High Speed 2 Working Draft Environmental Statement Consultation Response
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet i
i | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet ii
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. The Impact of the Proposed Scheme on Businesses ...... 3 3. The Impacts of the Proposed Scheme on Residential Properties ...... 5 4. The Continuity of Highways Across the Proposed Route ...... 6 5. The Impacts of the Proposed Scheme in the Clayton Area ...... 7 6. Archaeology and Heritage Assets ...... 9 7. Ecology and Biodiversity ...... 10 8. Landscape and Visual Impacts ...... 12 9. Construction Traffic Routes ...... 13 10. Improvement of the A635 Corridor ...... 14
Annex 1: Composite Issues Log ...... 15 Annex 2: Report of the Director of Public Health
ii | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet iii
iii | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 1
HS2 WDES Consultation Response
1. Introduction
Doncaster Council’s opposition to the Government’s Preferred Route for HS2 has already been well documented through its response to the Government’s consultation on the route in 2017. The Council’s position has not changed. However, the Council wants to work with the Government and HS2 Limited in whatever ways it can to secure the best outcomes for the Council, its residents and businesses, and also the wider region. To that end, the Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the HS2 Working Draft Environmental Statement presented.
Our response to the HS2 Consultation identifies the Council’s concerns with HS2 Limited’s design of the route through the Borough, its presentation of the impacts associated with the route and its suggested mitigation of those impacts. The Council’s response to the three consultation questions posed (see below) are all incorporated within this document.
1. What comments do you have on the information presented in the working draft Environmental Statement?
2. Do you have any suggestions about additional information or assessments that should be included in the Environmental Statement?
3. Do you have any other comments?
Whilst the Council has done its best to respond to the Working Draft Environmental Statement [WDES] Consultation within the limited time available, this response should in no way be seen as either comprehensive, or as a final statement of the Council’s position. The Council welcomes continual meaningful engagement on the proposals over the coming months as the proposal develops to ensure that the impact of the proposal on people, places and valuable assets in Doncaster is minimised, and that opportunities are taken to enhance provision wherever possible.
Having said this, the impact of the proposed Scheme in Doncaster is severe and for that impact and pain, Doncaster receives no benefit at all. The Council deplores the attempts in the WDES to underplay that impact; to be less than honest about the impacts to residents and businesses; and to economise on mitigation, for example with the closure of Red Hill Lane.
1 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 2
The Council’s response identifies a series of headline issues in the main body of the report, but more detailed feedback, identifying a plethora of specific issues, is included in the Annexes.
In light of the ever growing volume of information casting doubt on the HS2 project as a whole, the Council urges HS2 Limited and the Government to carry out an honest reappraisal of the scheme, and especially for the Eastern Leg of HS2 Phase 2B. This information includes:
. Spiralling costs o National Audit Office report in 2016 about Phase1 being £204m over budget; o Infrastructure and Projects Authority widely publicised ‘secret’ report that costs may have increased by as much as 60%; o Alleged £2b cost overrun on property acquisition costs; o Incorrect assumptions in the modelling for HS2 Phase 2B where 8 train paths per hour are assumed between York and Newcastle, where there in fact are only 6 available unless £millions are spent on increasing rail capacity north of Northallerton. This cost is not included in HS2’s cost envelope, and yet HS2 is effectively claiming the benefit; o The estimated £825m cost of making Sheffield Midland and Chesterfield Stations HS2 ready – none of this money is included in HS2’s cost envelope. . Increasing impacts on residential property with 137 reported demolitions in the WDES where only 35 demolitions were reported at Route Consultation Stage . Increasing impacts on employment with 170 job losses now estimated just on the Ravenfield to Clayton (LA13) section alone.
Any one of these factors would trigger a review in the business case development of a major scheme because they would affect the scheme’s overall Benefit Cost Ratio. However, this process seems not to apply in the case of HS2. An urgent review is required to restore public confidence that the Proposed Scheme offers UK plc value for money.
2 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 3
2. The Impact of the Route on Businesses
The Council notes that in total for the section of the Proposed Scheme between Ravenfield and Clayton, there is an impact on an estimated 170 jobs (Para 12.4.15), either displaced or lost. The Council considers that these jobs are lost, being no clear rationale expressed in the WDES of how these jobs will be displaced citing only possible employment opportunities in the construction of the scheme. This assumes a skills match which may or may not be possible. 170 job losses in Doncaster is unacceptable, given that 8 of the 10 Business Units identified as being affected by the Proposed Scheme are located in areas of high deprivation.
The WDES seriously underplays the impacts of the Proposed Scheme on businesses. Whilst the Council understands that Environmental Impact Assessments are carried out to a defined methodology to ensure comparability, it appears that HS2 Limited has used the methodology to mask some of the real impacts of the route on businesses within the Borough. Not only this, but the text does not follow its own rationale, is inconsistent, and gives a wholly misleading view.
Figure 1: Impacts on Denaby Industrial Estate
As an example, using the maps provided in Volume 2, the impact of the route on Denaby Industrial Estate in the permanent situation appears to affect just one ‘Business Unit’ (HS2 Limited terminology). In the temporary situation (ie during construction), the HS2 satellite compound located on the Estate requires the demolition of five ‘Business Units’.
3 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 4
In the permanent situation, the Proposed Scheme actually directly affects two business premises on the Binder Industrial Estate, although this could be mitigated by the construction of retaining walls. In the temporary situation, there are not only 11 business premises affected in the Binder Industrial Estate, but also a multiple occupancy office/warehousing block (Denaby Point), United Carpets and a further premise between Denaby Point and Binder Industrial Estate (see Figure 1 above), giving a total of a minimum of 18 business premises.
The WDES text states that there are “six units” affected on Denaby Industrial Estate (Para 12.4.9 and Table 31), and yet describes “Four businesses” experiencing direct impacts as a result of the Proposed Scheme (Para 12.4.14). This is clearly wrong, whether in the number of units affected, or in the number of businesses impacted, but it also underplays the real impact of the route which is that 5 business units are being demolished equating to a minimum of 18 business premises being directly affected. The associated loss of jobs is wholly unacceptable. The Council calls on HS2 Limited to locate its Satellite Construction Compound/Systems Compound elsewhere.
There are similar issues relating to the Doncaster Road area where for example no temporary effects are described for businesses within The Croft eg Cock of the North Poultry, whose access off Pastures Court is wholly contained with the Consolidated Construction Boundary [CCB].
Barnburgh Lakes Fishery is identified as a business that would experience direct impacts as a result of the Proposed Route, being one of the four ‘resources’. However, such is the confusing terminology and inconsistency about what terminology is used in the WDES and where, Barnburgh Lakes Fishery is not listed in Table 31 as a resource “which would potentially experience significant direct effects”. It clearly will experience “significant direct effects”, as the business, which includes both the lakes and the café/shop will no longer be able to operate. Not taking account of the lakes element of the business as being an ‘agricultural route-wide effect’ is a nonsense. The business is the lakes, the café and the shop together, and the devastating effect on the entirety of this business needs to be at least acknowledged in the WDES.
This underplaying of impacts similarly applies to the two identified businesses on Pastures Road, which according to Table 31 would not potentially experience significant direct effects. And yet neither business will remain in existence once construction starts.
At best the methodology and terminology used in the WDES is misleading and requires considerable additional explanation for a lay person to understand. At worst, it is a deliberate and calculated attempt to underplay the impacts of the Proposed Scheme.
4 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 5
3. The Impact of the Route on Residential Properties
Shimmer Estate
The real impact of the route on the Shimmer Estate is now starting to become apparent, with HS2 Limited reporting for the past 2 years just 16 demolitions being required. According to the WDES, the CCB now requires the acquisition/demolition of 52 residential properties and an associated garage (Para 6.4.12) and no temporary effects on properties on the Shimmer Estate are identified (Section 6.4.2). But this does not truly reflect either the current situation, the temporary situation during construction, or the permanent situation. The council has been expressing its concerns about this now for over two years, and we still seem to be no further forward.
In the current situation, the Shimmer Estate has been left in an incomplete state since Route Announcement in July 2016. People moved into their homes on the estate with the anticipation of the development being completed. This included the provision of a children’s play area. Residents have been left living on an incomplete development with the roads not being made up and the play area not provided. The Council has been told that negotiations are taking place with Strata Homes to complete the estate, but these negotiations have been going on since late 2016, and still no nearer a conclusion. Meanwhile residents are living on what is effectively a building site without the amenities they could have expected and living with the uncertainty of what will happen to them. This uncertainty is amplified for residents in rented accommodation, where they do not have access to the Government’s compensation arrangements. Not being owner occupiers, communication with them by HS2 Limited has been very poor but for the Council’s intervention, particularly with Guinness Partnership tenants.
There is just one road into and out of the Shimmer Estate (Comelybank Drive). All properties on the Shimmer Estate gain access from this one road. In the temporary situation, the WDES identifies Comelybank Drive, between Doncaster Road and the CCB, as a Construction Traffic Route. No temporary effects for the 89 properties gaining access to their properties from this Construction Traffic Route are reported in the WDES. This is clearly wrong as these residents will experience daily disruption from large scale construction traffic passing their front doors for a period of up to 7 years.
There are 36 properties on the western end of the Shimmer Estate which are landlocked by the CCB. No means of access for those properties has been identified on the maps or described within the text of the WDES. None of these properties have been described in the text as having any temporary effects and yet, on the basis of the published material will have no access to their homes for a number of years during the construction process. This is grossly unfair to the residents concerned and they frankly deserve better. The cost of providing these properties with temporary access during construction will be considerable, with a temporary road and bridge needing to be provided from Doncaster Road with potential further effects on property between Doncaster Road and the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.
5 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 6
The point that the Council has been making to HS2 Limited for many, many months is that practically it is a nonsense to even suppose that access to/from these properties can be safely maintained during the construction process for the viaduct without incurring considerable unnecessary expense. For a contractor, it will be very much more costly for them to try and maintain access to properties outside the CCB on the Shimmer during the construction of the viaduct not least because of the reduced productivity that will result. By far the most sensible solution is to incorporate the whole of the Shimmer Estate into the CCB. The Council believes that HS2 Limited will come to this conclusion eventually, but the drip feed approach being adopted by HS2 Limited is displaying utter contempt for the residents whose lives are affected by the Proposed Scheme. HS2 Limited has missed yet another opportunity to come clean on the real impacts on the Proposed Scheme on Shimmer residents.
