IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2014 HS2 PETITION
Against the Bill - On Merits - Praying to be heard.
TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF AYLESBURY PARK GOLF CLUB LIMITED
SHEWETH as foUows:-
1. A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced and is now pending in your honourable House entitled "A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes"
2. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary McLoughlin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary Eric Pickles, Secretary Owen Paterson, Secretary Edward Davey, and Mr Robert Goodwill.
3. Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway mentioned in paragraph 1 above. They include provision for the construction of works, highways and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. They include clauses which would disapply and modify various enactments relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries,
4. Clauses 3 7 to 42 of the Bill deal with the regulatory regime for the railway.
5. Clauses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provisions, including provision for the appointment of a Nominated Undertaker ("the Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under the Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision about the compulsoiy acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement works and provision about further high speed railway works. Provision is also made about the application of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. Clause 47 of the Bill deals with powers of compulsory acquisition of land.
The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill, They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and other works, which are described in clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill.
1 Petitioner Your Petitioner is the Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited. The company has a leasehold of 25-years from the Emest Cook Trust, the freehold owner or the larger estate with several leaseholders. The officers of the company are Geoffrey Legouix, Chairman Jack Woodford and Carole Barnes. Geoffrey Legouix is the petitioner officer who is authorised to represent the interests of the company, the golf club, the members and employees who are directly and specially affected by the Bill froni the surface works, land take and alignment of 1.75Km of rail route across the course and leasehold land.
Your Petitioner is located at Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited Andrews Way, Coldharbour Way, Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP 17 8QQ and is a local community amenity.
Your Petitioner has the leasehold for 173 acres of park land protected by Covenants from English Heritage and English Nature and loses most of the course area through land take and construction.
Your Petitioner practices ecological and environmental stewardship to preserve, conserve, protect and manage the flora and fauna and mussels, fish, reptiles, bats and birds.
Your Petitioner's petitioner officer is representing the interests of the golf club members for some of the hundreds of local people who want to continue to use the facility. Some members including the Chairman are also directly and specially affected by the HS2 works across the adjacent farms and River Thame, as are the 11 employees who would lose their jobs on closure of the business.
2 Concerns Under the Bill the scheme receives deemed planning permission and details the terms under which a Local Planning Authority may refuse to approve plans and specifications of any operation, or works. The terms are unnecessarily restrictive and fail to offer sufficient protective interests and property.
Your Petitioner is concerned that the recent failure of Aylesbury Vale District Council to complete the local plan to the satisfaction of the Govemment arid the reduction in resources in the Councils when HS2 iinpacts have imposed more requirements for such a large number of planning considerations to be assessed and the best route, changes to roads and land use objectives may not have been achieved.
Permanency and amount of land take Your Petitioner objects to the disclosures in the draft and Environmental Statements ahd in the Bill plans and sections to the increasing extent of land take particularly for the Aylesbury Park Golf Club course, the adjoining football pitches and the Chairman's adjacent field and the Sedrup farm, all within the Emest Cook Trust freehold, a total rail length of 4Km. The land take destroys the Club and course. This is not compliant with SEA and Environniental Impact Assessment outcomes and this loss was not included in the public consultation, or represented by the Appraisal of Sustainability (AOS) or the Buckinghamshire County Council environmental baseline. A one track each way railway does not require the widths of land take for the corridor and for safeguarding land which are currently used as an amenity for the golf course and football pitches. From Wendovfer to Chipping Warden the Environmental Statement and the Bill exhibit extensive land take areas over and above requirements for the diversion of utilities, access and construction of a HS2 route and roads resulting in petitions. Land Acquisition The Environmental Statement prepared for the Department of Transport and the HS2 project which outlines the permanent and temporary works to be carried out along the HS2 route sections was not presented in 2010/2011 for the public consultation.
Your Petitioner objects to and requires clarification for why the extent of land is required and the nature of uses of open spaces of land and the periods of time each area of land is required.
Your Petitiorier submits that the land acquisition and acquisition of rights sought in respect of the land interests go beyond that which is reasonably required and other solutions can be investigated by the Promoter which do not require the extent of surface land take, or require construction traffic to use the property, resulting in the loss of 13 of the golf holes / fairways and some other play areas as well.
