if your current property, when the railway’s finished – if the value recovers, then it maybe you’re just going to be a little bit older, and maybe wiser.

360. MR DUNLOP: When we sell.

361. CHAIR: In effect, you’ve taken your loss, for understandable reasons. But, as I say, you’ve sort of fallen between a number of chairs, which, as Sir Peter…

362. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we don’t know, whether, if you hadn’t sold, if you’d applied under the need to sell, whether that would have been accepted or not, that’s a – my guess is borderline, rather than certain.

363. MR DUNLOP: Yes. We took the decision it wasn’t really worth the risk.

364. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: It’s not comfort to you, but I would have made each of the decisions that you made.

365. MR MEARNS: I think part of the problem is, in terms of trying to establish what the overall costs of the whole project will be in terms of acquisition of property, you know, there will be some places where there will be a permanent hit. There will be other places where there will be a loss in value of your purchase and then there will be recovery, after a period of time, and I think that’s all kind of into the property mix where it is very variable in different places.

366. CHAIR: Anyway, any brief, final comments, Mr Dunlop?

367. MR DUNLOP: No.

368. CHAIR: We’ll be discussing your village at length tomorrow.

369. MR DUNLOP : Thank you very much.

370. CHAIR: We now come to the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust.

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

371. CHAIR: Right, welcome.

372. MR GREEN : Thank you.

373. CHAIR: We can see Warwickshire. Would you – are you kicking off, Mr Green?

374. MR GREEN: If you’re ready to, I’m quite happy to.

375. CHAIR: Yes.

376. MR GREEN : Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come and talk with you this morning. My name’s Ed Green, I’m Chief Executive of Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, and I’m accompanied by Gina Lowe, who is our living landscape manager. A few words of introduction, if I may; the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is a charity that was formed in 1970, out of another charity called the West Midlands Trust for Nature Conservation that was established in 1956. We now manage 60 nature reserves across an area that actually includes Coventry and Solihull; perhaps if we could go to the next slide, that’s just a summary of what I’m now going to say, thank you very much.

377. So, this is our area, we have 24,000 members who live in the area there, we manage 60 nature reserves with the help of some 700 volunteers, and we’ve been surveying the species and habitats of that bit of England for the past 60 years.

378. In 2005, in conjunction with other wildlife trusts, we developed a landscape strategy for – to direct our work and over the past decade, we’ve been implementing that approach, working in partnership with a multitude of different organisations, but importantly, local landowners, and we have two schemes that are well established that are illustrated on this map and that are relevant to what I’d like to say today, with regard to HS2. The blue one is the Thame Valley wetlands, and the green one is the Princethorpe Woodlands, and you can see the relationship there to the route. The red dots are our nature reserves.

379. There were two parts to our petition. The first included a number of route-wide issues, and general points, and the second outlined how some of those points affected specific sites within Warwickshire. I’d like to take the first part first, and there were a number of points raised in our petition which we still feel haven’t been dealt adequately with by the PRD and which we are still asking you, as a Committee, to consider, but which we know that other people will come and cover in much more detail than we want to; either they’ve already done that or they’re going to do so at some future point.

So, these are generally overarching issues and to avoid any duplication, I’m just going to skip through them before turning to the local examples in more detail.

380. Could I have the next slide please? This slide is a list then of those general route- wide points that I’ll take in turn, and I will say one or two new things about those that have arisen since we received our PRD.

381. In relation to the first, we agree with some previous petitions in relation to statutory and non-statutory sites and species, which state that the Environmental Statement was insufficient to permit a full consideration of the impacts of HS2 on wildlife. In our PRD, HS2 have only committed to a programme of surveys of European protected species, and so our request today is that HS2 consult with ecological technical group on the species to be served for additional provisions and/or any additional supplementary ES. And just as an aside and a reminder, the ecological technical group is a group that has already been established and that comprises ecologists from statutory bodies, local authorities and NGOs such as ourselves.

382. Moving to the supplementary ES’s, we really welcome HS2’s commitment to publishing an addendum on the Environmental Statement, and new ES ’s for any additional provisions. And we understand that those are going to come to you before the end of your Select Committee process. Our request today is that we will be able to come back to you, when you have received those, and comment, if we consider there are any deficiencies still remain. And the second request on this point is we’d also really appreciate if HS2 could give us some clarification as to when the addendum will be published, and what the timescale for getting our responses in will be.

383. My third point concerns net gain for biodiversity, and I’m sure you have, and will hear, a lot on this from conversation organisations such as ourselves. In our petition, we covered the issue of whether no net loss of biodiversity, as the promoters set out, is sufficient. They argue in their response document that no net loss is the Government’s policy. We counter that by pointing to a host of policy, in relation to biodiversity action plans, the wording of the national planning policy framework, and the Government’s own white paper on biodiversity, which directly refers to the standards we set for construction projects.

384. We find that the standards set for HS2 to be woefully un-a mb itio us a nd

uninspiring, and we support those, including the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts and Woodland Trust, who will seek the Select Committee to push HS2 to deliver a net gain.

385. At the moment, HS2 have not provided us, or anybody else, apart from perhaps Natural England, we’re not too sure, sight of the calculations they have used to develop scores for the biodiversity value of the habitats to be lost and created. The HS2 metric must differ quite markedly from the Defra offsetting metric, as the Warwickshire biodiversity offsetting pilot has applied the latter in line with the alternations outlined in the ES technical paper, and has calculated a substantial loss of biodiversity. Could I have the next slide, please?

386. The results are summarised here. A figure of net loss of biodiversity of 2648 units, is, I appreciate, highly abstract. So to set that into some context, a loss of that magnitude would be equivalent to our county losing three quarters of its most species rich meadows. This illustrates just how important it is for the Committee and others to see the HS2 metric, and while the Right Honourable Caroline Spelman recommended a really good job could be done were HS2 to work with Warwickshire and look at offsetting further afield along the River Thame. Therefore, our next request is that we would like the Committee to ask HS2 to confirm when they will share their calculations and to set out how petitioners such as ourselves can comment on their calculations.

387. And finally on this point, we do not accept the promoter’s response in our PRD, that the significant challenge for an infrastructure project like theirs justifies their target of no net loss. They seem to be saying to us that because it’s hard, then they’re not going to try. Could I have the next slide please? This is just my summary slide, repeated.

388. We’re on the fourth point now, the impact on ancient woodland. Here we wish to raise with you the issue of how new planting is depicted as compensation for the loss of ancient woodland and you will hear much more of this in technical detail when the Woodland Trust addresses you further on in your process. However, this is of considerable local interest to us, given the impact that HS2 will have on ancient woodlands in Warwickshire. I’d just like to remind everybody in this room – next slide please – that we’re talking about ecological communities that have existed over centauries and that have never seen herbicide and never seen fertiliser, and replacing

the m – next slide – with plantations that will take decades to develop any ecological interest and will never replace the habitat that has been lost.

389. In our PRD, the HS2 acknowledge this, yet in the very next sentence state, ‘Woodland creation in response to ancient woodland is recognised as a compensatory measure’. We really refute this statement. Ancient woodland, by definition, is irreplaceable. Planting is not recognised as compensation, which in itself is a term that suggests an act that balances everything out. Standing advice from Natural England and the Forestry Commission is that native woodland creation at a large scale, can only be considered as part of compensation package, and Natural England, Forestry Commission emphasise, ‘at a large scale’, and ‘as part of’.

390. Our request today is therefore, that HS2 cease presenting new woodland planting as compensation for loss of ancient woodland. Could I have the next slide please. Again, this is going back to my summary slide.

391. Warwickshire County Council have led already on suggesting that the ecological review group that HS2 are proposing to instigate, be based on the ecological technical group, which I referred to earlier, and, much more importantly, that this review group be independent from HS2 and those involved in developing the mitigation and compensation schemes. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust strongly supports those proposals and request today that the Wildlife Trust should be members of that review group, along with other NGOs. Furthermore, I would like to ask the Committee to ensure that the proposed ecology review group has a role to scrutinise how ecological impacts are measured and where and how they are compensated. This scrutiny role could, I suggest, involve your recommendations to work with local groups such as tree wardens along the route and assist in the development of the local environment management plans that will become necessary.

392. My sixth point on this slide concerns ecological connectivity. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and Warwickshire County Council have previously demonstrated to you how connectivity mapping can bring ecological evidence to bear on the question of where structures like green bridges can have the greatest benefit, work we know that others, such as Buckingham County Council are carrying out elsewhere along the line.

393. In our view, all available tools should be applied along the entire route, and so

request that this includes connectivity modelling to inform the approach taken to assessing HS2’s impacts on ecological connectivity, and the location of things, such as green bridges, and the gains from mitigation and compensation actions.