In the permanent situation, the WDES identifies 52 residential properties and an associated garage that would be permanently lost. This represents HS2 Limited’s count of properties within the CCB. A simple desk top count of properties using Basic Land and Property Unit [BLPU] data reveals that there are actually 63 properties permanently lost within the CCB. A number of attempts by Council Officers to clarify this apparent discrepancy with HS2 Limited since the publication of the WDES have not been taken up.
4. The Continuity of Highways Across the Proposed Route
In all cases apart from one, the WDES provides for continuity of existing highways across the Proposed Scheme, the one exception being Red Hill Lane, Hickleton. The detail of the diversions of the public rights of way are still being assessed, and the Council reserves the right to present its detailed cases on the proposed provision and diversions of public rights of way once its analysis is concluded. The lengths of diversions in some cases and the loss of amenity are unacceptable and the Council will present its case to HS2 Limited in due course, if necessary by petitioning against the Hybrid Bill. In the case of the proposed closure of Red Hill Lane, the Council is fundamentally opposed.
Red Hill Lane provides an important link between the A635 and Hooton Pagnell and Brodsworth. The alternative is to travel along the A635 eastwards either into Marr and up Church Lane to Brodsworth or through Marr to A1[M] Junction 37, and northwards on the A1[M] to Junction 38. Whilst Hickleton is already designated as an Air Quality Management Area, Marr is soon to be designated. It is already heavily congested eastbound during the am peak with traffic queuing back from A1[M] Junction 37. Any increase in traffic along this route in the permanent situation will only increase air quality problems and congestion. A closure of Red Hill Lane will force traffic to divert via Church Lane or the A1[M], and will therefore only add to current traffic congestion and air quality problems in Marr and add to traffic congestion on the A1[M]. This is unacceptable. The continuity of Red Hill Lane across the Proposed Route must therefore be maintained, and a crossing of the Proposed Scheme provided. If HS2 Limited
6 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 7 persist with this proposal to permanently sever Red Hill Lane as an all-purpose highway, the Council will have no option but to petition against the Hybrid Bill.
At all locations where the construction of the Proposed Scheme crosses existing highways, detailed proposals are required to be agreed for the maintenance of the requisite rights of highway users at all stages of the construction process. Continuity of all highways and their associated drainage systems (or alternative provision to be agreed) will be required at all times, during both the construction and operational phases.
5. The Impacts of the Proposed Scheme in the Clayton Area
The plans that HS2 Limited released at Route Consultation stage in November 2016 show the indicative extent of the ‘northern connection junction’. The difference between this indicative area and the area now published area is massive, and nobody could have been prepared for the enormous impact that this will have.
The indicative area and the difference between the indicative area and the CCB is shown below in Figure 2, representing a near 40% increase in land take over the indicative area. Not only is the area that the Clayton Junction takes considerably in excess of what could have been expected from the last published plans, but the visual impact of the junction with its viaducts and embankments up to nearly 30 metres high, will have a dramatic adverse impact on the surrounding area.
Figure 2: Indicative Extent of Clayton Junction vs Actual (construction stage) 7 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 8
In the permanent situation, nearly all of the southbound link of the junction is outside the indicative extent illustrated in Figure 3 below. This brings with it new impacts, for example on the setting of Grade II Listed 13th Century Frickley Church which will have a 28 metre high viaduct and embankment as its backdrop, located just 200 metres away. Whilst this major adverse impact is articulated in the WDES text, none of that impact could have been expected at the time of Route Consultation.
Figure 3: Indicative Extent of Clayton Junction vs Actual (operational stage)
Again it appears that HS2 Limited’s published information thus far has downplayed the significant impact that this junction will have. Had people been aware of this at Route Consultation stage, their response about the presence and the location of the northern junction might have been very different.
Now that HS2 Limited’s design has advanced sufficiently, the Council calls on HS2 Limited to produce a detailed three dimensional physical model of the proposed Clayton Junction as a matter of priority, together with a computer model with viewpoints and 3D visualisations at a range of locations so that people can understand more easily the impact that the junction will have on Clayton village and on its surrounding area and assets. Some of the identified viewpoints in the HS2 maps do not adequately represent the impact of the Clayton Junction.
8 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 9
6. Archaeology and Heritage Assets
The WDES sets out the proposed strategy for an assessment of impact on heritage assets including archaeological and paleo-environmental remains (Volume 1, Para 8.81). The first part of this assessment is to be a collation of information from existing documentary sources including information held in the South Yorkshire Sites & Monuments Record, historic maps and aerial photographs (Vol. 1, para. 8.86). The Council notes that South Yorkshire Archaeological Service [SYAS] records have been consulted in support of the WDES, but refutes the suggestion that there has been ‘engagement’ with SYAS as described in Volume 2 Para 9.1.2. SYAS has been given no opportunity to discuss the information gathered, the values ascribed to the identified evidence or to discuss the potential magnitude of the impact of the scheme. There must be such a discussion with SYAS before the completion of the final Environmental Statement [ES].
The WDES goes on to say that the baseline information will be supplemented by survey work including LiDAR surveys, site visits, and non-intrusive surveys, e.g. surface artefact collection and geophysical surveys (Volume 1, Para 8.87 and Volume 2, Para 9.2.7) – with the results to be reported in the formal ES. However, HS2 Limited has issued SYAS with a copy of their ‘Technical Note –Historic Environment - Risk Based Approach to Prioritising Archaeological Surveys’, which makes it clear that “No field evaluation surveys will be required in support of the formal Environmental Statement if there is sufficient information to allow for an informed opinion of potential character, form, value and vulnerability of buried remains. This decision will be informed by the baseline data collection.” In other words, HS2 Limited intend to carry out further survey work only in areas where they consider there is a lack of clarity over the nature of the archaeology to be affected by the scheme. It is clearly vital that SYAS are involved in any decision about the need for, and scope of, appropriate further survey work – and that survey work is used not only to clarify the nature of known/suspected archaeological evidence but also to investigate seemingly ‘blank’ areas to establish whether archaeological evidence continues there. Although Volume 1, Para 8.88 states that archaeological survey work is being discussed with local authority archaeologists on a case-by case basis, as yet, SYAS has not been involved in any such discussions. There must be such discussion with SYAS before the completion of the final ES, with the results of the agreed non-intrusive surveys being included. Where such a survey has not been possible this should be clearly set out in the ES.
It should be noted that non-intrusive surveys are not normally sufficient to properly assess the significance of heritage assets of archaeological interest. Targeted trial trenching is usually needed to fully inform an understanding of significance. The WDES states that intrusive site investigations would be undertaken at the pre-construction phase, or later (Volume 1, Para 8.8.14). If intrusive investigation is not carried out until after the scheme has received consent, then that consent will be for a scheme where there has not been a proper assessment of archaeological impact. Proper engagement with SYAS needs to happen to establish the extent of intrusive investigation required.
9 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 10
The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which has supposedly influenced HS2 Limited’s Sustainability and Environmental Policy makes it clear that understanding the significance of a heritage asset is a vital step in weighing up the impact of a proposal that will affect that asset, causing harm or total loss (NPPF Para 197). Failure to properly engage with SYAS over the interpretation of their base evidence or to discuss with SYAS about the need for and location of intrusive trial trenching surveys runs counter to the NPPF, and risks a decision being made without a proper understanding of the scale of the archaeological impact of the scheme.
The results of any work interpretation and investigation work undertaken by HS2 Limited need to be fed back into the Council’s archaeology advisers’ Sites and Monuments’ Records in order to enhance that record. Similarly the curation of any finds and other materials from fieldwork needs to be properly addressed by HS2 Limited. Neither the South Yorkshire Archaeological Services [SYAS] nor Doncaster Museum has the capacity to be able to take on this work, and it is imperative that HS2 Limited properly organises and resources this work, both in terms of staff time and the physical additional storage space required.
7. Ecology and Biodiversity
Losses of habitats in Doncaster resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Scheme are large. As the full habitat and species survey details are not yet available, it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the proposals presented to date, specifically, whether avoidance measures have been fully utilised and whether compensation plans for habitats and species are adequate. A continuing dialogue with HS2 Limited is required to ensure that compensatory habitats and species mitigation (as well as the design of engineering features; bridges, culverts, track-side landscaping) are of an appropriate character, location, scale, ecological and technical specification for the local situation. The development of habitat management, aftercare and monitoring specifications will also be an important component of this dialogue.
Responding to what is known so far, habitat losses are substantial including: woodland, grassland, hedgerows, waterbodies and reed bed. The Council expects to see compensation proposals developed that deliver a net gain in these habitats. It is unclear how no net-loss or a net gain can be demonstrated if biodiversity accounting is not employed along the route. It is important that compensation proposals are habitat-specific and relate locally to the types of habitats being lost or degraded as a result of the Proposed Scheme. For example, losses of reed bed should be compensated for through the local creation of new reed bed and wetland habitats.
The adverse impacts on the connectivity of ecological networks is also hard to quantify from the information given, and the Council understands that this has not been modelled. But it is
10 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 11 potentially far greater in magnitude than the impacts on individual designated sites and undesignated habitats. In the event of inadequate field survey coverage and species population data, the Council has concerns that the significance of the impacts may not be appropriately assessed and addressed.
For example Doncaster potentially has significant populations of bats along the river corridors, wetland birds and specialist wetland invertebrates that could be of sufficient biodiversity significance to merit SSSI designation. These biodiversity features are associated with currently undesignated land along the River Dearne and within the CCB. A cluster of sites are being considered for SSSI designation - stretching from Doncaster into Barnsley - and their biodiversity interests are associated with and supported by their relative connectivity. There is a danger that the magnitude of impacts on these currently under-recorded and undesignated sites will be underestimated.
If the need for mitigation is based on significance, which in turn is informed by potentially inadequate field data, then the impacts on habitat and species connectivity across the wider ecological network are likely to be understated.
Across the wider landscape, the biodiversity value of the farmland does not appear to be accounted for, despite this being the predominant land use. Every opportunity should be taken to plant/gap new hedgerows and hedgerow trees, including hedge-lined access routes, to support habitat connectivity, in particular for farmland birds.
The Council wants to see more recognition and ambition to deliver strategic conservation gains at local biodiversity hotspots. Whilst there may be an overall route-wide ‘no net loss’ for biodiversity, strategic opportunities are not well acknowledged in the WDES. For example, behind the potential designation of a Dearne Valley SSSI is a strategic ambition amongst conservation partners to enhance the existing wetland corridor along the River Dearne for biodiversity and the public enjoyment of it, and work is underway independently to assess whether a cluster of sites along this corridor could be designated as an SSSI. HS2 Limited’s engagement must include discussion on this with relevant stakeholders (see Para 7.4.31).