Construction Your Petitioner is concemed about the construction and seeks undertakings and assurances from the Promoters as regards the detailed management of construction worksites so as to prevent loss of amenity to residents, including loss of golf course playing areas and open spaces during the construction period. The physical area of each proposed worksite should be kept to a minimum with the safety of the public, whether golfer, walker, visitor, pedestrians, or road users, being of paramount importance.
Impacts during Construction Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should be compelled to use Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the construction of infrastructure, roads and the railway and its associated works and structures to ensure that the noise, vibration, emissions, disruptions and construction period adverse effects are minimised. Your Petitioner submits that strict standards should be set beyond those currently envisaged by the Promoter and to which the Promoter must be made Uable to comply.
(a) Visual amenity Your Petitioner is concemed that the proposed construction activities will give rise to significant impacts on the visual amenity of the users of the golf club. The works will also be intrusive to your Petitioner's club and course.
(b) Noise Your Petitioner is concerned by the nuisance effects of noise arising from the construction of the proposed works and seeks provision in this regard within the Bill or binding assurances from the Promoter in this regard including the matters referred to in this petition.
Throughout the whole of the construction period your Petitioner's occupation and enjoyment of the property will be detrimentally affected by noise associated with the works. Your Petitioner operates a golf club and course which relies on the ability of its employees, members to conduct their services and leisure activities without interruption or disturbance.
The Environmental Statement acknowledges that peak noise and other levels at some properties are expected to exceed recommended levels. Your Petitioner is concerned at the prospect of high levels of noise in the club house and course emanating from the worksite adjacent to and in its property. Works may include piling and diaphragm walling rigs, cranes and excavators and as a consequence will have a substantial impact on your Petitioner's occupation and uses of the property, creating disruption and nuisance for all and transform the current environment. Construction traffic will also contribute to the increased noise associated with the works.
The construction works for the cutting and embankment will involve considerable disturbance to the areas in question with the consequent danger of unearthing or disturbing the large water pipeline and turf and surface by wheel rutting and plant/vehicle movements and compromising drainage/ditches. The Bill makes no provision for adequate measures in terms of pre-excavation site investigation and safety measures to be employed in working in such sensitive areas. Your Petitioner seeks amendment to the Bill Schedules to provide for mitigation of these adverse effects in an appropriate manner and to secure compensation if works do cause disruption to your Petitioner's business and use of the course,
(c) Privacy Your Petitioner provides a calm, safe and pleasant working environnient for all of its employees. As well as ensuring that the club house and course are as conducive as possible to the type of work and activities carried On there.
Your Petitioner provides for all of its employees facilities to improve their working day, including a kitchen, bar and welfare facilities, Duririg the construction and surrounding works, parts of your Petitioner's golf course are particularly vulnerable to the HS2 Route 3 development works.
This will infringe the privacy of your Petitioner's guests, employees, members and people using the facilities and course to the detriment of their working environment, well being and golf experiences,
(d) Intrusion of dust/emissions Your Petitioner seeks undertakings that strategies for avoiding (or, as a far less preferable altemative, reducing) the impact of dust and other air quality emissions will be agreed with it prior to the relevant construction works taking place and thereafter adhered to. In addition, your Petitioner requires indemnities in respect of any losses, damages, claims and expenses caused by or suffered as a result of dust and emissions arising from the works,
3 Adverse outcomes Loss and Compensation The provisions contained within the Bill for compensation for the compulsory purchase of subsoil or new other rights may not enable your Petitioner or other lessees or landowners to recover the full loss and expenses which they will incur as a consequence of the exercise of such powers. Your Petitioner therefore submits that the Bill should be aniended to rectify this.
Your Petitioner further submits that the compensation provisions proposed in the Bill are inadequate to compensate your Petitioiier for the loss, damage and inconvenience, atteibutable to blight to their properties, which they have already suffered or may now suffer more as a result of the prospective construction and subsequent loss of use due to the proposed works.
Your Petitioner further submits that the Promoter should be required to indemnify them from all claims and demands which may be made in consequence of the coiistmetion, use or maintenance of the \yorks under the Bill, or their failure, or want of repair, or in consequence of any act, or omission of the Promoter, his Nominated Undertaker, contractors, or agents, or other organisation in carrying out or preparing to carry out the works or enabling activities directly or associated With or as a result of the works under the Bill,
Your Petitioner objects to the inclusion of part of their property in the definition of Work Number 2/28, 2/49, 2/50 and other Work Numbers of the Bill as it destroys the golf club and course.