394. My final point on this slide concerns compensation outside the limits of the bill. We’re aware that other petitioners will address, in detail, why the restriction of compensation and mitigation works to the limits of the Bill, actually hamstrings improvements that could be made to ecological connectivity. And add to landowners’ concerns about where mitigation land is being provided. We have noted several petitions from within Warwickshire expressing great concern at locations of some of the land proposed for habitat creation.

395. Now, clearly, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust can’t act as agents for the proposers, but we can help them look for opportunities where there maybe landowners willing to engage with habitat creation in areas where connectivity can really help bolster ecological networks, at reduced cost and possibly avoiding compulsory purchase. There are many in our county. Next slide please.

396. For example, there are 75 within 10 kilometres of the line that have already registered with the offsetting scheme run by the Environmental Bank. These are the yellow and green dots within that 10 kilometre buffer and the figure 75 is just the ones within Warwickshire. There are other sites, other landowners that we are aware of, in our Thame Valley and Princethorpe Landscape areas, again, they’re illustrated on that map, where we are aware, because of the work that we’ve been carrying out over many years, they would be receptive to suggestions that compensatory habitat be created on their land. All of these are understood to be on a voluntary basis, and again, would – our understanding is not need to be identified within an additional provision. However, without any clarity on how much compensation land will be required, and the mechanism for securing it, it’s hard to engage these types of landowners any further.

397. Therefore, our request here is for the Committee to direct the promoter to look for compensation opportunities outside of the limits of the Bill because I think there is real benefit to be gained there.

398. Now, if I may, I’ll turn to some points in our petition which consider specific sites in Warwickshire, in more detail, starting with local wildlife sites. Next slide please.

This slide is just a reminder of what local wildlife sites and potential sites are, and their significance. They are sites that are absolutely vital building blocks of county, regional and national ecological networks. A potential local wildlife site is a site where records for particular indicator species suggests that it might be of local wildlife standard. However, that designation is not conferred on it, until a standard survey can be taken out and then that designation is decided upon, one way or the other, by a partnership of local authorities, Natural England, Environment Agency and ourselves.

399. HS2 will directly affect 19 local wildlife sites, leading to a habitat loss of 35 hectares, and it will directly affect 19 potential local wildlife sites. If I could have the next slide. This simply illustrates the local wildlife sites. Next slide. And that is an equivalent slide for the potential wildlife sites. Defra describe these sites as sites of substantial natural conservation value without statutory status, but many are equal in quality, to sites of special scientific interest.

400. In our PRD, HS2 state that appropriate mitigation has been proposed for each local wildlife site where significant effects have been identified. We disagree. In 18 out of 19 cases, the trust has identified examples where minor changes to the route design and ancillary infrastructure could further reduce the example of the impact on a local wildlife site.

401. We met with HS2 on 22 January and covered all of these sites in detail, and I don’t have any intention of going through them one by one today. But I would like to request that HS2 meet with us again to follow up on the detail of what we discussed and laid before them on 22 January. Today, what I will do instead is I will quickly present four specific examples, which illustrate the need for our requests related to local wildlife sites in general.

402. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are these the best examples, or a random selection?

403. MR GREEN: They’re the best examples, of particular points. Could I have the next slide please? We’re looking here at a map of Berkswell Marsh Meadow and we’ve hand-drawn in pink the boundary of the local wildlife site. This is an example of where small adjustments to the promoter’s plans would avoid a very large impact at a county level. This local wildlife site is important for marshy meadow which has never been ploughed or fertilised, and that’s really rare in Warwickshire. This single site contains

20% of the habitat in our county. It’s next door to a SSSI, Berkswell Marsh, which isn’t marked on the Promoter’s map here, and together these two undoubtedly form the largest single unit of this habitat in the county.

404. It’s heavily impacted by the embankment – do I have the ability to point at these slides?

405. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, you do.

406. MR GREEN : How do I do that?

407. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: You just point. You point, Mr Mould will copy you, and it’ll come back on the screen.

408. MR GREEN : Right, okay. Up there. Here. No, left a bit. Sorry – right a bit. I beg your pardon. Right a bit. A bit further.

409. MR MEARNS: Just pretend you’re on The Golden Shot.

410. MR GREEN : Yes. Okay, let’s leave it there. So, the arrow is actually on a viaduct that’s being proposed. Slightly to my right of the arrow, you can see the embankment impacts the bottom edge of the local wildlife site. Also, there is a proposed utility works running right through and solely within the local wildlife site. That second has the main impact, and particularly we can’t see any way that the construction of a gas pipeline in a wet, marshy meadow can do anything other than destroy the value of the habitat. So, our request specifically to HS2 is, and has been, to consider a short extension to that viaduct to avoid for the need for the embankment and to consider a less intrusive route for that utility work. Next slide, please.

411. Sorry – Berkswell Marsh, that previous slide, was an example of where small adjustments, in our opinion, to the Promoter’s plans would avoid a very big impact. This example, Patrick Farm Meadow, is an example of where we believe that the compensation which is being proposed is just inadequate. Again, it’s marked in pink there, and I think you can see clearly from the map that the embankment and the

construction of the line will destroy about 75% of the habitat. It is another piece of wet, marshy grassland; it’s just a bit along the line from Berkswell Marsh Meadow.

412. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, could just say again how we identify this?

413. MR GREEN : It’s the pink line – yes, there. The arrow’s under it.

414. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I can see where it is, but what words should we use to describe it?

415. MR GREEN : Yes. It’s Patrick Fa r m Meadow Local Wildlife Site.

416. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

417. MR GREEN : Sir, we think the line and the embankment, if we just measure it strictly around the borders, will destroy three-quarters of that site, but in fact the likely spillover of construction will destroy it all. The compensation being proposed is on the –

418. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: By co mpe nsa tio n, understand it’s compensatory measure, rather than actually compensation.

419. MR GREEN : The measures that are being proposed in compensation, certainly, are on the site of the satellite compound and temporary road head that are above the line – the dark brown and the orange squares. They’re towards the right of that. So, the point here is that the compensation can’t be put into place until those structures have been decommissioned, so it will happen a long time after the destruction of the original habitat, and it will be disconnected ecologically from whatever remnant of the original habitat remains. So, our comment here is that the compensation measures that are proposed are not adequate for the effect on the site of county significance.

420. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you have a bright idea?

421. MR GREEN : We discussed, when we met with HS2, the possibility of habitat

compensation to the right of that pink blob, but it was very hypothetical. We would certainly be willing to work with them to explore other areas, but we know the site very well. The surrounding landholdings, etc., we have less information on. My next slide, please.

422. This is my third example on local wildlife sites, and it’s an example of two potential local wildlife sites, Windmill Hill Spinney, towards the top of that picture, and Ladbroke Fox Covert, that are going to be, in the first instance, directly impacted by HS2 and, in the second, almost certainly by construction. The green dot in Windmill Hill Spinney indicates the location of another one of Warwickshire’s famous veteran pear trees, you may be interested to hear. Because these are potential local wildlife sites, they have not been included in the ES up to date. They are examples of sites where, in absence of the standard surveys, the data for inclusion within the ES has not been generated, and so therefore they have been left out, and they illustrate why the ES, as it stands, does not provide a full and, in our opinion, proper assessment of the affect of HS2 on wildlife in Warwickshire.

423. Our suggestion here is that HS2 commission a survey of the 39 potential local wildlife sites that we know will be impacted in ways similar to these two, and in context that’s not a big ask. The Warwickshire Local Wildlife Site partnership have calculated that, with dedicated resource of £40,000, all 39 sites could be surveyed within a single survey season, and that information then could be brought forward into a supplementary ES.

424. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just for our understanding, roughly when is a survey season?

425. MR GREEN : Roughly April till the end of September. Next slide, p lea se. My last example on local wildlife sites concerns this area here, and it’s two sites called Coleshill Sewage Works Grasslands and Lea Marston Sludge Beds. This site, comprising these three blocks, is a large local wildlife site which is an example of where the loss of habitat is a less important issue than the management of the remaining network. I didn’t say that very clearly, so, if you’ll let me, I’ll say it again. The issue here is not the habitat that’s going to be lost; it’s the quality of the management of the

habitat that remains. That is what I meant to say. It is also an example – the sludge beds – the one that is in the slightly orange – of a site that is not included in the ES. It is a local wildlife site, but it was designated as a local wildlife site after the ES was produced.

426. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you point to it?

427. MR GREEN : Mr Mo uld, it’s that one there. Yes. That’s the bit I’m talking about. So, that blob there where the arrow is is not included in the ES. It’s also an example of a site where a local landowner is highly opposed to their land being taken for compensatory measures, and all of this in a very densely built-up area that, with existing railway and motorway networks, offers few opportunities for land acquisition and a lot of barriers to ecological connectivity. In our opinion, enhanced management of this new habitat, lying as it does within one of our landscape schemes – the Tame Valley Wetlands scheme – will deliver far greater biodiversity benefits than the creation of new habitat. So, therefore we have come today to ask the Committee to ask HS2 to reconsider the proposed compensation at the site and, instead of or maybe as well as creating new habitat, to consider proposals for the future management of the remaining habitats.