The biodiversity gain/compensation focused in this area must be informed by field survey, the outcomes of the SSSI assessment and likely designation criteria and collaboration with key conservation partners. The significance of impacts is potentially of regional or greater magnitude, and yet the potential for this new SSSI designation is not acknowledged in the WDES. The 10.5ha of undesignated reedbed habitat indicated to be lost in this area (Para 7.3.14) needs to be identified together with the rationale for it being unavoidable. The Council would welcome working with HS2 Limited and key partners to develop a mitigation and compensation scheme within this area that supports the potential SSSI designation.
The Council wants a continuing dialogue with HS2 Limited about proposals relating specifically to Great Crested Newts. These proposals need to feed into any future Great Crested Newt Conservation Strategy that is produced for the development of a License for the Borough. 11 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 12
Wider opportunities to encourage access to nature in non-sensitive areas throughout the Green Infrastructure Network should be explored, in recognition of the benefits that this can deliver for local residents and visitors; and in promoting the value of the natural environment.
Whilst Para 7.5.8 states that there are no area-specific requirements for monitoring ecology and biodiversity impacts, the Council seeks an assurance that where new habitat is created as compensation for losses resulting from the Proposed Scheme in specific circumstances, monitoring will take place.
8. Landscape and Visual Impacts
The impact of the Proposed Scheme on the landscape in Doncaster is significant, and whilst this is acknowledged in the WDES, every opportunity needs to be taken to ameliorate the impacts both during construction and in the operating phase of the scheme as the negative impacts will remain significant in perpetuity. Whilst there seems to be some honesty about this in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, these impacts typically are downplayed in the Non-Technical Summary.
Whilst the identified viewpoints are helpful, these are not always located in the best locations to understand the visual impact of the Proposed Scheme on the surrounding landscape. For each location more in-depth information is required and photomontage is required as a minimum, notwithstanding the comments made in Section 6 about the Clayton area.
The Council notes that there are several large viaducts proposed in Doncaster. These are without exception in visually sensitive areas:
Mexborough (River Don) Mexborough (River Dearne) Frickley Clayton
These all need to be of quality design, sensitive to their landscapes and architecturally beautiful as permanent and highly visible features in the landscape. The Council seeks the engagement and involvement of the Doncaster Design Review Panel in the design concept and selection process for these structures at the earliest opportunity.
12 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 13
9. Construction Traffic Routes
There are several locations along the route of the Proposed Scheme where construction traffic routes have been identified. Of particular concern to the Council are:
The use of Comelybank Drive, Mexborough for the reasons set out in Section 3; the use of the C Class road through Sprotborough and High Melton to access the Barnburgh Lakes area (Melton Road, Doncaster Road and Ludwell Hill where there is a 7.5 tonne environmental weight limit). The impact this will have on those communities will be massive. There is no defined route to access Sprotborough Road from the Strategic Road Network; the use of the A635 Barnsley Road and its impact on Marr village coupled with existing road safety and congestion concerns at the Hickleton crossroads and the Blacksmiths Lane/Hangman Stone Road junction in Marr; the use of the C Class Churchfield Road through Clayton and the unspecified route from the west to access Church Field Road from the Strategic Road Network. There is a 7.5 tonne environmental weight limit on Churchfield Road.
None of these routes are appropriate for large volumes of construction traffic, and whilst the Construction Access Routes have been shown in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme, the routes from the Strategic Road Network have not been shown.
What is not recognised in the WDES, in the designation of Construction Traffic Routes, is what other demands might be being placed on the highway network at the time of construction. For example, the WDES assumes the full availability of the Strategic Road Network to accommodate its construction traffic, and yet Highways England is currently planning the online upgrade of the A1[M] to SMART motorway standard between Junctions 35 and 38 during the period 2025 to 2030. The upgrade to Motorway standard of the A1 between Junctions 38 and the M62 will also be in progress. Thus the spine of the Strategic Road Network on which HS2 Limited is relying to carry its construction traffic in the Borough will already have major works being undertaken on it. The impact of the A1 improvements alone on Doncaster town will be huge, with the town centre experiencing gridlock if a lane of the A1[M] is closed at any time.
Given the sensitivity of the areas through which the proposed scheme passes, and the prospect of major schemes already being in progress on the Strategic Road Network at the time of construction, the Council will want to see and agree HS2 Limited’s detailed Construction Traffic Routing strategy and provisions in the Environmental Statement for ensuring that HS2 construction traffic uses no other routes than those designated for that purpose, and that those routes are used only during specified times to be agreed with the Council for each route.
13 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 14
10. Improvement of the A635 Corridor
The A635 is part of Transport for the North’s [TfN] Major Route Network and is one of the top 20 TfN corridors forecast to experience delay in Sheffield City Region to 2025. Improvements to the A635 corridor between A6195 Dearne Valley Parkway at Cat Hill Roundabout and the A1[M] Junction 37 at Marr are included in the emerging TfN Long Term Investment Programme arising from work done on the South Pennines Strategic Development Corridor. Whilst a bypass of Hickleton and Marr specifically has long been an aspiration of the Council, TfN has now identified this improvement as a named scheme in their programme, attracting sufficient flows in their modelling to justify a dual carriageway standard improvement.
The design of the HS2 Proposed Scheme will therefore now need to take account of this, and the Council seeks an assurance that HS2 Limited will now commence dialogue with Transport for the North, Sheffield City Region and the Council about how the Proposed Scheme and the A635 Improvements can be developed together to minimise any unnecessary or abortive costs in the future.
The indicative route for the bypasses of Hickleton and Marr are shown below in Figure 4, taken from a ground investigation carried out in 1994.
Figure 4: The Indicative Route of Hickleton and Marr Bypasses [1994]
14 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 15
Annex 1: Composite Issues Log
15 | P a g e
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet 16
16 | P a g e
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 1
Section of Route Issues Language Throughout the WDES where it has been stated that actions may be required “would” is used rather than the imperative shall or will. e.g. 10.4.4 “Where significant contamination is encountered, a remedial options appraisal would be undertaken to define the most appropriate remediation techniques”. The language needs to be more definitive.
Condition Surveys Condition surveys of existing highways need to be undertaken prior to construction and dilapidation surveys undertaken post construction for extraordinary traffic impacts.
Auto-Transformer Stations The power supply routes to auto-transformer stations and their potential impact need to be established.
Noise Barriers The impacts of noise barriers on noise attenuation need to be understood along with the rationale for providing them/not Route Wide providing them at certain locations.
Maintenance Liability Responsibility for maintenance of new structures and other features needs to be established – surfaces, lighting, wall cleansing, anti-social behaviour etc. Commuted sums will be required for any new assets that the Council becomes responsible for.
Watercourse Culverts Watercourse culvert design and capacities need to be checked and agreed.
Infrastructure Design HS2 Ltd has Design Review arrangements in place to encourage high quality, beautifully designed infrastructure which makes a positive contribution to the character and quality of the borough. The Council requires involvement in the design and aesthetic appearance of these structures at an early stage and requires engagement with the Doncaster Design Review Panel which meets regularly. There are key locations where prominent viaducts will need to be constructed- Don, Dearne Valley, Clayton interchange, etc- and a real opportunity to create a locally distinctive and attractive legacy by celebrating these structures and creating attractions in their own right like the existing Victorian viaduct over the Don Gorge. Doncaster also has an ambition and strategy to increase public art in the Borough and the Don Viaduct could be a key gateway location to develop some locally
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 2
Section of Route Issues relevant art possibly incorporated into the design.
Cuttings Where the proposed route is in cutting, it would be useful to understand the proposed landscape treatment to the embankments as in areas these are significant and could offer wildlife / aesthetic benefits if appropriately soft landscaped.
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment We would welcome seeing the LVIA as soon as possible so we can review the proposals and proposed landscape mitigation in detail.
Woodland Creation for Mitigation Much of the proposed mitigation is woodland creation, which we appreciate also helps to screen the route and contribute to the landscape design. Prior to the detailed design stage it will be important to assess the value of existing habitats being proposed for woodland planting. Where these are currently arable, there is likely to be a net gain for biodiversity both at the location and in contributing to wider habitat connectivity where woodland parcels are part of the landscape. However in some locations where other habitats are being lost, their prior assessment to ensure a biodiversity net gain will be important. In particular some habitats may have low distinctiveness such as rough grassland or tall ruderal vegetation, but will currently provide an important edge to existing habitats of higher value. If they are lost it will be important to allow sufficient space to recreate transitional habitat zones at the edge of proposed mitigation woodland planting areas and to incorporate other habitats i.e. open areas and wetlands within the woodland design where appropriate. In particular, you mentioned additional woodland planting associated with Howell Wood, which we would support in principle, however there is a wider ambition to improve the habitat along Howell Beck to support the expansion of willow tit, and mitigation would need to be carefully designed to take their specific species requirements into account.
Great Crested Newt Conservation Doncaster Council will be developing a Great Crested Newt Conservation Strategy over the coming months and would like to be kept informed of your GCN survey results and feed into your proposed mitigation measures.
Loss of local Wildlife Sites A number of Local Wildlife Sites are being lost (in full or part) or impacted along the route, are you aiming to deliver targeted and enhanced compensation for the associated habitat losses, or is this being delivered across the wider route, along with non- designated site impacts?
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 3
Section of Route Issues Public Open Spaces The Council is supportive of proposals to create multi-functional public open spaces in the Denaby/Mexborough areas and see this as an important opportunity to re-invest in the communities in a visible, and useful way. The Dearne Valley Landscape Partnership (and before that the Dearne Valley Nature Improvement Area project) have invested a significant amount of resource into working with local communities on the Dearne’s identity and in celebrating its cultural and natural heritage and therefore should also be engaged in this proposal. In relation to the proposed areas of POS at Mexborough (Doncaster Road adjacent the canal and the capped landfill site off Clayfield view). This proposal should aim to benefit the local community whilst meeting wildlife and habitat creation objectives. It will require community engagement in developing the proposals. The Green Space Audit for Mexborough indicates it is deficient in informal open space and public parks. The identified priority is for an increase in informal open space (so play area, kick-about space etc.), as play equipment in the settlement is limited overall. A public park with a children’s play area would be a great idea. Proposals on the former landfill site would require consultation with environmental health. But given major engineering work would be required anyway it may not be such an onerous task to create a POS in this area. There may be opportunities to link the two spaces and the wider PRoW network through the sites, over the canal and across Doncaster Road via Pastures Court.