Your Petitioner respectfully questions the HS2 in its currently proposed alignment which serves no local need for Aylesbuiy rail commuters and results in damages from the M25 to Chipping Warden.
Your Petitioner submits that compulsion through a Bill should include an express obligation on the Promoter to undertake specific measures to limit damage to the property on the route of the works. Such measures should include establishing a schedule of conditions prior to commencement of the works for the incorporation of specific measures agreed with your Petitioner to the affected property in order to protect individual areas, continuous monitoring during the course of the works and determine any revised schedule of condition during and/or following completion of works and regular monitoring of the area in the first ten years of railway operation. Without such provision, there is inadequate protection for lessees, landowners and occupiers and users of the golf club against the potential effects of the works, unless the route alignment is changed to reduce the foreseen damage.
The Bill does not make any provision for compensation for the extent of physical damage caused by the construction of HS2 and in particular does not provide for the protection of the course, or the compensation of your Petitioner. Your Petitioner therefore submits that the Bill be amended so that your Petitioner will be fully compensated for all costs and losses incurred as a result of the works.
As a general matter, your Petitioner submits that provision be made to repay to your Petitioner all proper costs, charges and expenses (including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct) reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a result of this petition.
Your Petitioner objects to no provision for recovery of extra costs to reimburse for additional joumey tinies and costs during construction for your Petitioner and/or others when visits to and firomth e HS2 impacted areas are required.
Your Petitioner is concerned that the provisions in the Bill for renewal of compulsory purchase powers and planning permission are too widely drawn and prolong the period of blight suffered by your Petitioner's golf club and others. Whilst the renewal of compulsory acquisition powers is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, your Petitioner humbly submits that greater protection should be given to the occupier of land affected by the proposed works through regulation of the circumstances in which such renewal may be ordered. In the event that the validity of the powers, or the planning permission is extended, your Petitioner seeks provision for the affected land owner and your Petitioner to be consulted and to be given the opportunity to make representations. During a time limit for compulsory acquisition powers and implementation of planning permission circumstances can change significantly and so too the impact of the exercise of such powers or the implementation of such permission. It is essential that impacts should be comprehensively reassessed. Your Petitioner submits that the same considerations should apply to the power to correct deposited plans.
Compulsory Purchase If it is shown to the satisfaction of your Honourable House that the compulsory purchase of your Petitioner's property is the only viable option, your Petitioner will argue that the Promoter should be required to fond, find and locate early an altemative appropriate golf club and course in the same area, in consultation with your Petitioner to be made ready ahead of closure of your Petitioner's golf club and course. In particular, your Petitioner is advised that if the Bill proposes to adopt as a general act the Lands (Clauses Consolidation) Act 1845, which, they are advised, this is outmoded and unsuitable one hundred and sixty years later, having regard to curtailment of compensation which appears to be in breach of Human Rights,
Your Petitioner submits that any compulsory acquisition of the land should not occur unless compelling and overriding reasons can be demonstrated, which your Petitioner asserts is not the case in the instance. In the light of the foregoing, your Petitioner contends that inadequate justification has been made out for the proposed interference with their rights, interests and property under the provision of the Bill from the current alignment and surface works HS2 Route 3 by Aylesbury,
4 Community facility improves local behaviour Your Petitioner's interests are likely to be the subject of compulsory purchase under the Bill. Your Petitioner's interests are considerably affected by its provisions. It is your Petitioner' view that people and organisations such as themselves who are lessees affected by the works should be treated under the principles of proportionality in terms of the treatment afforded to the owners of interests in land. The number of users of the golf club in the past year has increased from the closure of the only other local golf course. HS2 is creating a loss of significant enjoyment to many people near Aylesbury. Your Petitioner is gravely concemed about the adverse effect that worksites will have upon user behaviour and safety, vandalism, crime and fear of crime and the golf and football community facilities. Golf club management and local Parish groups and Councillors have contributed a great deal to overcoming the negative image and behaviours associated with parts of the area. Community involvement and increasing use of the club has helped overcome some of the local youth behavioural problems. This position is fragile and would be undermined by a reduction in the use of the golf club. The works and abandonment of the club will result in more opportunities for anti-social and unsafe behaviour that the worksites will encourage with young people and unmanaged spaces. This is why the proposed wetland scheme is not supported by your Petitioner and the club management.