428. In summary on local wildlife sites, we are therefore asking for the opportunity to apply local knowledge of local wildlife sites to suggest adjustments to the current plans. We are asking HS2 to update the number of local wildlife sites for the purposes of the ES addendum to include sites such as Lea Marston Sludge Beds. We are also asking them to include in this update a survey of all 39 potential local wildlife sites, something which, as I’ve said, can be done quite cheaply and quite quickly. Finally on local wildlife sites, we are asking HS2 to consider opportunities to increase the quality of the remaining local wildlife site network where these provide better biodiversity gains than simply creating new habitat. By improving existing and remaining sites, we think that better biodiversity will be delivered for Warwickshire than by simply creating new habitat within the limits of the Bill.

429. I’ll now turn, if I may, to our specific points on ancient woodland. Next slide, please. This slide summarises the impact of HS2 on ancient woodland. In response to

the Promoter’s response document, we would like to make a few comments. We would like to stress to the Committee that translocation of ancient woodland is such a new technique and so few have been undertaken or monitored that it is not possible to state, as the Promoter does, that it is a successful practice. The monitoring of the M2 scheme did carry on for 10 years, and we acknowledge that that is the longest set of monitoring data that have been gathered on the translocation of ancient woodland. However, that monitoring is now finished; no more data are expected, and 10 years worth of data on the take-up and success of this technique applied to a habitat that’s been in existence for over 400 years is simply not long enough to state that it has been successful.

430. We disagree, as this slide illustrates, with the Promoter’s assessment of the amount of ancient woodland in Warwickshire that is directly impacted. We see it’s 8.1 hectares; they say it’s seven hectares. I think we’d just like to sit down with them and develop a schedule of loss that we can all agree on and that then can form the basis of further conversations. We would highlight that the number of ancient woods affected in our county may well increase, thanks to a survey of woods that have not yet been designated as ancient woodlands but are currently under review by Natural England. That could add another four ancient woods to the impact of HS2 in our county. We’ll note that HS2 has confirmed to the Woodland Trust that additional consents outside of the Bill are going to be required for work in Ufton and Long Itchington Wood, and that that is in agreement with our petition that additional mitigation is required there, so I’m not going to say any more about that. And we agree with the Woodland Trust that Black Waste Wood in Warwickshire will be indirectly affected because of the location of the tunnel portal. Again, we’re leaving that for the Woodland Trust to comment on in more detail when they come to see you.

431. We went through all the ancient woodlands affected in Warwickshire with HS2 at our meeting in January, and so, again, I’m not going to go through all of our specific points we raised with them, except to repeat my previous request that we’d like to have a follow-up meeting so we can go over that in detail. And, again, I’ll just quickly go through four examples, so next slide, please.

432. In South Cubbington Wood, not only will two hectares of ancient woodland and veteran trees be lost but the proposed deep revetted cutting is possibly the worst possible

option, as it permanently fragments the remaining woodland. This is an example of where the impact could be avoided, and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust add our request to those already made by many others for a bore tunnel at this location. Failing that, we call for a cut tunnel covered with as much of the original woodland soil as possible, or, as a very last resort, converting the Mill Lane Bridge into a very big green bridge. These measures should also be part of a package which includes the ecological restoration of North Cubbington Wood as well.

433. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the one where South Cubbington Wood is natural and North Cubbington Wood is farmed.

434. MR GREEN : Yes. Next slide, please.

435. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They farm the trees, I mean.

436. MR GREEN : Yes. Here we’re looking at Broadwells Wood. It’s a site where 4.3 hectares of ancient woodland are going to be lost and the remaining habitat fragmented. Again, we add our request to those made by others for consideration to be given to a bored tunnel at this location, or, failing that, that the route alignment be lowered to reduce the size of the embankment and hence the take from the wood. In addition and separate from any tunnelling considerations, we think it perfectly feasible that the access road could be rerouted to avoid fragmenting the remaining habitat to the top, as we’re looking at it – to the north of the line – and that the footpath underpass that is being proposed at this site be widened so that it can facilitate the movement of wildlife underneath the line.

437. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A green underpass?

438. MR GREEN : Yes, a green underpass. So, we think Broadwells Wood is a site where the proposed measures could be adjusted further, certainly in the case of diverting the access road and the footpath, at fairly little effort or, indeed, additional cost. Next slide, please.

439. My next example covers a local wildlife site that compromises two woodlands: Hams Hall Wood and Sych Woods. Here, we are looking at Hams Hall Wood. It is the

pink arrow shape towards the top of the picture. Sych Wood is just off to the north and off the top of this slide, and will come in on my next picture.

440. At this location, 1.8 hectares of woodland, including some ancient woodland, will be lost. Further north, Hams Hall Wood was created in the 1980s as part of the development of the substation which is just underneath it. The promoter will, therefore, need to compensate for the gains over the past 30 years, which will now be lost to the development of HS2.

441. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: You can gain quite a lot over 30 years.

442. MR GREEN : Yes, these are quite substantial trees in this location. The new planting proposal around the Faraday Avenue railway link, which is all of this connection here in the middle of the picture, is in small, isolated patches, with extremely limited ecological value. In our opinion, it is insufficient for the loss of woodland and ancient woodland at Hams Hall and Sych woodlands.

443. Alternatively, we are proposing that consideration be given to – next slide please – here we have Hams Hall, which is now at the bottom of this picture, and you can see Sych Wood, which is just above it. Our proposal is that the planting that takes place takes place in such a way to join the two together. Again, if I can point on the picture, in that area where the arrow is moving between, so these two become joined together. Our specific request is that careful consideration be given to planting that connects those two woods together for the benefit of wider connectivity through the landscape.

444. Lastly, my fourth example on ancient woodlands is a picture taken from a woodland in Coventry that is overrun by cherry laurel.

445. CHAIR: The green –

446. MR GREEN : Yes, the big green bush in the middle is the cherry laurel. It is the shrub that is quite often planted for hedges, with green waxy leaves. It is an invasive species. I could have easily used a picture of a wood full of rhododendron. As I said, unfortunately, it is not a rare set of circumstances to have ancient woods overrun with

these sorts of species. This is not within the limits of the bill; however, removal of these sorts of invasive species is perfectly feasible, and to do so at other ancient woodland sites would confer and generate far greater biodiversity benefits than some of the proposals that are included in the plans at present. This last slide makes the very general point that simple but highly effective interventions at sites other than those which are being consider at the moment could deliver better gains for wildlife and the people living very close to HS2.

447. In summary, on ancient woodlands, we are asking for more tunnels at Cubbington at Broadwells; HS2 to work with Woodland Trust and Natural England to assess the status of all potential ancient woodlands; HS2 to update the number of ancient woods for the purposes of the environmental statement addendum; that additional opportunities are taken to avoid impact through mitigation; and the point which is directly analogous to the one I made on local wildlife sites, that HS2 consider opportunities to increase the quality of the remaining ancient woodland network, where these provide better diversity gains that simply creating new habitat, even if this means looking outside the limits of the bill.

448. I am now coming to my last set of points, and these concern ecological connectivity. In our opinion, there is insufficient evidence that connectivity has been a major consideration, as stated in our PRD. The means to assess connectivity are available but have not been used. As you will be well aware already, hedgerows are a vital component of ecological connectivity. HS2 state that the amount of hedgerow to be provided will not be available until the detailed design stage. The hedgerow loss/gain ratio can, therefore, not be determined now and, therefore, as a committee, I think you are unable to examine whether losses are being properly addressed. Moreover, with pressures from the farming community to realign hedgerow networks to facilitate workable agricultural units, the location and layout of hedgerow loss and gain post construction is uncertain. Therefore, HS2 are, at the moment, acknowledging an unknown loss of hedgerow at unknown locations for an unknown period of time. They, therefore, cannot state that there will be no significant effects on ecological connectivity.

449. When HS2 come to address these issues in Warwickshire – next slide, please – we

would very much welcome the opportunity to help identify locations outside the limits of the bill where they can provide really ecologically meaningful benefits to ecological connectivity. This is a detailed map of our Princethorpe Woodlands. The green highlights are areas of hedgerow that we have surveyed already. We have surveyed 40 km of them and we have restored already 8 km. It is slightly obscured under the number reference. That means that we can suggest to HS2 that 32 km of hedgerow slightly outside the limits of the bill that they could, if they so choose, restore, providing great ecological benefits to this particular landscape.