Public Art Strategy Doncaster has an ambition and strategy to increase public art in the Borough and Mex viaduct could be a key gateway location to develop some locally relevant art. Again the Council would welcome consultation in relation to these proposals as they develop.
Archaeology The WDES sets out the proposed strategy for an assessment of impact on heritage assets including archaeological and paleo- environmental remains (Vol. 1, para. 8.81). The first part of this assessment is to be a collation of information from existing documentary sources including information held in the South Yorkshire Sites & Monuments Record, historic maps and aerial photographs (Vol. 1, para. 8.86). This is the usual first step to understanding whether a development proposal is likely to impact on archaeological evidence and South Yorkshire Archaeological Service [SYAS] is broadly in agreement with the overview of known archaeological evidence included in the WDES (Vol 2 LA13, paras 9.3.8-9.3.22) – this is helped by the fact that the archaeological consultant working on LA13 directly consulted our records to ensure they had a good understanding of the information available. However, SYAS would not agree with the statement that there has been engagement with us (Vol 2 LA13, para 9.1.2), as we have been given no opportunity to discuss the information gathered or the values ascribed to the identified evidence or to discuss the assessment made of the potential magnitude of the impact of the scheme, prior to the publication of the WDES. There must be such a discussion with SYAS before the completion of the final ES.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 4
Section of Route Issues The WDES goes on to say that the baseline information will be supplemented by survey work including LiDAR surveys, site visits, and non-intrusive surveys, e.g. surface artefact collection and geophysical surveys (Vol. 1, para. 8.87 an Vol 2 LA13, para 9.2.7) – with the results to be reported in the formal ES. However, HS2 Ltd have issued us with a copy of their ‘Technical note –Historic environment - Risk based approach to prioritising archaeological surveys’, which makes it clear that “No field evaluation surveys will be required in support of the formal ES if there is sufficient information to allow for an informed opinion of potential character, form, value and vulnerability of buried remains. This decision will be informed by the baseline data collection.” In other words, HS2 Ltd actually intend to carry out further survey work only in areas where they consider there is a lack of clarity over the nature of the archaeology to be affected by the scheme. It is clearly vital that SYAS are involved in decision about the need for and scope of appropriate further survey work – and that survey work is used not only to clarify the nature of known/suspected archaeological evidence but also to investigate seemingly ‘blank’ areas to establish whether archaeological evidence continues there. Although Vol. 1, para. 8.88 states that archaeological survey work is being discussed with local authority archaeologists on a case-by case basis, as yet, SYAS has not been involved in any such discussions. There must be such discussion with SYAS before the completion of the final ES , with the results of the agreed non-intrusive surveys being included; where such survey has not been possible for logistical reasons this should be clearly set out in the ES.
Similarly, although in agreement that non-intrusive survey should be the next step, after completion of the initial desk-based phase, such non-invasive surveys are not normally sufficient to properly assess the significance of heritage assets of archaeological interest. When dealing with buried archaeological remains, targeted trial trenching is usually needed to fully inform an understanding of significance. The WDES states that intrusive site investigations would be undertaken at the pre- construction phase, or later (Vol. 1, para. 8.8.14); SYAS fear that if intrusive investigation is not carried out until after the scheme has received consent via the proposed hybrid Bill then that consent will be for a scheme where there has not been a proper assessment of archaeological impact. The need for and scope of appropriate intrusive investigation should be discussed with SYAS before the completion of the final ES, with the results of such intrusive investigations being included; where such work has not been possible for logistical reasons this should be clearly set out in the ES.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is described as an influence on HS2 Ltd’s Sustainability and Environmental policy (Vol 1, para 1.5.8) but the NPPF makes it clear that understanding the significance of a heritage asset is a vital step in weighing up the impact of a proposal that will affect that asset, causing harm or total loss (NPPF para 197). SYAS would argue that an assessment and evaluation strategy that does not allow for discussion with SYAS on the baseline evidence gathered, or discussion with SYAS on the need for and scope of both non-intrusive survey, or a discussion with SYAS on the need for intrusive trial trenching, is not in accord with the NPPF and risks a decision being made without a proper understanding of the scale of the archaeological impact of the scheme. These issues all, therefore, need to be taken on board and addressed by the final ES.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 5
Section of Route Issues The results of fieldwork, both evaluation and mitigation, that will arise as a result of the scheme need to be considered. SYAS are archaeological advisors to Doncaster MBC and results from the project should feed back into our Sites & Monuments Record, to enhance it. Currently LA resources are insufficient to allow us to undertake any such enhancement work. There have been some discussions at a national level about HS2 Ltd providing funding to LA services to prioritise inputting new data from the scheme, as it progresses; Doncaster MBC should raise this as an important issue that needs to be addressed during the ES process. (DS) Similarly , curation of the physical archive from fieldwork also urgently needs to be addressed. Vol. 1, paras 9.8.3 & 9.8.4 outlines the process that will be followed for site investigations, leading to finds and other materials being properly archived. However, Doncaster Museum currently has no capacity to accept archives arising from ordinary development schemes and SYAS are concerned over any assumption by HS2 Ltd that the museum would be able to accept the undoubtedly considerable archives that will result from archaeological works associated with this scheme - additional resources will be required, particularly in the form of additional storage.
Air Quality Where traffic diversions are put in place, the Council expects that air quality be considered/ modelled and monitored along the corridor.
Noise and Vibration Monitoring has taken place in limited locations in built up areas, though there’s no detail in the WDES and the Council has not seen the data. Monitoring needs to take place at a variety of rural locations in order to ensure that a true representation of existing noise levels are captured.
Cross Sections Cross section details are required for all new highway construction – carriageway/footway/verge widths etc.
Boundary Treatments Details of highway boundary delineation and treatments are required, e.g. structures, fencing, security, ownership, liability, maintenance etc.
Speed/Traffic Data/Road Safety Audits Need to see survey and audit data for key locations which is being used to formulate designs.
Stopping Up/Turning Heads
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 6
Section of Route Issues Need to avoid creation of fly-tipping/anti-social behaviour hotspots. Need to know intentions for redundant carriageways.
Highway Design Standards Need to be aware of any potential departures/relaxations. Construction Routes Need to know how these will be enforced. A full construction haul route strategy is required with volumes, movements, times of day etc. All structures will require assessment for abnormal load movements. Responsibility for the cost of these assessments needs to be established.
The route severs the extensive wooded corridor along Firsby Brook. With the ecological survey work still underway and bat surveys incomplete, how is this potentially significant impact being appropriately accounted for?
Biodiversity compensation in this area should be designed to maintain and enhance the integrity of the woodland valley Bramley North Cutting landscape feature for the species that use it. Subject to the ecological survey findings, appropriate opportunities for biodiversity compensation are likely to include new planting along the line of the route and branching-outwards to create an extended and high-quality network of connected habitat. Compensatory habitat should also contribute to the wider Green Infrastructure Network, which might include incorporating hedgerow gapping or new planting alongside footpath routes, to promote access to nature and structural diversity across the landscape.
Severance of key wildlife corridor - Firsby Brook. With the ecological survey work still underway and bat surveys incomplete, how Ravenfield Embankment is this potentially significant impact being adequately and appropriately accounted for?
Public Rights of Way Ravenfield Cutting Bridleway BW14. How will people access from one side of railway to the other during construction? Lengthy detour for BW14, (approximately 1100 metres longer than existing). Do we need the bridleway along west side of railway?
Ecology and Biodiversity Conisbrough Parks Ecological survey data should be used to inform whether a biodiversity gain could be achieved by diverting and 'daylighting' the Embankment watercourse -proposed to pass through Conisbrough Parks Culvert- to flow below the Conisbrough Parks Bridleway 2 Accommodation Underbridge.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 7
Section of Route Issues The proposed scheme will result in the partial loss (31%) of LWS hedgerow habitat (LWS 4.1abc 'Conisbrough Parks Hedgerows') alongside Footpath 3 and Bridleway 2, and the potential loss of locally distinctive features (Wild Service Tree). Biodiversity gains should seek to deliver compensatory habitat and enhance the remaining LWS and wider hedgerow network, extending away from the route.
Public Rights of Way Bridleway BW14 diversion to be assessed Bridleway BW2 diversion to be assessed Footpath FP3 diversion to be assessed Access to Firsby Hall Farm to be assessed – no alternative access provided Temporary diversion route for Firsby Lane be kept open to public after construction - useful alternative link. No alternative access to Firsby Hall Farm provided Bridleway BW2 diversion to be assessed Need to work with Rotherham Council on cross boundary issues A630 intersection in Rotherham (Doncaster boundary 300m to east) A630 overbridge on line – no realistic road diversions available Hooton Roberts Cutting A630 design speed and alignment to be assessed – can the alignment be improved? A630 Temporary Highway Diversion shown as being on line Design details of Firsby Lane diversion will need to be agreed including public/private interface, integration with rights of way etc. The impact on Hill Top Road highway drainage needs to be understood.
Hooton Roberts Embankment In Rotherham Need to work with Rotherham Council on cross boundary issues.
The proposed scheme will result in the loss (41%) of an area of LWS woodland (LWS 5.4 'Denaby Wood'), including open areas of Old Denaby Cutting scrub on sandy ground and a ponded shallow-valley towards the North East of the site - features likely to be of high biodiversity value for invertebrates and breeding birds. The proposed diversion of Conisbrough Footpath 3 will also lead to a likely increase in disturbance to the remaining, reduced area of woodland, resulting from sustained people pressure.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 8
Section of Route Issues The route also severs the extensive East-West, landscape-scale, wildlife corridor linking to LWS 5.8 'Conisbrough North Cliff'. (MM) Historic Plans (late 17th Century) indicate potentially surviving field boundaries along the southern edge of Denaby Wood (north of Grange Farm), but this would need to be verified through field survey. Long-established landscape features should be protected and pre-enclosure hedgerows are likely to be of relatively high biodiversity value. The ecological survey findings should be used to inform appropriate opportunities for biodiversity compensation to strengthen connectivity along this corridor, and ensure areas of land with existing biodiversity value are enhanced and not lost to less appropriate habitat compensation and landscaping proposals, e.g. the land NW of Eland Road and alongside Hill Top Road/Old Road.
Local Wildlife Site not identified on drawing.
Hill Top Road and Elland Road and Coalpit Road noted as being Construction Access Routes – impacts to be assessed, but note general comments.