5 Golf Club Your Petitioner fears, for example, that prospective users of the club and course will feel that that the proposals may so blight the courses and golf club environments so that prospective or existing members and users will demand a considerably reduced fee, due to the prospect of the works. Further provisions should be included in the Bill including provisions respecting the making and assessment of claims for compensation to indemnify your Petitioner for any loss they might suffer that is attributable to the proposed works and their effect on your Petitioner's business interest. Furthermore, compensation should be available for any loss (so attributable) which your Petitioner might suffer in the event of them not being able to keep their property functioning (in whole, or in part) to existing, or new users, or in the event of them only being able to do so at a reduced premium and income.
Itl addition, your Petitioner submits that the Environmental Statement that accompanies the Bill does not identify, nor provide for appropriate construction mitigation measures against the detrimental impact of the current HS2 route alignment near the club house, car parking and across the main 18 hole and short 9 hole courses.
The club is regularly presented as an example of excellence by users and visitors. It is respectfully submitted that the rights and interests of your Petitioner, users of the golf club and others who live and work in its vicinity, will be injuriously affected by the Bill if it is passed into law in its present form. Accordingly, your Petitioner objects to the Bill for these reasons, among others.
Accordingly, your Petitioner would respectfolly suggest that adequate consideration should be given by the Promoter to save the community facilities of this golf club and football pitches by using another rail route or construction altemative in the broad corridor to the proposed plan and design of Route 3 Phase 1. DFT/HS2 can minimise, or avoid the detrimental impacts on the golf club/football pitches and its surrounding communities which have advised of significant damages from Stoke Mandeville to Chetwode, including the villages of Fleet Marston, Quainton, Calvert, Twyford and Chetwode, Your Petitioner believes such altematives do exist and short tannelling through ridges can be beneficial to reduce road works congestion and the use of spoil disposal options can enhance nearby flood prone land areas to be suitable for housing. Your Petitioner knows it is possible to stop the closure of this community golf club using an altemative alignment.
The golf club is deliberately designed and laid out for specific activities in specific places, to meet specific needs of people. This is one of the reasons why it attracts old and young people and why it is seen as an exemplar of a green course creation. The specific areas proposed to be lost from use by HS2 are the pitches and courses. These are very heavily used. These were explicitly designed to relieve play pressure from neighbouring schools and the local community. Recently the nearest golf club closed in Aylesbury. Emest Cook Trust planned ahead to meet such needs in an intelligent way, and it would be widely resented if these sports and leisure areas are destroyed by the HS2 scheme.
The golf club is designated as park land and there is presumption against any development. The Promoters DfT/HS2 have nonetheless taken an 'easy option' and they have not attempted to avoid or offer any land as is sometimes the case with transport schemes. This part of the park land will be out of use for a decade, with the site preparation, the actual use for spoil dumping, and the inevitably slow withdrawal of works activity. That is the whole of the childhood of many local children, and part of it for almost all the others. The concept 'temporary' means something entirely different to a:- child.
Reconfiguration of the golf course has been considered and it has not been possible to achieve a viable main 18 hole course. Your petitioning officer has significant experience constructing courses.
The preparation of the drawings for a new golf club and course requires a period of approximately 16 months, but reviews to date indicate insufficient areas and fairway lengths can be recovered from the works impacts, HS2 has suggested reconfiguration but has not demonstrated this. The Promoter's HS2 project has been in gestation for many years. Your Petitioner regards the changes on the golf club and course as a matter requiring forther investigation of HS2 alignments. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the HS2 Promoters have been concenfrating mainly on the principal objective of building a railway line and route, whilst paying little heed to avoiding the impacts on other businesses. Detrimental changes to Sedrup, the A4I8 and the golf club's foture are now clearer.
The time predicted for the construction of this proposed HS2 Route 3 section is between three to six years. Your Petitioner considers that the loss of the local leisure facilities for people for this length of time is most unacceptable.
Your Petitioner objects to the HS2 Route 3 selection. Your Petitioner's many customers, the owners, staff and the local residents of Aylesbury (in particular those living within a IKm radius in Fairford Leys) who use your Petitioner's open access pay and play facility require a local course. This golf course will be destroyed by HS2 Route 3 and this will be a loss of a local facility for Aylesbury town residents forever, A move of the HS2 route to another route alignment in the broad corridor will resolve the desfruction of this facility and sustain Aylesbury's local leisure access and add to well being and fitnessan d to result in much lower impacts along the Vale with far fewer people impacted.