450. You will recall a detailed discussion about the design of green bridges with Mr Lowe of Warwickshire County Council, and the unwillingness of HS2 during that discussion to commit to a minimum specification for green bridges at any location within Warwickshire. Since that discussion, HS2 have confirmed to us – the Trust – that the design of green bridges will be finalised between now and June. Further analysis by Mr Lowe, which he has kindly shared with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, has revealed that the green element of nine of the 11 green bridges along HS1 is more than 20m wide. In some cases, it is more than 100m wide. None of the designs brought forward for Warwickshire, which HS2 declined to commit to, are even close to being equivalent to those built already along HS1. My last specific request is, therefore, that, in Warwickshire, we get structures to aid ecological connectivity which are at least equivalent to those installed in Kent on HS1. For this reason, and many others stated earlier, we refute the promoter’s statement in our PRD that no additional mitigation and co mpe nsation measures are required.

451. In summary, in relation to ecological landscape, we are asking for assurances that HS2 will stick to their commitment made in the ES scoping report to assess the impact the scheme will have on connectivity in the landscape, and to do this by using the Warwickshire County Council connectivity model, as well as all available data; secondly, that they limit the loss of hedgerow and safeguard or restore key corridors across landscapes such as the Princethorpe Woodlands; and thirdly, that HS2 apply minimum standards for green-bridge design, based on all available evidence, and that the number and locations of these green bridges be determined by modelling and ecological data, and not just professional opinion.

452. Thank you very much for your time in listening to our arguments, and I am sure the members of the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, many of whom have contacted me on all sorts of issues related to HS2, will really appreciate the time you spend considering. Thank you.

453. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Green, and thank you for moving from last Thursday so we could have the day off.

454. MR GREEN : No wor r ies.

455. CHAIR: Mr Mould.

456. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I am going to ask Mr Miller to respond, if I may. Mr Miller, some of the points that we have heard today have been addressed in the past – for example, during the hearing with the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust – so we do not need to spend a great deal of time on matters that the committee has heard about. Before we start, however, I would just like you to help me on one point. Some might thing, from some of the presentations we have had on ecology, that HS2, as a project, is looking to do battle with nature-conservation interests and is looking to avoid its responsibility in relation to mitigating the effects of the railway on nature-conservation interests and, where appropriate, to make compensatory measures available where mitigation cannot be achieved. Is that a fair statement of the approach of the project to those issues?

457. MR MILLER: No, I do not believe that is fair. We have put a lot of effort into the environmental impact assessment. That process continues. The process of challenge continues through this particular process. Our approach to the mitigation and compensation is included within the bill limits. I think I have given evidence in the past to indicate that our approach is to ensure that we can guarantee that mitigation and compensation response within the law as it is being constructed through this process. Everything is contained within the bill provisions.

458. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In terms of the role of county-level wildlife trusts, do we see those as useful or as unhelpful contributors to the process of understanding the

planning for and delivering the mitigation that is required, both through design, physical measures and later maintenance and monitoring to enable the interests of nature conservation to be given proper consideration through the delivery of the railway? Do you see their role as helpful or unhelpful?

459. MR MILLER: I think the role of the wildlife trusts is very important, particularly because of the changing nature of the local planning regime. Not all local authorities now have ecological resources to hand, and a lot of that ecological resource has now passed to organisations like the wildlife trusts. That local colour, if you will, comes from these different organisations, and I think they will have a role to play in the development of High Speed 2.

460. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We are happy, then, to continue to speak with the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and to say yes to the question that was posed earlier: will we be willing to have further meetings with them in relation to the issues that they have ra ised?

461. MR MILLER: Yes, that is correct.

462. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Turning now very briefly to the route-wide issues, firstly, in relation to the ecological data – the baseline information – that was provided in the environmental statement, the committee knows that we have said that the project is looking to gather further information to supplement that which has already been provided and which was the basis for the assessment. That is right, is it not?

463. MR MILLER: That is correct, yes.

464. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think I am right in saying that we can now say that we presently expect to publish that information that we have gathered during 2014 in the form of supplementary environmental information during the summer of this year.

465. MR MILLER: That is correct, yes.

466. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. There will be an opportunity for these

petitioners and others who are interested in this aspect of the scheme to make comment on that information, following its publication, and indeed to bring further matters before the committee, if that is their desire.

467. MR MILLER: Yes, that is right. I think what we said before is, if we find something – although we are not expecting to find anything new – I have explained the precautionary approach that we have adopted in the environmental impact assessment, and we are expecting the surveys to confirm our position in that assessment. However, if there is something that is new – if, for example, we find a location of protected species – then this bill will have to respond to that, and that may well lead to an additional provision of that, or some further provision for compensation or possibly additional land.

468. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In terms of the question of the overall policy objective – no net loss/net gain – is the project’s overall policy objective of no net loss one that has been considered through parliamentary processes before the Environmental Audit Committee?

469. MR MILLER: Before the EAC, yes, it has been considered.

470. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What was the position of Defra in relation to that?

471. MR MILLER: Their position is that they felt that, in terms of a major infrastructure project, it was a difficult objective to achieve with a long linear project. The evidence we gave before the Environmental Audit Committee particularly relating to ancient woodlands recognised that such an intervention was going to have some effects on those designated resources.

472. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As far as the practical achievement of that objective through the development and delivery of the project is concerned, what has been the approach? Has the bill looked to self-containment or has the bill been predicated on the need to bring into play some as yet unspecified additional measures outside of the bill powers?

473. MR MILLER: No, it is contained within the bill powers, and it is felt necessary to include it within the bill powers because the job of the environmental impact assessment is to identify the significant environmental effects of the project – that includes effects on biodiversity, amongst a range of other issues; and, where there are mitigation and compensation arrangements, that we demonstrate that we are either overcoming or otherwise ameliorating the significant effects that we have identified. It has been the case to date that we have included everything within the bill.

474. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If, ultimately, it is discovered, found or assessed that other measures are required in order to realise our policy objective, is a degree of offsetting a technique that, in principle at least, is available for that purpose?

475. MR MILLER: Yes, we could resort to that.

476. MR MOULD QC (DfT): However, does the bill presently assume offsetting as part of the development of the project?

477. MR MILLER: Only in the sense that we have included some areas away from the line of the route – the infill woodland planting at Cubbington Wood is a good example – but that is still contained within the bill. What I said before is that we have been trying to manage and understand the compensation measures in proximity to where the effect is occurring, and dealing with it in that locality rather than looking some distance away from the railway, because we feel that the response should be local to the effects.

478. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In relation to ancient woodland, do we accept the proposition, as a matter of principle, that ancient woodland is irreplaceable?

479. MR MILLER: Yes.

480. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Turning to the question of ecological connectivity, has the project and the assessment of the project in the environmental assessment sought to consider the impact of the scheme on existing areas of ecological connectivity such as hedgerows, and to make appropriate provision to mitigate and compensate for severance that the scheme gives rise to as a linear transport project?

481. MR MILLER: It has, and our method is based on the various institutes’ approaches rather than the connectivity modelling that you have heard about this morning and that you have heard about in the Warwickshire debate.

482. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So far as the design of physical elements of that mitigation package, such as green bridges, is concerned, is the objective of the project to produce structures that are effective in delivering on the connectivity which they are designed to achieve?

483. MR MILLER: Yes. What I have explained before and in the Warwickshire evidence, we looked at a number of those green bridges, and the response is to provide connectivity relevant to the scale and nature of the effect. That has been our approach and that is why, when we looked at those bridges a couple of months ago, we explained the various sizes that were included, whether the green element was on one side, both sides, or why one bridge was wider than another.

484. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In relation to the role of monitoring and the Ecological Review Group that was mentioned, can we just put up P40201, please? We have here a document that, I think, was provided to Warwickshire County Council following their appearance before the committee back in October, which sets out the developing thinking in relation to monitoring and maintenance of ecological mitigation and compensation. If we just scroll down to the next page, we can see that there is a reference to the need for a monitoring regime. If we go further, we can see that – next page – there is a reference, at paragraph 10, to the creation of an Ecology Review Group: ‘The specific purpose is to provide independent advice on the monitoring of created habitats, including the reviewing of outputs from the ecology monitoring programme’. It would have other functions as well, but that’s a specific part of its remit that the project is looking to develop and take forward. Is that correct?

485. MR MILLER: That’s correct. Yes, that’s part of the progress of this project.

486. CHAIR: Can I ask? Presumably you’re going to produce the paper as a supplement to the environment statement. Will it follow that?

487. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think that the review group is not tied to any particular timing of the provision of further environmental information. I don’t know if we have a particular… Do we have a date in mind of it?

488. CHAIR: It’s just the petitioners made the point that, actually at quite an early stage, there are issues of design, and therefore probably earlier is better.

489. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think somewhere in your response there’s a reference either to coming with the additional provisions or as a supplementary environmental statement.

490. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The timing of the group?

491. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, it doesn’t specify whether the group’s thoughts and contribution would be available then.

492. MR MILLER: We’ll clarify that position.

493. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But, if the group’s consideration is likely to make a difference, either it’s totally within the Bill’s powers or it may require something different. O ne of the things you may be going to cover with Mr Miller is, when the petitioners were talking about whether – voluntarily, outside the 10 kilometre zone, where there were things thought to be worthwhile – that matters to the promoters, or whether it’s something that the community money could go into, or whether it’s of no interest.

494. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t know if Mr Miller wants to speak about that. This is about extending the assessment, I think.

495. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or opportunities of doing things.

496. MR GREEN: I would say the opportunities exist, if one was to look slightly further afield.

497. MR MILLER: I think there is an opportunity to look at Warwickshire’s proposals for offsetting, because they’ve identified some receptor sites. I think that may be helpful to resolve some of the conflicts that we’re seeing, particularly with agricultural land use, and some of the proposals that we have on the table. So I think, if there is a

productive conversation that we can have with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and we are able to guarantee the land or the compensation measures so that answers our duty under the IA regs, then we may find a solution, perhaps, to help someone like Mr McGregor out with his field. So, if Warwickshire Wildlife Trust are willing to engage in that way, then I think we should be talking about that and we should be talking about that now.

498. CHAIR: And the ecology review group, will that be effectively to deal with the limits of the Bill or broader issues, or haven’t terms of reference been thought of yet?

499. MR MILLER: Well, there are broader issues of monitoring and how we get habitats established, and I think that was part of the debate that we had with David Lowe from Warwickshire. Now, there are clearly things that we’ve got to think about and get specified so that the people who come along and build HS2 know what they’re building to and what the future expectations are for the operating railway, because we will maintain these habitats so that they come into fruition in a way that is beneficial for biodiversity. So we’ve got to work that through, and that’s part of that debate.

500. If, at the moment, we can get it set up perhaps earlier, as you’re suggesting, and the ecological review group can perhaps look at some of the ideas that Warwickshire Wildlife Trust has just put forward in light of resolving some of these local conflicts, then I think that there is real scope for us to move forward with an effective plan which may benefit a lot of people along the line of the route.

501. CHAIR: Okay. Sorry, Mr Mould.

502. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Not at all, it’s helpful. I think, perhaps for me, before we move on, it is useful just to emphasise that this body is seeking to give practical effect to one of the key points that the Environmental Audit Committee raised, which is the long-term scrutiny of the performance of the measures that are put in place as part of the railway, so that’s why monitoring and maintenance has been a key part of its role, but, in a sense, moving backwards in the process, not to that which is being done under the Bill but reviewing what is proposed. That’s a question which I think the Committee is interested in.

503. I think I ought to just remind you that, under schedule 16, paragraph 9, when we come to seek approval from qualifying local authorities for the scheduled works, one of

the factors that they are required to consider under that part of their remit is the performance of the scheme in relation to its impacts on nature conservation. So I say that because you can see how, if there’s going to be a role for a consultative body, if you like, or a review body as part of the development of the detailed design, it would sit underneath that part of the Bill, and that’s where I think our thinking is developing, if you like, and we’ll keep the Committee posted in relation to that.

504. Okay, Mr Miller, I think I’d just like, then, to turn briefly to some of the specific points raised. Can we turn firstly to P4009, Berkswell Marsh Meadow local wildlife site? This is really, I think, no more than just to give the Committee an aide memoire for what we’re presently proposing under the Bill in relation to these various elements. So this shows us the scheme in its final form, as it passes through the area of the Marsh Meadow local wildlife site. In the table, we have a series of measures that are proposed in order to accommodate, mitigate, impacts on local wildlife interests in this area. That’s correct, isn’t it?

505. MR MILLER: That’s right. This map marks out each one of those different responses that will arise as a result of HS2. Where the route alignment on its embankment as it approaches the viaduct there sort of nibbles away at the local wildlife site on that corner there, what we then do is we then think about the water regime in the Berkswell Marsh area, and then as we bridge over that water course, and then we think about what gets replaced.

506. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We can see that areas of marshland habitat creation are shown on the plan.

507. MR MILLER: Yes, there are a range of measures, so there’s marshland creation; there’s hedgerow in there; if you look a bit further aside there, there is woodland, which is part infill to help reinforce that which exists at the moment.

508. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There are 14 different measures. I don’t know if Mr Mould’s going to ask you, but Ed Green spoke about the possibility of having the viaduct slightly extended.

509. MR MILLER: I don’t think we have considered that, but we’re willing to have a look at that. We will take that away and have a think about it. I suspect what it would

mean is to put in an additional span there. I can share that with the engineers. I would suggest to you that that doesn’t come cheaply, and I suspect what we’ve got here is a response in the round for the ecological issues that we do otherwise disturb.

510. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Mr Green was raising two issues. One was the extra viaduct, and was the other one connectivity?

511. MR GREEN: No, on this one, the utility works.

512. MR MILLER: Yes, I understand that there is a utility which passes beneath this site already, and that goes on a different route. The black is the existing utility’s route, and you can see that passing beneath the site already. I think it’s a gas main; you might tell me otherwise. Because of the railway, we have to cut across the railway, beneath the railway, perpendicular, and then we look at a route to get us back onto the utility alignment. So what we’ve done is we’ve tried to find a route which limits the disruption of the stream there, and so that goes to the outer boundary of that site. It’s not easy to put it through there, but it will be a trench which will go through to put that utility in.

513. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We also ought to remind the Committee – and they’ve probably got this in mind anyway – but the area to the south of the local wildlife site, that linear feature that we see, that’s an SSSI, isn’t it?

514. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s the Berkswell Marshes SSSI, which the Wildlife Trust highlighted, yes, and that’s all been considered in the environment statement.

515. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Correct me if I’m wrong on this: one of the factors that we’ve had in mind is the need to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the SSSI, the nationally designated wildlife site.

516. MR MILLER: Yes. Generally, our approach – I suppose it’s quite crudely put – is that we look at these sites from an international scale through to a local scale. The SSSIs are a national level of importance, and they tend to support a wide range of important species. As you get to the local scale, yes, they sort of support around, but they are, I suppose, less productive for some important species. We have to make choices, but we try and avoid those best and most recognised areas.

517. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That utility diversion going through the Berkswell

Marsh Meadow – is that the SSSI, or has the SSSI stopped by then?

518. MR MILLER: The SSSI has stopped then, and then you’re into what is called the LWS, which is more local designation. We looked at that utility diversion with the utility company.

519. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So that in effect meets one of Mr Green’s points.

520. MR GREEN: Mr Chair, I’m rather uncertain about protocol here.

521. CHAIR: You will have the opportunity to come back and ask questions.

522. MR GREEN: I know I’ve had my say, but I just wondered, am I able to make short comments so that we don’t have to try and remember?

523. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: On this one, perhaps.

524. MR GREEN: Okay. I would just remind the Committee that, just because it’s a local wildlife site, doesn’t mean its condition and value is any less than the other site.

525. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, we’ve got that.

526. MR GREEN: Okay, great. The route is within the local wildlife site entirely. Our proposal was, or our request was, just that consideration be given to an alternative route that didn’t take so much of the local wildlife site.

527. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s true to say, of course, that, just because an area of wildlife value is not statutorily designated or recognised at a national level, it doesn’t mean that it should be disregarded, but the acronym, of course, is a site of special scientific interest, and one shouldn’t lose sight of the clue that is in the name.

528. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I believe the promoters know that, if it’s possible to move it in a way that it does less damage, that would be a good thing.

529. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, we’re at one on that, I think. Okay, the next one is Patrick Farm, and that’s P4011. We’ll try and run through these fairly swiftly. I’ve not shown the construction. There’s obviously a good deal of construction work going on here to create the earthworks, the product of which we see on this page, but, again, I think one question that was raised what whether there would be an opportunity during

the development of the detailed design to try and further limit the degree of take from this particular area of specie s-rich meadow.

530. MR MILLER: Yes. We’ve been in this location before and, just to the west of the alignment, we’ve got Hampton-in-Arden, and I think we all remember the debates we had about that, and we also remember the debate we had with the Packington Estate in this area. This is the wetland area, and there was a lot of flooding photographs shown previously. We think there’s merit in looking at this once again, and I think we can do it probably within the limits. Where I’m pointing now, we’ve got an earthwork going over that wetland. If you look at the number 1 at the top there, we’ve got the meadow, which was of concern to the farmer, that we were encroaching into that field.