Public Rights of Way Construction traffic route along Hill Top Road stops at junction with Footpath 3 and Hill Top Road. How will this affect the footpath and safety of pedestrians? The existing footpath and lane provides a vehicle free path between Old Denaby and Conisbrough. Proposals will remove the connectivity to Old Denaby without taking lengthy detour through industrial estate alongside vehicle highway to Denaby Lane and then back alongside railway. (Detour approximately 1500 metres longer than existing footpath). Overbridge needs to be future proofed for cyclists.
The proposed scheme will result in the partial loss (18%) of Old Denaby Area LNR (LWS 5.3 'Old Denaby Area') including wetland, scrub & carr woodland, marshy and unimproved neutral grassland mosaic habitats. Off-site works associated with the construction and operation of the scheme may result in a permanent adverse impact on the sites hydrology and ecological Old Denaby Embankment integrity. The ecological connectivity of the site within the wider landscape and particularly with the river corridors and cluster of LWS to the East, will also be adversely impacted. We want to have a continued dialogue with HS2 regarding suitable habitat mitigation and compensation for wetland habitat losses and degradation in this area.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 9
Section of Route Issues Note general comments on design of viaduct. 16 properties on Shimmer Estate within footprint of the viaduct, but impact will be much greater. 52 properties within CCB stated in WDES. No means of access identified for 36 properties at western end of estate. No temporary effects identified for 89 properties at eastern end of estate fronting the Construction Traffic Route. Denaby Lane – long diversion route if closed temporarily A6023 – no realistic road diversions available Doncaster has an ambition and strategy to increase public art in the Borough and Mexborough viaduct could be a key gateway location to develop some locally relevant art. Again the Council would welcome consultation in relation to these proposals as they develop. River Don Viaduct Impact of viaduct abutment on Denaby Lane required – location and height clearance. Similarly at Doncaster Road/Pastures Road.
Permanent impacts of Comelybank Drive and Pastures Court, including effects on highway drainage need to be understood.
Construction methodology over highways needs to be agreed. There is no suitable alternative route for traffic on the A6023 Doncaster Road.
Temporary impacts for traffic at the Doncaster Road/Pastures Road junction need to be understood.
Public open space not identified on drawing.
No planting identified on landscape bund.
Cuts through former landfill site taking domestic and industrial waste: Mexborough Cutting Permit regulated by EA 12m depth Still gassing – with flare stacks (candle flares) Leachate collection chamber at 13 metres depth Geological fault line runs across site Potential coal measures
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 10
Section of Route Issues Potential radioactive materials Flies nuisance issue when digging out – public health concerns Site severed by HS2 – access to eastern part of site not identified
The site is known to be producing landfill gas. To reduce the potential for the gas to migrate into surrounding premises the site currently benefits from an extraction and flaring system. This system will be adversely affected, if not totally lost, due to the proposal. The risk to human health and buildings needs to be assessed.
The site currently benefits from a leachate collection system, however this this also likely to be lost due to the proposal. The land is over a principal aquifer and is approximately 160 metres from the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation canal. (IK) The use of the landfill site as a construction compound and a temporary stockpile area are unsuitable activities. Furthermore it is not good practice to stockpile material along the boundaries of residential premises, as indicated on the map.
Additional landscape buffering to the edges of the recently developed Pastures Road housing development at Mexborough is welcome and supported in principle. The designers should be aware that the layout was planned to facilitate potential expansion and development to the west on adjacent land - subject to planning permission. Whilst the proposed alignment now takes up much of this land, there still may be future opportunities to develop part of this land (i.e. between Pastures Road development and the HS2 rail line) which must be borne in mind during the design process.
Additional landscape buffering to the edges of the recently developed Pastures Rd housing development at Mexborough is welcome and supported in principle, the designers should be aware that the layout was planned to facilitate potential expansion Mexborough Embankment and development to the west on adjacent land - subject to planning permission. Whilst the proposed alignment now takes up much of this land, there still may be future opportunities to develop part of this land (i.e. between Pastures Road development and the HS2 rail line) which must be borne in mind during the design process.
Note general comments on design of viaduct.
River Dearne Viaduct Public Rights of Way Mexborough Footpath 5 crosses land potentially required during construction, access must be maintained. Trans Pennine Trail is popular long distance coast to coast multi user route, access is essential; therefore if a temporary closure is
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 11
Section of Route Issues required during construction, alternative route must remain available. New ditch is proposed across both footpaths Mexborough 7 and 5. Will a culvert or bridge be provided and who will be responsible for future maintenance. Opportunity to extend footpath from west end of access road to balancing pond to link with Mexborough Footpath 9.
Construction methodology over highways needs to be agreed. There is no suitable alternative route for traffic on the A6023 Doncaster Road.
Need to be aware of current multi-agency efforts to designate a Dearne Valley SSSI, stretching between Denaby Ings westwards into Barnsley Borough along the river and we would strongly support conservation measures to enhance biodiversity along this wetland corridor within Doncaster Borough.
Low spot in Ludwell Hill alignment within Ludwell Hill Underbridge. Impacts on highway drainage on Ludwell Hill need to be agreed.
Public Rights of Way Barnburgh BW4 (St Helens Lane) to be diverted to the east side of the railway, thereby necessitating uses, including equestrians, to access Barnburgh via a proposed road tunnel on Ludwell Hill. The tunnel may act as a barrier to many non-vehicle users due to it being not being suitable/safe, particularly for equestrians. Possible solution may be to divert bridleway along Barnburgh footpath 7 that is to pass under the railway via an Accommodation Underbridge and then along the west side of the railway to link into the unaffected section of St Helen’s Lane. Barnburgh Embankment Surface water run-off from Barnburgh Embankment will need to be mitigated.
Maintenance responsibility of private access/diverted bridleway underbridge will need to be agreed.
The use of Ludwell Hill as a Construction Access Route is not appropriate. Note 7.5 tonne environmental weight limit.
Landscape It would be useful to have a photomontage from the top of Melton Hill Lane looking out over the Dearne Valley (viewpoint 411- 02-006) as from this location the model would provide a wide field of view and enable understanding of the impacts over a wide and important area.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 12
Section of Route Issues
Heritage The proposed line of HS2 with be visible from and towards Barnburgh. There are elements of formal landscaping between the former grounds of Barnburgh Hall and St. Helen’s Pond although this will be seen with the new line in the background whilst other views are more informal.
The proposed line will be close to the schedule monument of St. Helens church. Part of the current character of the area is its secluded nature, which enhances its setting. With the line obviously this will be destroyed.
It’s difficult to see how the secluded feel can be maintained with the proposal. Additional tree planting might potentially help to keep the area sacred(?), especially if chosen to be of a sacred nature. In addition having large balancing pond next to it will dilute its original raison d‘être being at well head of a spring.
There is a need for additional photomontages to understand impact of line and how best this can be mitigated. (PL) An appraisal of Barnburgh Conservation Area to understand impact of proposal.
Ecology and Biodiversity The proposed scheme will result in the loss (70%) of LWS 6.67 'Thunder Hole'. This represents a substantial loss of LWS quality habitats (Carr woodland, springs, streams, ponds, damp grassland, fen). To the east of the woodland strip is an area of fen with numerous calcareous flushes. It is a complex site which contains calcareous fen habitats and a diverse flora which is unique in the Borough. Any proposals should be based on detailed faunal surveys, especially invertebrates and birds and specialist botanical surveys in the area of fen and flushes and should seek to preserve and enhance these special interests. We would like to work with HS2 to develop a suitable habitat compensation scheme for this particular area.
An area which appears to support semi-natural habitats to the north of Ludwell Hill, will also be lost to the embankment and temporary material stockpile area and there are numerous hedgerows across this landscape that could potentially pre-date enclosure.
Ecological survey data should be used to inform whether a biodiversity gain could be achieved by diverting and 'daylighting' the watercourse - proposed to pass through Thunder Hole Culvert - to flow below the Barnburgh Footpath 3 Accommodation Underbridge.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 13
Section of Route Issues Compensatory habitat should also contribute to the wider Green Infrastructure Network, which might include incorporating hedgerow gapping or new planting alongside footpath routes, to promote access to nature and structural diversity across the landscape. Effects on Stables Lane and highway drainage not shown.
Stub ends of stopped up Barnsley Road – responsibility, treatment, etc to be established. Impacts on highway drainage need to be understood.
Issues with Hickleton Hall walls, highway drainage and surfacing at the highway boundary will need to be resolved prior to use of the A635 as a Construction Access Route.
Public Rights of Way Hickleton Bridleway 2 and footpath 1 to cross railway via an accommodation overbridge. Upgrade Hickleton Footpath 1 to a bridleway to compensate for lengthy detour required for bridleway.
Air Quality Hickleton Cutting (South of Hickleton is an Air Quality Management Area – and looking to designate Marr as well. A635) Traffic diversions are likely to be put in place during the work to the A635. Air quality needs to be considered/modelled and monitored along the route.
Hickleton Hall is Grade II *, it also has a Grade II* Brewhouse and Grade II* Stable block within its grounds. Its parkland is nationally recognised as a Park and Garden of Special Interest. The route of HS2 will skirt this but will impact in two ways: Currently the landscape in front of the Hall extends beyond the hall’s parkland and makes use of borrowed landscape and gives the building an enhancement of its grandeur. There is a proposed cutting that will sever this borrowed landscape from the parkland. Landscaping is proposed on the cutting but as there is no cross-section from the hall and through the parkland and cutting we are not sure how successful any landscape would be and indeed might actually further divorce the parkland from the current borrowed landscape, rather than mitigate it. Along the main road approaching Hickleton and its Hall from the direction of Marr is an avenue of trees, these are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. These help to announce the hall and its ground and as these are approached the road becomes straight given further signs that something significant is being approached. As we believe the road is proposed to be diverted to go via a new bridge over the proposed cutting here this feature will be interrupted and will lessen the
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 14
Section of Route Issues significance of it, even if replacement planting is proposed. Need to have a proper analysis of area around Hickleton Hall to understand how the proposal will impact on the Hall and its ground’s significance. Cross-sections through the area are needed to see its impact. Appraisal of Hickleton Conservation Area also needed to understand impact of proposal on this. The cutting here has a major impact on the natural and historic landscape, and it is strongly recommended that a tunnel should be constructed all the way from Barnburgh Cliffs to beyond Bilham Belvedere.
Ecology and Biodiversity The proposed scheme will result in the partial loss (8%) of woodland LWS (LWS 6.37 'Barnburgh Cliff'). The route severs the extensive wildlife corridor along this landscape feature and links numerous woodland LWS (6.35 and 6.48 are in the immediate vicinity). The ecological survey findings should be used to inform appropriate opportunities for biodiversity compensation to strengthen connectivity along this corridor and this would be a preferred area for a green bridge.