The course has space and shape constraints and cannot fonction or remain viable if the 18 holes cannot be retained.
In addition to the operational requirements of the property, a total of some 30 cars of golfers and employees are regularly parked at the property. The availability of this parking is fundamental to the operations of the property.
Your Petitioner objects to HS2 Route 3 because the excessive loss of land from the course will significantly decrease the capacity of the golf course. One course is the main course of 18 holes and fairways which are easily walked by older golfers and the other is a 9 hole short course where leamers including children play.
6 Socio Economic Your Petitioner, employees and members do object to the proposed route as it divides the Aylesbury Park Golf Club and course resulting in loss of a business and local employment.
The Bill is being promoted without the better business proposals and shows little regard to the blight it has created and imposed and uncertainty has resulted. It is humbly submitted that your Honourable House should satisfy itself to the cumulative negative socio-economic impacts across Aylesbury Vale before allowing the Bill to pass into law. These impacts were not detailed by HS2.
Relocation Relocation for some businesses is an altemative and your Petitioner seeks assurances that HS2 will implement an adequate early relocation sfrategy to enable golfing to continue. Your Petitioner wants to be consulted on and have input into relocation^ so as to ensure that employment and memberships can be retained wherever possible. Your Petitioner wishes to receive assurances that any costs incurred in relation to the above by way of professional fees would be reimbursed by the Promoter, 7 Human Riglits The loss of the local football pitches alongside the golf club and course within the Ernest Cook Trust Estate will be lost for people to use and this concems your Petitioner, as currently there may be some resulting cr iminal and destructive impacts which may increase with loss of regular uses of these areas and change of use their contributions to the community are recognised locally. The losses of these amenities to local sport and leisure capabilities are Unacceptable to your Petitioner and numbers of members and users of the golf club. There will be long term losses to schoolchildren in this area of Aylesbury as soon as intrusive surveying and frial hole works commence to make the areas inaccessible or unsafe for people to use. Your Petitioner respectfully requests HS2 and related works are banned in the areas of the course for as long as possible to support freedom of association.
Your Petitioner submits that in its current form and without fortheramendmen t or provision as sought by your Petitioner the Bill is incompatible with the right of your Petitioner and its users to peacefolly enjoy its property and to carry on business. The Bill would unfairly interfere with such right contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and fails to provide your Petitioner with sufficient right of participation in foture determinations of your Petitioner's rights (for example in relation to the extension of the time limit for planning permission) confrary to Article 6 of the Convention, In particular, in your Petitioner's submission, the wide and extendable powers available to the Promoter and the inadequate provision for compensation in particular circumstances with which your Petitioner may be presented renders the Bill incompatible with the Convention.
8 Railway Your Petitioner accepts that HS2 Limited and the DfT were trying to address limited rail route issues and are still amending their framework and plans in May 2014 after a number of public consultations have not endorsed the route across Buckinghamshire as expressed by HS2, DfT and questioned by some MPs, Select Committees, recognised think tanks, academics and charities.
Your Petitioner does iiot object in principle to decisions to modemise the rail network but does object to this proposed route dissecting the golf course for little local rail users' commuting benefits.
Other railway proposals have been reviewed from IntefCity Connect (ICC) and HS2 (UK) and others which widen the railway services from a new route with more connections to the Network Rail lines.
9 Rail Route A dedicated passenger-only one frackeac h way route may be unreliable and unavailable and the WCML is satarated with too many short trains whilst there are increasing volumes of road and rail freight and an increasing population but, more people have less per capita incomes and demand for longest journey daily commuting is limited by cost and earnings. Your Petitiorier considers the HS2 Route 3 Phase 1 alignment through the golf course will not resolve most of these issues.
Your Petitioner does not object in principle to the decision to consfruct rail frackst o enhance the rail network but objects to this proposed HS2 Route 3 Phase 1 as it does not provide the capacity and capabilities for the wider rail uses. HS 1 now provides Eurostar European city to city passenger rail services. Javelin commuter Kent to London rail commuter services and some EU rail freight services.