531. What we think is that there might be scope for a discussion for us to think about that earthwork and whether it really needs to go so far there, and retain some of that so that we don’t actually have to compensate so much in the field further to the north. We will have to put some compensation in there, but we might be able to keep that to the field edge, and you’ll remember this is where the access issue was, and keeping that closed off. So I think there’s some scope there, and I think the Wildlife Trust would be able to assist us with that, particularly as there’s the Packington reserve just further south.

532. CHAIR: So, essentially, the points of detail which the Wildlife Trust raised you’re happy to discuss with them to see whether or not there’s a better solution.

533. MR MILLER: Yes, and I think that goes to the second point of the environmental minimum requirements, which asks us to continually look at these sorts of things to try and seek to overcome the adverse effects of the scheme. So it doesn’t stop here, and it doesn’t stop with the environmental impact assessment; it should continue. I think, if we’ve got good thoughts about these sorts of areas, then we should see if that benefits everybody. Again, I can see some benefit here for the farming community on the Packington Estate, and I think they would welcome that, and they’ve already asked for that debate to take place.

534. CHAIR: Okay, so we don’t need to go through each of the examples, really.

535. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m happy if you –

536. CHAIR: I mean, you’ve just given an illustrative there of swings and roundabouts with a ll these things, and there’s an element of negotiation, but there’ll be further discussions.

537. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I mean, I’ve got details of specific points on the others, but, unless you would find it helpful, I don’t think –

538. CHAIR: We can always come back on that, Mr Mould.

539. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think one of a different type was the Coleshill Sewage Works and the sludge thing, which is a different point, I think.

540. CHAIR: Would you like to hear about that, Peter?

541. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, if it’s possible to.

542. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The point you’re interested in, I think, is the fact that things change and you get different designations.

543. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, that, but if Mr Green would just like to –

544. MR GREEN: The main point was that better biodiversity gain could be delivered by managing the habitat that was left, rather than trying to compensate for habitat that was being lost.

545. MR MILLER: Can we just go to the plan? I think it does illustrate one of the difficulties, because I think you said that –

546. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s on number 15 on Mr Green’s things, but maybe it’s a different one on yours.

547. MR MOULD QC (DfT): A807(16).

548. MR MILLER: It does go to the land ownership. I’ll deal with this quickly. Firstly, we’ve got a route which goes across this site on a viaduct, so we’re sort of bridging over. The assessment has accounted for a whole range of biodiversity potential, regardless of whether that’s designated or not, so these sorts of things have been accounted for in the environment impact assessment to date. The fact that it’s changing or potentially going to change to a local wildlife site in some ways is irrelevant

for the environment impact assessment purpose.

549. But, getting to the point about whether it’s best putting some money into that for a biodiversity outcome, I think the difficulty arises here with the land ownership. I believe it’s in the ownership of the water company, who may not wish to see that biodiversity there; they may wish to see further use for the drainage and waste water type of activities that they’re involved with. So, on the face of it, from a biodiversity perspective, you may say, ‘Yes, that’s a good idea to look at trying to retain the biodiversity in this site’, but you have to look at it in the round; you can’t just look at it from a biodiversity perspective. You have to look at the balance of the economic interest; you have to look at the balance of the economics in our railway; and you have to have a think about what the land ownership actually is and what it’s trying to achieve.

550. When you look at our biodiversity response in the environmental impact assessment, we’re balancing all of that off, and we’re trying to balance off all of the other environmental issues – that does include the agricultural community; it includes other businesses; it includes noise and all these other different things – and some of that creates some conflict anyway, in its own right, but what we’re trying to do is overcome this in the round. So I would say, here, this is a good illustration of it not being as straightforward as perhaps the last site that we had a look at, where you can readily see that there is a negotiation to be had, or at least we could progress that.

551. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the North Cubbington Wood is another example, I guess, of that point, isn’t it? Because, as we were reminded earlier, that is an area which is in active woodland management for –

552. MR MILLER: Yes, it’s a forestry use, I believe by the Forestry Commission. So, if you put a biodiversity response into that, they may well detract from that business.

553. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Mould. Are there any further questions?

554. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just have one other last one if I’m allowed, on 20, Mr Green’s one, which was connecting Sych Wood and Curdworth, was it?

555. MR MOULD QC (DfT): This is up at Kingsbury, isn’t it? Yes.

556. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Hams Lane and Sych Wood.

557. MR MILLER: Sych Wood, yes.

558. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Mr Green was saying: is it possible to connect those two? Are those the sorts of things that would be looked at?

559. MR MILLER: We looked at this – I’ve forgotten the community. It’s near the yard. We looked at that a couple of months ago, and we did say that we are looking and we will connect the woodland here. It’s because we’ve got this r un-around loop here, to connect in with the yard, I think during construction, for the fit-out of the overhead wires and so forth. When we put that in, we recognised that we need to go back and provide that connectivity, so we will do that.

560. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We can show you a slide briefly which just shows that, literally, over the course of 20 seconds. There we go.

561. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s it.

562. CHAIR: Alright, thank you. Mr Green, any questions?

563. MR GREEN: Yes, I do have one or two questions of Mr Miller, if I may. On Coleshill Sewage Works Grasslands and Lea Marston Sludge Beds, the land that we also think is in the ownership of the water company, have you had a conversation with the water company about what their attitude might be for the management of that site?

564. MR MILLER: No, but I’d be happy to do that.

565. MR GREEN: What our request was was that consideration be given to the management. We have no means of committing for the owners as to whether they’d be amenable to it, but water companies have their own biodiversity targets; they have their own obligations, indeed. Were those to be covered and financed out of something like the development of HS2, they may well welcome that, but I think the conversation should take place before it is discounted.

566. MR MILLER: I think we have to be careful that, if the water company has got their own objectives to meet, they shouldn’t necessarily do that just piggybacking off of a project where we have our own objectives to meet. That sounds to me about double-counting and getting a lesser result out of that equation. I hear what you’re

saying. I’m happy to progress that conversation, and, if there’s any merit in that, then it may well be we can come up with a deal.

567. MR GREEN: I’m sure we could facilitate that through our Tame Valley Partnership project. Another question, if I may, to Mr Miller: I mean, it was great to hear your statement that green bridges will only be put in when they’re effective and functional, or words to that effect, but is there anything special about Kent which required green bridges there to be so much bigger or to have green elements that are so much wider than those that have been proposed thus far for Warwickshire?

568. MR MILLER: Well, on that scheme, there were green bridges of a similar size to that proposed on HS2, and I’ve given evidence to that effect. If you’re talking about the Cobham Woods area on High Speed 1, there are different sizes of green bridges, looking at connectivity for a SSSI within an area of outstanding natural beauty and with ancient woodland characteristics which supported hazel dormice. There were elements of land which were islanded, I suppose, with the A2/M2 widening. So that response was particular to that project. We believe our response is right to this project.

569. MR GREEN: I wasn’t talking about any green bridge specifically; I was talking about them in the round, where – and to repeat my previous comment – nine out of 11 of them have a green element which is considerably bigger than what is being proposed for Warwickshire.

570. MR MILLER: Well, I worked on that scheme and my team worked on that scheme, and the same people who are looking at the biodiversity on HS1 – looked at HS1, are looking at it on HS2, and they’ve considered this response to be the appropriate response. We’ve got a great deal of experience of biodiversity between these projects, and we’ve brought that to bear on this railway development. I think we’ve got it right.

571. MR GREEN: I’m sure their experience of green bridge design is greater than mine, but I’m still curious as to why Kent bridges should be so much bigger. If there’s an easy explanation, it would be lovely to hear it.

572. MR MILLER: I’ve just explained it to you.

573. MR GREEN: Will the supplementary ES – thank you for your clarifications due out in the summer – will that supplementary ES include a survey of the 39 potential wildlife sites in Warwickshire?

574. MR MILLER: What we’ve done is we’ve set out where we think that there’s a necessity to go back and survey. So we’ve been quite clear about that and we’ve attempted to get land access to go and do those surveys. That’s what we’ve done in 2014, that’s what we’re going to bring back. If that’s included sites of local wildlife, the local wildlife sites as you say then that may well be the case. If it’s all of the 39 that may be the case. I suspect it’s only part of that.

575. CHAIR: When we heard earlier evidence I think the project said it would be happy to engage with the wildlife trusts and various other people who have information. So that any information that they have can be looked at.

576. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. That’s correct. That was in the conversation we had with Staffordshire. And it’s important if there’s any other information that’s out there that can be brought to bear on these considerations, on the impacts assessment, then that should come forward.

577. MR GREEN: We obviously welcome that. We asked for it several times and we really welcome it and look forward to it. I think my last remark, it’s not a question, is just in response to Mr Mould’s question. The Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, and I think the conservation NGOs in general, are not looking to do battle with HS2 at all. We’re just looking for them to do a bit better.