Additionally, whilst there is a strong woodland component to the ecological network, neighbouring LWS support areas of calcareous grassland and locally distinctive features (Wild Service Tree).
We believe the 'unnamed ancient woodland west of Barnburgh Cliff' is, known as Stables Wood and falls within the LWS boundary. We are surprised to see that loss of ancient woodland has only been categorised as being of county/metropolitan significance.
Severance of key wildlife corridor - linear, wooded habitat feature at Barnburgh Cliff.
Red Hill Lane Closure No alternative to closure of Red Hill Lane for vehicles provided.
Hickleton Cutting (North of Need to understand wider impacts e.g. on Marr, but the proposition is unacceptable because the diversion route is inadequate. A635) Continuity across the route must be maintained.
Public Rights of Way Alternative path to join busy A635, provision required in verge to provide safe pedestrian route. Pointless alternative footpath
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 15
Section of Route Issues on west side of railway
Hickleton Bypass TfN has included Marr/Hickleton Bypass as a named scheme in its emerging Long Term Investment Programme. The HS2 Scheme needs to take account of this.
Red Hill Lane appears on old maps to be on the line of an ancient lane marked ’Supposed Roman or British Road’ . It also helps directly link the neighbouring estates of Brodsworth and Hickleton – both of which are nationally designated landscapes and which by their proximity are likely to have had some shared history. Red Hill Lane is to be stopped up with no replacement and will reduce the connectivity of these two estates as well as ending the use of what appears to be a potential historic highway. Replacement footpaths appear tortuous when compared to the existing road and paths. The history of the road needs to be investigated to understand its significance.
No access to Bilham House Farm from Hickleton along Red Hill Lane.
Rich archaeological area to north of Bilham House Farm – impacts not set out, eg on 18th Century Bilham Belvedere
Bilham Bevedere Bilham Belvedere is Grade II listed, it also lies at the edge of parkland which is considered to be a Park and Garden of Local Historic interest. It was built in this position to take advantage of and enhance the natural promontory here. It is an important element of Bilham Park and its proposed divorce from the rest of the parkland would be substantial harm to its significance as a listed building. Without it remaining linked to its promontory its raison d’être will be lost. The promontory is heavily treed and it is understood that such linear features are also extremely useful to bats, which the cutting will break. A new accessway is shown to the Belvedere. This should not be a PROW as it could increase anti-social and vandalism problems that it is already suffering. Its further isolation from the Bilham Estate would exacerbate these problems. As the Belvedere is on a promontory it is uncertain as to how the proposed access will actually get there without further digging into its mound and further affecting its setting, although obviously this will be less disruptive than the cutting of the proposed railway but will still potentially further add to its harm. The addition of tree planting to the side of the remaining promontory would weaken the park’s significance rather than mitigate harm.
The significance of Bilham Belvedere and its park should be investigated. The proposal is considered to a high impact and harm
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 16
Section of Route Issues on this heritage asset. Enhancement of listing should be undertaken and potential registration of park – discussion needed with Historic England. Tunnel to protect the important relationship of Bilham Belvedere with its promontory and the rest of its estate should be first considered if route is progressed as proposed. Second option would be land bridge (which as well as keeping the raison d’être for belvedere would keep wildlife corridor). If neither of the above can be done a third option would be moving the belvedere to the end of the shortened promontory. Whatever course of action is carried out need to use this potential opportunity to find a long term solution for the belvedere – a potential heritage benefit of the rail scheme(PL)
The position of the Bilham Transformer Station would have a negative impact on the Belvedere and the parkland it sits in. Its access is not shown but is presumed to come from Bilham House Farm, again likely to have a negative impact on these Heritage assets (PL). The transformation station and its access should be moved away from the heritage assets.
Ecology and Biodiversity The proposed scheme will result in the loss (24%) of woodland LWS (LWS 6.26 'Bilham Park and Summer House Plantation'). Features of particular value to bats will be impacted by the severance of this woodland corridor, including the Belvedere structure and veteran trees. Opportunities to retain connectivity via a green bridge should be considered.
Severance of key wildlife corridor - wooded habitat feature at Watchley Crag.
The proposed scheme will result in the loss (24%) of woodland LWS (LWS 6.28 'The Wilderness'). Note that any issues ascribed to individual elements of Clayton Junction apply to the whole junction.
Construction Access Routes The use of Churchfield Road as a Construction Access Route is not appropriate. Note the 7.5 tonne environmental weight limit.
Clayton Junction Rights of Way The wider context of the Rights of Way network needs to be assessed. Clayton Bridleway 13 - At south end, pedestrians heading west have lengthy diversion south and then north along each side of railway (In excess of 1km) At north end no access to Stotfold Road, therefore pedestrians who wish to go towards Clayton are required to head north to Church Field Road where there is no pavement. Pavement into Clayton only starts at west side of junction with Stotfold Road.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 17
Section of Route Issues Bridleway/footpath link needs to be provided adjacent to Church Field Road. Clayton Footpath 14A - This footpath is not shown on the plans. The footpath provides a direct link between Thurscoe and Clayton and will be severed by the railway. Use of the path will involve a diversion described above which is in excess of 1 km. Clayton Bridleway 11 - No connectivity going west over railway, bridleway links with Stotfold Road that is to be stopped up and alternative for Stotfold Road to be provided running along east side of railway parallel with Bridleway 11
Ecology and Biodiversity The route severs the landscape-feature connectivity between LWS 6.2 'Challenger Wood (with Spring Wood') and LWS 6.3 'Frickley Park (including Whin Covert)').
The Clayton junction represents such a complex arrangement of barriers and obstacles to the passage of wildlife (in addition to the direct loss of undesignated habitat) that it is hard to account for and assess the adverse magnitude of the impacts and design and deliver appropriate mitigation or compensation. The information presented in the WDES is particularly inadequate in how it presents and addresses the biodiversity issues in this area and further information and visualisation is required to aid consultation. Thurnscoe Embankment See general comments on Clayton Junction. See general comments on Clayton Junction.
Frickley Church is not identified on plan.
The proposed Frickley viaduct will not just impact on the nearby historic elements, including Frickley Hall (Grade II listed building) as well as its parkland which is also considered a Park and Garden of Local Historic Interest, but also be visible from further afield Frickley Viaduct including from Hooton Pagnell village, containing one of the best views (arguable the best) within Doncaster borough (414-##- 007). As this view is rural and picturesque the introduction of a railway will have an extreme effect on it.
Whilst no photomontage is currently proposed from Hooton Pagnell it is strongly recommended that this should be included due to it being such an important viewpoint.
Need to have full analysis of area. How does viaduct work in 3-D? Appraisal of Clayton Conservation Area to understand impact of proposal.
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 18
Section of Route Issues
Some thought should be undertaken on tree planting around All Saints Church to see if this really is desirable and/or whether the landscaping can be designed to still give some glimpses from this direction to the church and its tower.
There is grave concern that the proposed connection of the HS2 to the Dearne Valley line and the resulting height of the viaduct of one of these links will have a serious impact on the above viewpoint as well as potentially overpowering the nearby Grade II* church of All Saints at Frickley.
There also needs to be consideration given to the impact on Clayton Conservation Area. Whilst acknowledging that this viaduct could be beautifully designed, the sheer scale of this viaduct is not likely to sit comfortably in this particular landscape and it is asked if the potential for this link to be in a cutting has been fully investigated.
As discussed All Saints Church is already quite isolated and further tree planting could make it virtually hidden from the road from the direction of Clayton.
See general comments on Clayton Junction. Public Rights of Way Connectivity going west at junction with Footpath 1 severed unless lengthy detour (in excess of 1kilometre). No connectivity at south end at junction with Stotfold Road. See plan CT-06-476-L1. Bridleway/footpath link needs to be provided adjacent to Clayton South Embankment Churchfield Road Clayton Footpath 1 - Extinguished, see plan CT-06-477. Clayton Footpath 10 - No connectivity going east at north end of path without lengthy detour to proposed underbridge. Clayton Footpath 2 - Stopped up north of Wink House, alterative path provided heading east to junction footpath 1. Pedestrians heading west follow diversion for Footpath 1, see CT-06-477.
Clayton Cutting See general comments on Clayton Junction. See general comments on Clayton Junction. Clayton North Embankment Public Rights of Way
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 19
Section of Route Issues Clayton Footpath 10 - No connectivity going east at north end of path without lengthy detour to proposed underbridge Clayton Footpath 3 - Diverted to underbridge. Length of underbridge 190 metres Clayton Footpath 4 - Proposed diversion requires user to head north and then double back south. Proposed alternative is to provide footpath along south east side of stream towards underbridge. Clayton Bridleway 5 - Lengthy detour required to underbridge along both sides of railway (in excess of 1.5 km). Clayton Footpaths 1,2 & 10 - No access east from junction of Common Lane and Top Lane. All rights of way and vehicle access via proposed underbridge
Ecology and Biodiversity There is potential for adverse biodiversity impacts on Howell Wood LWS (6.1) during the construction and operation of the scheme; through the severance of semi-natural landscape features and loss of habitat connectivity within the wider landscape; and through disturbance associated with the line running directly adjacent to the woodland. There is a strategic ambition amongst conservation partners to enhance Howells Wood's wet woodland component and connections with the wider landscape to provide suitable habitat to promote the expansion of willow tit territory. We would like to work with HS2 and key partners to develop a compensation scheme within this area that supports this objective. Severance of key wildlife corridor – Howell Beck.
In particular the design and specification of Howell Beck Culvert should make provision for the passage of wildlife. With the ecological survey work still underway and bat surveys incomplete, how is this potentially significant impact being adequately and appropriately accounted for?
The identified photomontage view corridor from Clayton 415-02-014 does not appear to adequately cover the view of the Clayton interchange. This is a key feature and we need to properly understand what this will look like. There may need to be a more detailed study of this area and a 3 d model produced so we can properly understand the proposals, changes in levels mitigating proposals etc as the plans do not help in this respect it is a very complex area. Likewise there may need to be a further additional photomontages in this area to help this understanding e.g. from 415-03-013, 415-03-003, 415-03-009.
See general comments on Clayton Junction. Churchfield Road Cutting The identified photomontage view corridor from Clayton 415-02-014 does not appear to adequately cover the view of the Clayton interchange. This is a key feature and we need to properly understand what this will look like. There may need to be a more detailed study of this area and a 3 d model produced so we can properly understand the proposals, changes in levels
Annex 1: HS2 Phase 2B WDES Composite Issues Log Sheet 20
Section of Route Issues mitigating proposals etc as the plans do not help in this respect it is a very complex area. Likewise there may need to be a further additional photomontages in this area to help this understanding e.g. from 415-03-013, 415-03-003, 415-03-009.