Your Petitioner understands proposals exist for a rail route corridor to the west of Aylesbury that would serve the M40, Bicester and Banbury populations and enable access to many thousands of people using the M40 with a station near Heathrow for people in cars on the M4 and M25 to the west of London. This is proposed by InterCity Connect. There is another proposal along the Ml from HS2 (UK) near to Milton Keynes. Other routes using short to longer realignments in the broad corridor can realign Route 3. There is one route realignment from Ruislip to Chipping Warden which will enable the WCML and HS2 to be interconnected near Tring to increase the operational effectiveness, reliability and availability. These route changes avoid the golf course and Aylesbury Vale's villages. 10 Roads, accesses, viaducts, bridges, road, rail and river crossings Building new road and other infrasfrucfore or upgrading existing road infrasfructare through ridges during the consfruction of HS2 can avoid/reduce the road fraveldanger s that will iriipact your Petitioner's business and wider road safety near to Aylesl)ury on the A418, A41 and local roads.
Your Petitioner submits that safeguards should be provided to ensure that pedesfrian and vehicular access to the golf club and course property are not resfricted and that fraffic riianagementi s arranged to mitigate disruption to road and pedesfrian fraffic movements to and from the golf course and the football pitches that share an access road and some parking areas currently.
Your Petitioner submits there is a reserved route along the side of the golf course and Fairfof d Leys and Coldharbour where there was an intention to align a road from the A41 to the A4l3 ;
Your Petitioner submits that adoption of an alternative design of route would significantly mitigate impacts on the A418 by removing the need for the temporary works and the associated worksites. Your Petitioner obj ects to the proposal in the Bill for the temporary closures of local roads such as the A418 to construction traffic not having the on and off road confrols established prior to the Bill, Details can be established to the satisfaction of your Honourable House that the Route 3 at this location requires extensive surface road works and an altemative design which tunnels under main roads as can be achieved near Upton, Chearsley and Ashendon and could be adopted and the Bill amended to require this within the broad corridor of the route.
Your Petitioner submits that the Nominated Undertaker should be required to provide continuous access to the golf club throughout the duration of the works and permanent provision for those whose mobility is impaired, in a form to be agreed with your Petitioner, and reinstated at the conclusion of the works.
Your Petitioner submits there are not details defining the meaning of temporary in the Bill documents.
Road Safety Provision HS2 can reassess with the Police and Councils the A418 changes near Sedrup, local roads and A41 to ensure the dangers near Lower Hartwell/Stone and Fleet Marston are addressed in detail in an SEA,
Your Petitioner requires more scaled route and earth works cross sections for a SEA review for each 250 mefres along HS2, as well as where roads are being changed every 50 metres along the road. This is to enable landowners and others to understand the shapes of cuttings and embankments and to verify if excavated and disposed groUnd/soil can be accommodated locally, or not, in a SEA review.
Construction Traffic Consfruction traffic, spoil removal vehicles and the workforce will generate substantial traffic increases. To deal with the routing of lorries and other vehicles, access to worksites, hours of operation, size of vehicles and related niatters arrangenients should be subject to your Petitioner's agreements. The Nominated Undertaker can be required to minimise the cumulative impact of lorry movements by proper management to keep the number of movements to a minimum, using the HS2 route for most movement and confining movements to normal worksite hours, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees otherwise.
Construction Traffic Impacts Your Petitioner objects that the Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker to do consfruction works which are estimated to take over 2 years near Aylesbury to complete and will include many construction operation and logistics lorry, van and car worker movements creating wide local congestion across Aylesbury Vale, the creation of dust and noise, poor air quality through emissions and particulates, and in some locations 24 hour working. These will inevitably lead to dismption and delays fpr your Petitioner and the people visiting and using the club.. Your Petitioner objects to the lack of detail of the fraffic associated with HS2 consfructioh and surveys that will enter and'Operate within the land, plots and the Work Numbers in the Bill, Plans and Sections. The access from the A418 will be more dangerous as detailed in the Environmental Statement Reports, Maps and Bill, The consfruction fraffic access is infrusive for the property. Where access routes are required and agreed by local farmers and your Petitioner, they should be able to sustain the weight and use of loaded farm vehicles and consfruction vehicles. The constmction fraffic route across the Aylesbury Park Golf Club and courses should be removed and access resfricted to the route corridor from the A418 directly on to the HS2 constmction haul road or using Rabans Lane,
Your Petitioher objects to the impact of HS2 Route 3 on the public's accesses to rights of way as the HS2 section between the A418 and the A41 is popular with people, golfers, walkers and horse riders.