578. CHAIR: I think that’s a very good point to finish the session on. Thank you very much, Mr Green for the business-like way you’ve worked through and I think it’s been very useful indeed. Thank you very much.

South Northamptons hire Council

579. We now move on to South Northamptonshire who will be interrupted by lunch I’m afraid, but probably around 1.00 p.m. We kick off with South Northamptonshire,

one of the most beautiful areas of the country. There were some late documents submitted. Are you relaxed about that, Mr Mould?

580. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m happy. The letter which was one of those, which was a letter we sent I think yesterday, that is now on the system so we can refer to that if necessary.

581. CHAIR: Okay.

582. MS MURP HY: Well, good afternoon. My name is Melissa Murphy and I am here to represent South Northants District Council. Just if I may, to deal with those housekeeping points first. We produce some hardcopy documents within our slim bundle. It’s more or less optional because actually as I understand the reference documents we can actually get up on the screen. So that may help if you would rather not be burdened by additional documents.

583. That’s the first housekeeping point. I’ll offer that to you as and when if you feel that it would be helpful to have a hardcopy because we will be looking at some of the detailed drafting points on design. We might just see how we go with that.

584. CHAIR: Yeah, okay.

585. MS MURPHY: The second thing is that we produced, in an attempt to be helpful anyway, a single page of our asks. A single page document. Now what we did we produced a single page document from what had been four separate slides. So all of the asks were already on the slides, but we thought it would be helpful for you to just have a summary. Again, in part because there are detail drafting points to consider.

586. CHAIR: I presume the Head of Strategic Planning and the Lead Officer of Transport Policy are sitting behind you.

587. MS MURPHY: They are sitting behind me. We might move them depending on timing, but I’m in your hands as to –

588. CHAIR: We’ve probably got until 1.00 p.m. and then we’ll have a break and then come back at 2:00 p.m. So please make what progress you can, please.

589. MS MURPHY: I will. Thank you. So South Northamptonshire District Council submitted a petition, quite a long petition, for consideration. And we’ve undergone a process of distillation so as to focus on three matters of particular concern to the District Council on which I’d like to address you all. So the first is we’d like to address you on our concerns about design and what we would propose in order to address those concerns about the detailed design of the railway infrastructure. And the second point that I’d like to address you on is a very short, technical point on the environmental statement which I think probably boils down to a question of fact and should be relatively easy to resolve. So that won’t take long. And then the third thing that I would like to mention is how the impact on a particular heritage interest in our area, Edgcote Battlefield, could be mitigated and perhaps more importantly, given the constraints of the railway, be compensated. So those are the three.

590. CHAIR: Do we know where Edgcote Battlefield is, because there was some debate about – we weren’t sure.

591. MS MURPHY: We’re pretty confident about that because it’s a registered battlefield, registered by English Heritage.

592. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How long was that after the battle?

593. MS MURPHY: Well it was now a good way, in fairness. But we have to, I think, place our trust in that statutory team given that it’s operated on what it considers is best evidence as to location. But yes, I do understand that that is somewhat vexed. Happily, I won’t be giving the evidence on that. I’ll be calling Mr Colwell to deal with that.

594. So just turning to design first then, and I will just address you very briefly in opening before asking Mr Colwell to give evidence, and he’ll speak to my slides. So firstly, so far as design is concerned our team noted what was said in your committee hearings by Berkswell Parish Council. I think they were speaking on the subject of the Berkswell and Balsall Common. And then there was an announcement which followed

that on 12 January. And in particular we noted your committee’s sympathy, sir, with the idea that the priority should be to try to match local situations rather than to have consistency along the line. So this is what we’ve been seeking to give some proper thought to is just how do, in practice, you secure that objective which we’ve got a lot of sympathy with and we understand this committee to have some sympathy with.

595. So in formulating our presentation to you what we’ve sought to do is to suggest means of addressing the concerns of residents, and the Council, which we’ve articulated in our petition, with the aim of what we are suggesting being practical and achievable, but would actually ensure, we think, a better framework for decision making. Presenting, we thing, the opportunity of increasing the acceptability of the line for local communities. So those are the lofty aims that we set ourselves. So there are two points in the process in which the detailed design of infrastructure will be considered with the engagement of local authorities. So if I could have the planning memorandum up, please.

596. MR BELLINGHAM: So just to clarify you’re saying that your district council boundaries –

597. CHAIR: No.

598. MR BELLINGHAM: They’re not? They are?

599. CHAIR: I think she’s got some of Daventry in her constituency as well.

600. MS MURPHY: We’re not speaking to that particular issue.

601. MR BELLINGHAM: I realise that.

602. MS MURP HY: What we’re doing is having heard what’s been said on the subject and having heard that the concerns of the local community are being considered in detail what we’re doing is we’re seeking to address what we are saying, because we share those concerns about detail design. We think that we chime well with what you’ve already heard. We’re directing our attention to how can you achieve what’s

been suggested in practical terms. Rather than making a specific point about that area.

603. So there are two points in the detailed design process which will be considered with the engagement of local authorities. So there’s the process described here at 4.1.4 of this planning memorandum in relation to common designs. 4.1.4: ‘The Forum will consider common design items for certain structures associated with the railway (such as bridges, viaducts, acoustic barriers [etc.]) Unless there are exceptional circumstances which dictate otherwise, there will be a presumption in favour of the approval of such designs when submitted.’ So the process is that if common designs could be agreed through the planning forum you are then creating a situation in which you’d expect them to be approved unless exceptional circumstances apply. So that’s the first point of engagement of a local planning authority that I wanted to consider. And then the second is of course as you know where you’ve got an application for detailed approval pursuant to Schedule 16 of the Bill. Well, the Act, as it would be.

604. So what we’re saying is that it’s important in both those stages, both when you’re looking at the common design stage and also the detailed approval applications under Schedule 16, that consideration of those issues is done through a proper decision making framework. And the Promoter has acknowledged the importance of that proper framework because it’s published the information paper on design, those design principles.

605. Now if we could have up the information paper on design, D1. In particular paragraph 3.1. Great, thank you. This is what I mean. The Promoter has clearly sought to ensure that there’s a proper framework for decision making with a list of criteria against which the detailed design schemes can be considered.

606. Now if you would be good enough to take up the summary sheets which we produced, the single page summaries, you’ll see that we’re suggesting some amendments. Firstly is the planning memorandum which we’ve just looked at in 1(a), that there would be specific reference made to information paper D1. So in other words when you’re considering the acceptability of common designs there’d be clear reference to D1. Now making clear what documents ought to be considered has a precedent here. Because in the planning memorandum, in as far as the qualifying authority Schedule 16

process is concerned, there is reference to what ought to be taken into account. But where you look at the qualifying authority common design part no such reference is made. We can look back at the memorandum in due course. So that’s the first thing is we’d like an explicit reference to the information paper D1. If that’s going to be the framework for considering these decisions we think that it would be clear to have a reference to it.

607. And then the second is looking at design policy in paragraph 3.1 itself we’re suggesting an amendment firstly to include reference to rural and urban areas, which tells the reader that there’s an acknowledgement that there’s going to be character differences as between those two areas. And then secondly we’re looking for a reference to local distinctiveness effectively. What is distinctive and local about a particular area.

608. CHAIR: It says on here at the end: ‘the design considers the passenger experience.’ And I think that’s quite right. But every community we speak to say, ‘We have drive underneath the bridge or over the viaduct or whatever, and look at something, permanently.’ And when we looked at Staffordshire and parts of Warwickshire there are local patterns in which if you build that into the design of the bridge it just becomes much more acceptable, looks like any bridge. And I think that’s the way we’re coming from. I don’t think it’s very different from where you’re coming from. It’s just a question of where we get there. How we get there.

609. MS MURPHY: Yeah. Well possibly it’s a question of how we get there. So agreed – clearly one doesn’t want to be too prescriptive. But at the moment–

610. CHAIR: Some common design is sensible because there are cost savings if you have similar design for bridges. I suspect what we’re thinking of is more superficial rather than – if you’ve got a concrete structure which is efficiently doing its job for the railway then it may be brick work or something else.

611. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sometimes it’s the design itself. More often it may be the facings.

612. CHAIR: Yeah.

613. MS MURPHY: Yes, that is understood. That’s understood clearly. It may be a question of form, but it also may be a question of those facings. So one wants to avoid prescriptiveness clearly. But at the moment if you look at the criteria here you have a criterion for example fourth down, fourth bullet point: ‘a strong aesthetic ethos and a recognisable architectural language’. That’s giving a clear steer to the decision maker, both these stages potentially, as to what is to be achieved. And then secondly, the third bullet point from the bottom: ‘the design has a culture of cost awareness’. Again very specifically balanced towards efficiency, perhaps utility. What we need is to ensure that there is proper balance so as to reflect local distinctiveness. Which isn’t at the moment, I would suggest, the Council would suggest, incorporated. So reference to local distinctiveness, it’s clearly not prescriptive, it’s well-founded within the NPPF, it’s clear about what one wants. And that is what we are seeking to include reference to. So those are the two.

614. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: While that’s in Mr Mould’s mind, I hope you’ll also reflect on whether that word ‘exceptional’ in line three of 4.1.4 can be made a gentler word by agreement.

615. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I agree. We will look – I’ve already said to the Council outside that we need to look again at that paragraph and we will do so.

616. MS MURPHY: Well, we welcome that. Because we weren’t quite clear how that was going to play in terms of a decision under Schedule 16 it has to be said. So if one combines amendments to D1 and a clear reference, when you’re looking at common designs, to D1 we think that at both stages of the process you’re going to have a much better framework.

617. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we’ve got these points.

618. MS MURPHY: Understood, I’ll move on. Two short points then. The ES point is a question of fact. Whether in relation to the A43 raised section there has been an adequate assessment of road traffic noise. Because at the moment we are uncertain

about this because at the moment we can see from the diagrams that have been produced that rail noise has been taken account of in the assessment. We can’t see the same for road noise. We’ve not been pointed to a specific section of the ES, we don’t think, which addresses this point. It may be that this is capable of easy resolution and we wait to hear about that.

619. So far a s the last point is concerned that we will be addressing, Edgcote Battlefield, it is not entirely a discrete point, it is obviously linked to design. But the principles should be obviously avoid any significant impact. If you can’t avoid it, mitigate it. If you can’t mitigate it, compensate for it, for a significant impact.

620. MR BELLINGHAM: Can you just remind me, Ms Murphy, I was looking at the map of the A43 by-passing Brackley. Does it the A43 go over – I can’t remember if it goes over HS2, whether the HS2 goes under it.

621. MS MURPHY: The A43 bridge is raised over it. And the issue is that at the moment there is committed development north of Brackley.

622. MR BELLINGHAM: We met the Mayor and the Town Council. It was the Parish Council. Basically at the petrol station. We met the Mayor and some of her colleagues before going to look at a farm shop the other side of the road. And we were told about the development that was planned to the north west basically of Brackley.

623. CHAIR: There is a 10 Minute Rule Bill in the House at the moment which might be Divided on. If we do have a Division then we simply would adjourn until 2.00 p.m. So carry on, please, Ms Murphy.

624. MR BELLINGHAM: Got it. Yeah.

625. MS MURPHY: Okay, thank you. So far as Edgcote Battlefield is concerned, you’ll hear more about this in due course, but it’s clearly a significant historic asset. So significant that HS2, to their credit, have sought to avoid the impact on it as much as is possible. And we accept that the line change which we originally sought in the petition can’t be achieved without creating further harms. So we don’t pursue that. We think

that there is limited scope for mitigation of the effect and so that means failing mitigation that compensation should be addressed. So we put down on our–

626. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you want to show 79831 while we’re talking to this?

627. MS MURPHY: Beg your pardon?

628. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you look at 79831.

629. CHAIR: You carry on talking; we’ll be there in a minute.

630. MS MURPHY: It’s quite alright. Yes, so, we’ve got a list of compensation measures – thank you, that helps – which we’ve suggested for consideration. I think it’s true the two bullet points at the top: ‘Seek to understand better the historic significance of the battlefield.’ Which might, I suppose, go to location. ‘Interpretation to be developed in conjunction with the Battlefield Trust and display of any artefacts found locally.’ Now we would regard those as compensation measures given that they’re not directed specifically to the harm. But I don’t want to get too tied up in the linguistic – but as far as we are concerned the compensation for the harm has not yet been worked up in a manner which we would find acceptable. And we would suggest that further work needs to be done.

631. So broadly those are our points. I’ll call Mr Colwell if that would be convenient.

632. CHAIR: Yeah, he may only have a few minutes.

633. MS MURPHY: That’s alright. I think perhaps if we get him introduced.

634. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And if I may say if you go slightly more that way, in case you point to something.

635. MS MURPHY: Perhaps you could introduce yourself to the committee.

636. MR COLWELL: Sure. And if we could go back to the first slide please on 798. Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Adrian Colwell. I’m the Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy in the joint management team that covers South Northants Council in Northamptonshire and Cherwell District in Oxfordshire.

637. MR BELLINGHAM: Does that also make you the Chief Planning Officer?

638. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In effect.

639. MR COLWELL: It’s a good question. Strictly speaking, no it doesn’t. I have a colleague who is Head of Development Management, who deals with the planning application side. My role is the oversight of policy development. So I’ve taken forward a joint core strategy for west Northants and recently concluded an examination of the Cherwell local plan, just before Christmas.

640. The joint management team of which I’m a member began in 2011. Prior to that I was Head of Strategic Policy at South Northants Council, and have worked with my college David Allan on HS2 matters since the white paper was first proposed. Just commencing then into the slides, as Ms Murphy’s–

641. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask you, we’re very, very fast at picking up slides and most times the picture says more than the words you’re going to put to them. So I suspect we’ve got as far as the design challenge, which we do understand. So if you can go through the slides and just say, ‘Next one, next one, next one.’

642. MS MURPHY: Do you mind if we were to start with looking at South Northants? Because one of the things we’d really like to do is just focus on what’s distinct about the district itself.

643. CHAIR: There is either focus on here, then focus on the photos we’ve got in front of us.

644. MR COLWELL: Okay. The first slide that we’ve just moved on from was a photo montage of the common design bridge as it passes close by Trafford Bridge very

close to the Edgcote Battlefield site. This slide is just to illustrate the undulating character of the district. These combine views from Radstone and Upper Boddington settlements. I guess the key issue with these is it’s underlined by clay and by sandstone which give it the particular characteristic in what’s then been built. Next slide, please.

645. MR BELLINGHAM: Would you say Mr Colwell that the countryside is half arable, half grass, would you say? What is the percentage?

646. MR COLWELL: It’s primarily arable. There is very little dairy farming left in the district. It’s mainly arable now.

647. MR BELLINGHAM: Just go back to that other picture. We saw some sheep in that picture. We have certainly met farmers who have got flocks and we’ve got some improved grazing. So what percentage would you say it was across your district?

648. MR COLWELL: Indeed. As I said, dairy, I think there’s now one herd left in active production. There is grazing. Circa about a third, approximately. And the picture in that bottom right hand corner is between the two Boddington villages, just where the line will – so it looks out over the plain where the line will sit, just on the edge of the Warwickshire border. Next slide, please.

649. So just starting to take you through, the proposed line extends 22 km, 13 miles through the district.

650. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: That’s an example of looking at something faster than you can speak.

651. MR COLWELL: Indeed. And there’s an awful lot of heritage once more close by. Next slide, please. One recognises your ability to read, Sir Peter.

652. This slide is just by way of taking us into the points that my colleague, Ms Murphy, was developing about design. We intend highlighting, in five locations but also cross-referring to the battlefield and the noise question at Brackley. So a range of infrastructure associated with this project. And we contend when you take the

safeguarded zone into full account a substantial impact on this district. Next slide, please.

653. A summary of the wants, the requests we’ll develop a little bit further. I think, just to add to what’s already been said, what we are very much concerned with is reasonable and proportionate amendments. So we are not before you today with a Trojan horse. What we are concerned about, as a planning authority, reflecting on some of the debates that you’ve already heard and indeed the visit that you had to the district is how best can the local character be embraced within the sort of processes that once South Northants takes the decision to be a qualifying authority will then flow through. And that’s our central concern. Next slide, please.

654. Sirs, you will know how the approval for designs are made under Schedule 16. And it’s already been touched on. It cross relates to a number of memoranda, and the information paper. We recognise, and indeed HS2 do in their various papers, that design is one of the fundamental elements of this project. Our concern is how one achieves good design that relates well to local circumstance. And through that, we would argue, is key to building a greater level of public acceptance. This is not about achieving prestige, or suggesting to you that we are opposed to modern designs, or indeed sir, as you said just at the outset, about common elements. This has a functional role as a railway. But it is about how the form takes account of the topologies through which it passes. Next slide, please. You can see where it is on the slide. This is part of the HS1 route. We’re making the broad point here that as a rural district –

655. MR MEARNS: We’ve actually visited this place.

656. MR COLWELL: Okay. So you will have stood on the country park that adjoins it, part of the spoil that’s been planted. The challenge with this sort of project, this sort of infrastructure, is how best to ensure that the visual impacts and the associated impacts are best integrated into the landscape.

657. CHAIR: Okay, we better break there. Good start. And we’ll be back at 2:00 p.m. to hear the rest of the presentation. Order, order.