See general comments on Clayton Junction. The identified photomontage view corridor from Clayton 415-02-014 does not appear to adequately cover the view of the Clayton interchange. This is a key feature and we need to properly understand what this will look like. There may need to be a Thurnscoe Cutting more detailed study of this area and a 3 d model produced so we can properly understand the proposals, changes in levels mitigating proposals etc as the plans do not help in this respect it is a very complex area. Likewise there may need to be a further additional photomontages in this area to help this understanding e.g. from 415-03-013, 415-03-003, 415-03-009.
HS2 Phase 2B WDES Consultation Response Sheet i
Annex 2: Report of the Director of Public Health
i | Annex 2: P a g e
Sheet ii
ii | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 1
Public Health response to the Working Draft Environmental Statement LA13: Ravenfield to Clayton
Authors (on behalf of Dr Rupert Suckling, Director of Public Health) Caroline Temperton, Public Health Improvement Co-ordinator Karen Horrocks, Public Health Improvement Co-ordinator
November 2018
1 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 2
Index
Page number
Introduction ……………...... 3
The Communities ……………………………………………………………………………. 3
Transport ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Housing …………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Economy and Employment ……………………………………………………………… 7
Physical Activity, recreation and local open green spaces ……………….. 7
Equality, social cohesion, social capital and community ………………….. 8
Education ………………………………………………………………………………………... 9
Crime reduction and community safety …………………………………………… 9
Air Quality and Noise ………………………………………………………………………. 10
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………. 11
2 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 3
Introduction
The health of people in Doncaster is generally worse than the England average. Doncaster is one of the 20% most deprived local authorities in England and about 22% (12,400) of children live in low income families. Life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the England average. The challenges to population health in Doncaster and the health inequalities that exist within the borough mean that the impact of HS2 at local level upon health and wellbeing must be seriously considered and effectively mitigated against.
Section 8.2.2. of the Working Draft Environmental Statement LA13 (WDES) states that health is mostly determined by genetics and lifestyle and suggests that the “wider determinants” have a lesser affect. The Director of Public Health would like to clarify that wider determinants also influence lifestyle, and thus lifestyle-related health. Our physical surroundings and the nature of our social and economic environment influence our mental health, our resilience to change and our health behaviours, for example whether we smoke, exercise or eat healthily. Thus, changes to the wider environment can have a significant effect on the population’s health. It is also worth noting that these health impacts can be multifaceted and complex, with multiple factors having the potential to compound impacts. For residents who may already be experiencing poor health, low income and deprivation, resilience to further changes to their communities, work and lives could be reduced. In-depth consultation with the affected communities is essential for assessing the health effects of HS2 in the short, medium and long term.
It is important to note that this assessment is based on our current understanding of the impacts based on the information provided in the WDES. It is not clear how any unintended consequences will be assessed and mitigated by HS2. Any mitigation should also be developed with the affected communities.
Question: Has the Doncaster Director of Public Health been consulted as per section 8.1.3? If not, please ensure this is carried out immediately.
The Communities
Section 8.3.16 of the WDES states; that the Local Authority area of Doncaster has broadly similar health status to the national averages and similar levels of deprivation. This is not correct; please see the Introduction section of this document and the Bibliography.
Community: Denaby
Denaby has a population of 6,885, approximately half the population falls within the 25-64 age group. As a community, Denaby faces a range of socio-economic and health challenges and its residents experience inequalities in relation to health, income and quality of life.
Denaby is part of the Conisbrough Ward, which is the fourth most deprived in Doncaster (Ward profile 2015). Income deprivation is significantly worse than the England average and Child Poverty and Older People in Deprivation measures are also significantly worse. A third of people live in means-tested benefits households. Health is generally worse than the England average; over a quarter of adults are obese, binge drinking is higher than in rest of England and healthy eating rates
3 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 4 are far worse. 22.9% of children in Reception Year have excess weight (are either overweight or obese), this rises to 38.2% in Year 6.
In this area, people are more likely to get ill and to die earlier. Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are significantly worse for this population than the England average, as is disability-free life expectancy. Twice as many people under the age of 65 die prematurely (all causes) in Denaby compared to England. In Denaby you are 2½ times more likely to die prematurely of coronary heart disease compared to the England average. Lung cancer rates are over double the England average and general health is significantly worse, as is prevalence of limiting long term illness or disability. This community has a higher number of unpaid carers, almost double the England average. Unemployment rates are also much worse than the England average in Denaby.
Community: Mexborough (East)
For the purposes of this HIA the data for Mexborough East has been utilised as it is most likely to be effected by HS2, however, Mexborough West also experiences a high level of deprivation and poor health outcomes. It is also expected to be affected by HS2 as it utilises the same town facilities and transport links as East Mexborough.
Mexborough East has a population of 6,267. As a community, Mexborough faces a range of socio- economic and health challenges and its residents experience inequalities in relation to health, income and quality of life. Mexborough as a whole is the third most deprived area in Doncaster (Ward Profile, 2015). Income deprivation is significantly worse than the England average and Child Poverty and Older People in Deprivation are also significantly worse. 1,416 people in Mexborough East live in means-tested benefits households. Health is generally worse than the England average. 32.1% of adults are obese, which is significantly greater than the England average, and 21% of children in Reception Year have excess weight.
In this area, people are more likely to get ill and to die earlier. Life expectancy for males and healthy life expectancy for both males and females are significantly worse for this population than the England average, as is disability-free life expectancy. All-cause premature mortality is significantly higher for the people of Mexborough East compared to the England. Lung cancer rates and deaths from respiratory disease are significantly higher than the England average and general health is significantly worse as is limiting long term illness or disability. This community also has a higher number of unpaid carers and a significantly higher proportion of pensioners living alone. Child development, GCSE attainment and unemployment rates are also much worse than the England average in Mexborough East.
Communities: Clayton, Harlington, Barnburgh, Hickleton
The villages of Clayton, Harlington, Barnburgh and Hickleton are quite different in size, population and location to the communities of Mexborough and Denaby. Although relatively less deprived, these villages still range between the 4th, 5th and 6th deciles on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2015). Life expectancy at birth for both males and females in this area is estimated at 80-82, which is better than in Mexborough and Denaby and many of the surrounding areas (ONS, 2009-15). It is worth noting that these rural areas may also hide pockets of poor health and deprivation (LGA, 2017).
4 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 5
These villages are rural and will generally face different challenges to health and wellbeing than the communities of Mexborough and Denaby. Although rural communities are in themselves diverse, they will share some challenges that could be exacerbated by the HS2 development. Rural communities are increasingly older and older people tend to experience worse health and need more care. Financial poverty in rural areas is highly concentrated in older people. Older people also have a greater need for access to health, care and social services and it is essential they are able to easily access those services for their general care and in emergencies. In addition to having less access to affordable housing and a higher proportion of “non-decent” and energy inefficient homes, rural communities tend to have worse access to amenities, health and social services and poorer access to digital communication, such as mobile phone coverage and internet. In some rural areas, social isolation (and the associated impacts on mental health) is increasing due to a range of factors, including changes in the population demographics and disproportionate closures of social hubs and amenities. Therefore, further changes to connectivity, accessibility and transport could impact upon the health and wellbeing of these rural communities the most.
The Director of Public Health requests:
• That community engagement aiming to identify the health impact of HS2 is undertaken and that there is a co-design approach to the mitigation. Mitigation should not be solely based upon physical (capital) changes but also improved access to services and assets such as:- . Enhanced dedicated psychological support e.g. counselling for those affected . Free public transport (for example, to Mexborough Montague Hospital or local community centres) which may also mitigate the impacts from increased traffic. . Alternative physical activity provision to overcome loss of informal activity (such as loss of open space) . Improved sound insulation for affected houses . Window cleaning for those houses that are on the routes of construction traffic or face construction
Transport (active travel, connectivity, services/shops)
A healthy environment provides people with the choice to use different transport modes and will have local facilities that are easily accessible to people walking, cycling and using public transport. This is important in terms of mental and physical health but also for the connectivity of the community to local shops, amenities and services.
During the construction phase, several areas are identified as compounds for the storage of construction materials, several of these are close to the affected communities. It is expected that construction will generate disruption from increased heavy traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, which will create an environment less conducive to active travel. In addition to this, the increased number of vehicles along the identified routes could also negatively affect the use of public transport. This will disruption will be greater for those reliant on public transport within the
5 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 6
Ravenfield to Clayton area; typically the most deprived communities, those on lower incomes or those living in rural areas that have to travel to essential services and amenities.
Disruption to the current transport infrastructure could lead to delays and unreliable services, relocation of bus stops, road diversions or closures and an increase in heavy goods vehicles moving through the communities. This will impact on emergency service responses for the affected communities, access to primary care and other services and also delivery of support within the home, for example; domiciliary care, health visiting and occupational therapy.
The ability to move within and between communities is essential to good health and wellbeing and to enable people to draw upon resources such as family, friends and social opportunities. Social isolation can lead to poor mental and physical health. Some residents rely upon friends and family for support and for care and this type of informal, unpaid care can have a positive impact on health and wellbeing and reduce demand on services. Changes to the transport infrastructure and connectivity could prevent this care and support taking place.
The additional traffic is likely to increase noise and dust levels within communities, again impacting negatively on health and wellbeing. Journey times are likely to be increased for some members of the community which can add pressure to already time restricted day to day living, for example, lengthened journeys to and from school and work. Some of the most significant local impacts to access include:
Access to Mexborough Montague Hospital if main routes are congested/re-directed Diversions increasing the cost of taxi rides, impacting the most vulnerable and those with long-term conditions who use taxis to attend appointments Ambulance and blue light response times may be impacted by traffic or diversions Increased use of services (primary care and mental health) for those residents affected by the construction – predominantly those experiencing mental health issues
The Director of Public Health asks that measures are put in place to:
Address active travel in and around the area. Ensure noise and dust levels are minimised. Ensure that day to day travel and access to services is not disrupted. This could include mapping local amenities, facilities and services and ensuring travel times do not increase for these. Ensure that planning is being undertaken to ensure that the temporary construction workforce can be accommodated locally and have its needs met locally, e.g. health services.
Housing
The significant loss of residential property along the route (63 properties) will have a major impact on the health and wellbeing of community members. The majority of these properties will be lost in the areas of greatest deprivation, thus exacerbating the existing health and wellbeing issues of individuals and the wider community. Two clear issues in relation to HS2 face the Shimmer estate. Firstly, the segregation of the Shimmer estate will lead to social and physical isolation which in turn will have a negative impact on the mental health and physical health of those left living there. Secondly, the upheaval associated with moving out of your home and community will have a
6 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 7 significant negative effect on the lives of the families living in the homes that have been compulsory purchased as part of the HS2 development.
The right homes and housing environment are essential to good health and wellbeing. Housing insecurity causes poor mental health and disruption to family life, including effects on access to education, health care and social support.
There is a potential for an increased need for certain modes of housing to accommodate the temporary workforce. This could impact on the rented sector and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). This could impact on the housing market for local people.
The Director of Public Health asks that measures will be put in place to:
• Support the health and quality of life of both those who will be displaced from the various locations and those who will remain in the Shimmer estate. • House the temporary workforce without impacting negatively upon the local community.
Economy and employment
Ten business accommodation units or sites will experience direct impacts from the HS2 development (Section 12.4.9). 8/10 of these are based in areas of high deprivation (Mexborough/Denaby). Businesses within the community will also experience similar impacts to those outlined for residents, including isolation, transport disruption and noise.
It is estimated in the WDES that 170 jobs will either be displaced or lost. The effects of displacement upon employees could be significant; people may have to travel further and may not have the means. Increased travel time could impact on family life, including carers’ roles. Changes in work location can be expected to impact more on low-paid employees and low income households, with increased travel costs reducing household budgets or potentially leading to unemployment if they are unable to travel to the relocated site. The stress related to insecure employment, changes to employment and unemployment can lead to poor mental health for both the employee and their family. Work related stress can lead significant mental health issues and potential loss of employment.
The Director Public Health asks that mitigation will be put in place to:
• Support employees affected by the closure or relocation of businesses.
And, that consideration is given to:
• Businesses that will be remaining in the location but who will be affected by changes to the area and the potential that they may lose custom. For example, this could be in relation to changes to accessibility such as road disruption.
Physical activity, recreation and local open green spaces
A diverse range of open green, blue and recreational space including woodland will be permanently lost or temporarily lost during the construction phase, which could be up to two years. These
7 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 8 include formal, informal and natural recreational areas which provide space for physical activity, play, learning and social interaction. These areas also have a high value in regards to the environment and biodiversity and include Barnburgh Lakes, Old Denaby Wetlands, Denaby Wood and Clayfield amenity green space. These losses will have a major adverse effect that would be significant on both the community and the natural environment.
Green space can have a positive impact on health and wellbeing, supporting good mental health and promoting physical and recreational activity. Free access to recreation is particularly important for the health of those who live in areas of deprivation and on low incomes. Removing recreational space from communities can have a substantial detrimental effect on physical and mental health of both adults and children and could impact on local levels of physical activity, leading to poorer long- term health.
We also note that there will be considerable change to the Public Rights of Way network, including the Trans Pennine Trail along the route. Public Rights of Way play an important role in enabling people to be physically active and to access local green spaces and amenities. They provide opportunities for leisure walking, cycling and horse riding which promote good mental and physical health. They also provide a green route for active travel ensuring exposure to poor air quality is minimised. The Director of Public Health understands that detours to Public Rights of Ways are planned; however, these detours are not natural desire lines and may lengthen journeys, be less attractive and discourage use by the public.
It is worth noting that even though a recreational space does not have amenities and facilities or may temporarily look undeveloped; it may still hold great value as a community asset, either as a well utilised space, a space for local nature or a potential asset that is currently underutilised. It is also important to consider that any identified alternative recreational areas and green space cannot be considered easy replacements for those that are lost. Different spaces will have different uses and characteristics and may be inconvenient and unattractive to residents, even if deemed close enough to the lost site.
In addition to the loss of green space, the health of local residents will be affected by the loss of access to leisure facilities. It is expected that Dearne Valley Leisure Centre will be affected in terms of access.
The Director of Public Health asks:
• That the community is involved in the designation of new routes to ensure that they are appropriate for future use. • That HS2 engages with Doncaster Culture and Leisure Trust regarding the impact of the construction of the viaduct on Dearne Valley Leisure Centre.
Equality, social cohesion, social capital and community
The construction of HS2 is expected to impact substantially on the quality of neighbourhoods and communities in these areas and the quality of life and health of the individuals living there. The HS2 development will create physical barriers, impact on connectivity and, in some cases, remove parts of communities. It has the potential to decrease community cohesion and create segregation.
8 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 9
A cohesive community can help protect people against life’s risks, it can provide a sense of belonging and help people interact with each other. It is essential step towards improving people’s quality of life. Poor community cohesion can lead to social isolation, a lack of social support for more vulnerable community members, community tensions and segregation and a loss of social assets.
Meaningful consultation is needed to gain a real understanding of the subjective impacts of HS2 on our communities. Impacts will be experienced differently by different sectors of the community, with the more vulnerable potentially experiencing more negative impacts. It is clear from the plans that several communities will dramatically change in terms of their physical structure, the surrounding environment, connectivity and assets; the quality and nature of an environment impacts upon the health and wellbeing of the people who live there. It is accepted within the plans (Section 8.4) that HS2 will impact on neighbourhood quality and health and wellbeing. The visual impact of HS2 cannot be entirely mitigated against and will impact upon the tranquillity and visual quality of neighbourhoods, negatively affecting the mental health of residents. This will be particularly detrimental for those communities close to construction sites during the construction phase. Clear examples of this are the Shimmer Estate and Clayton where HS2 will significantly and negatively change the experience of living there for the residents, both during construction and the operational phrase.
The Director of Public Health asks that:
• Any mitigating actions are coproduced in partnership with communities and people affected.
Education
The HS2 route passes close to a number of local Primary Schools. During the construction and operational phase of HS2 they can be expected to be affected in ways similar to that of residents moving around the area, for example, increases in noise, traffic, pollution and disruption to travel routes. In addition to the aforementioned health impacts, there is the additional negative effect upon the education of the children and their future life chances.
The Director of Public Health asks:
• That discussions take place with schools and parents/carers to ensure that any disruption that impacts on the education of the children is minimised.
Crime reduction and Community Safety
Community safety is a concept that is concerned with achieving a positive state of well-being among people within social and physical environments. Not only is it about reducing and preventing injury and crime, it is about building strong, cohesive, vibrant, participatory communities. This means the perception of safety is as important as measuring injury and crime rates. Examples where perception may alter behaviour are:
People fearing the increase in volume and type of traffic; this could lead to people not letting children play out, walk to friends, work or school for example.
9 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 10
Changes in the demographics of the communities due to an influx of additional workers affecting community perceptions of trust and security. The effect of the changes in moving about the community. For example, with regards to travelling under the proposed viaduct and underpasses and how people feel about their safety when using those routes.
In addition to the aforementioned impacts, there is also a risk that during the construction stage storage of materials and equipment could attract crime and anti-social behaviour. In addition to this, the increased risk of suicide in relation to the viaduct and train lines and potential road safety hotspots created by diversions and increased traffic should be considered.
The Director of Public Health asks:
• That the community is involved in the design of the infrastructure to ensure it is appropriate and safe to use • That road safety is considered within the proposals.
Air quality and noise
Air quality is one of the biggest environmental factors for poor health. There are no safe levels of air pollution. Changes to air quality will most likely impact on the health of local people during the construction phase; issues relate to increased dust and particulate matter and also pollution from vehicles such as exhaust fumes. This can lead to an increase in the symptoms of those suffering from lung disease and the fine particles can be carried deep into the lungs where they cause inflammation and a worsening of heart and lung disease. Carbon monoxide prevents the uptake of oxygen by the blood and thus a reduction in the supply to the heart. We know that people living in the most deprived areas of the Ravenfield to Clayton route, i.e. Denaby and Mexborough already experience a higher prevalence of lung cancer and heart disease and it is likely any increase in air pollution would further impact on their health. In addition to this, we expect that the rerouted traffic may go through at least two-thirds of our Air Quality Management Areas (Marr and Hickleton).
It appears that the effects of noise and vibration have not yet been fully investigated for the construction phase of Ravenfield to Clayton. High exposure to noise can have an impact upon the health and wellbeing of local residents; it can disturb sleep and impact on mental health. Chronically ill and older people are more sensitive to disturbance. Shift workers are at increased risk because their sleep structure is under stress. Operational noise has the potential to impact on mental health and physical health, as enjoyment of the outdoors is diminished and the quality of the local area is affected.
The Director of Public Health expects:
• That a thorough baseline assessment in relation to air quality and noise, taking into account the demographic make-up of each area is completed by HS2 before any construction work commences. • In relation to the Air Quality Management Areas, not only should a baseline be established but ongoing monitoring should take place to determine any changes.
10 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 11
Also, HS2 has already started construction in other areas:
• What measures have been put in place and what evaluation of the impacts thus far have taken place to inform the minimisation of noise and vibration of Phase 2b?
11 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e
Sheet 12
Bibliography
CDRC, 2011-2016. CDRC Data Doncaster Maps. [Online] Available at: https://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/geodemographics/oac11/default/BTTTFFT/10/- 1.1264/53.5208/ [Accessed November 2018].
DEFRA, 2018. Air pollution. [Online] Available at: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/ [Accessed November 2018].
Doncaster Data Observatory, 2015. Mexborough ward Profile. [Online] Available at: file:///C:/Users/KarenH/Downloads/Mexborough.pdf [Accessed November 2018].
Local Government Association, 2017. Health and wellbeing of Rural Areas. [Online] Available at: file:///S:/PH_Specialists/shared%20documents/HS2/stuff%20we%20need%20for%20response/LGA %20rural%20areas%20doc.pdf [Accessed November 2018].
PHE, 2015. Preventing Suicide in Public Places. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /481224/Preventing_suicides_in_public_places.pdf [Accessed November 2018].
PHE, 2018. Public Health Outcomes Framework. [Online] Available at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/public-health-outcomes- framework/data#page/0/gid/1000049/pat/6/par/E12000003/ati/102/are/E08000017 [Accessed November 2018].
Public Health England, 2011-2016. Local Health: Doncaster 030 MSOA. [Online] Available at: http://www.localhealth.org.uk/GC_preport.php?lang=en&codgeo=E02001568&nivgeo=msoa_2011 &id_rep=r01 [Accessed November 2018].
WHO, 2018. Noise: Data and statistics. [Online] Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/data-and- statistics [Accessed November 2018].
12 | A n n e x 2 : P a g e