11 Hartwell High Bridge and Viaduct The very high bridge Works No 2/50 spanning the HS2 route near Hartwell House and Hotel will exacerbate the local noise levels by reflecting the sound forther and is a precarious for pedesfrians due to the lack of protection. This may lead to incidents from objects thrown on to the fast moving trains from the bridge. The previous HS2 viaduct permitted surface access under the route and would be more usefol than the embankment for your Petitioner to use some of the land and be accessed and used in the fotare at ground level not over this high bridge.
12 Tunnel The Nominated Undertaker should be required to provide, in advance of commencement of tannelling, details of expected impacts on the course and property within the zone of influence of underground works. This information should be supplied to your Petitioner, owners and other interested parties as appropriate, and should be accompanied by a statement of the method by which the impact is to be monitored before, during and after consfruction. Furthermore, the Nominated Undertaker should be required to carry out appropriate safeguarding works including full condition surveys and monitoring. The proposals for the works should be submitted to your Petitioner and to the land owners, other lessees and implemented in a form agreed by your Petitioner.
The Environmental Statement does not address concems arising from the particular geological circumstances of the location. Uncertainty about the proposed works and their impacts will prejudice opportanities for regeneration that has blighted the usefol life of the property and business value.
13 Channel/Cutting Your Petitioner requests the Promoter demonsfrates the narrowest vertical wall cuttings and embankments across the course and details of the narrowest worksite arrahgements to reduce land take and course space lost. Channel cutting and viaduct widths of less than 26 mefres are required.
14 Traffic on Construction Sites Your Petitioner is concemed about the potential effects on road fraffic^ pedestrians and property owners near and on route to worksites. Your Petitioner is concemed to ensure that the businesses is properly compensated for damage caused by the constmction and use and loss of land by the Promoter ahd/or others engaged by the Pronioter for the Promoter's work and most importantly that your Petitioner is consulted folly as regards the consfruction programme. This has not been the case.
There should be provision for compensation to be paid to people and businesses when the congestion reaches established thresholds considered to breach reasonable times and queue lengths.
15 Alternatives Alternatively, your Petitioner considers that a change to the route for which there are several proposals has to be a better option especially when it offers far less severe community, club and environmental impacts and serves the wider rail service needs. Your Petitioner would be able to continue as a community golf course for local people if the HS2 Route 3 was constructed with a dive under bored tannel from Sedrup, the A418 and; under your Petitioner's Aylesbury Park Golf course and the River Thame to Putlowes Farm and A41, This is a feasible project which will provide hiaximum protection for the many hohies in Fairford Leys, Coldharbour and Sedrup and the golf club and course. This provides minimum road dismption to the people using the A418 road. It also maintains more development land area potential for housing near to Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury as well as near Fleet Marston for planned housing developments.
Examination of locations between Bletchley and Bicester for an altemative IMD identified one near Bicester and another near Winslow along the East West rail route. An altemative more sympathetic alignment for sections of HS2 will avoid exfreme impacts to mral villages and the golf club. This will permit an alignment either to the west of Aylesbury or to the east of Aylesbury to avoid significant irhpacts with no local rail commuting benefits. A SEA may review several feasible altematives.
Changes to the planned route will serve more local rail and commuter requirements than HS2 Route 3 Phase 1 achieves across Buckinghamshire currently.
This can include altemative route alignments to remove the current adverse track slope in the Chiltem tannel due to HS2's failure to propose a tannel across the entire length of the Chiltern's at a specific elevation and by emerging high at South Heath. There are shorter and less expensive tunnel alignments between the M25 and the north side of the Chiltems for example Ruislip towards Tring.
Your Petitioner welcomes consideration by the Promoter to alternatives including the use of a tannel- boring machine (TBM) for a tunnel from Sedrup under the River Thame, under the A418 and golf course. Such altematives would obviate the need to excavate some of the course surface. Your Petitioner doesn't believe, however, that adequate consideration has been given to the benefits of route altematives to avoid the impacts on the club to sustain the use of the course. In particular, your Petition does not agree that benefits of an altemative would be resfricted to the immediate vicinity of the property by the consideration of the broad corridor. These can reduce the impacts along cenfral rural Buckinghamshire by reducing consfruction vehicle disruption and extent of works on villages .
Furthermore, your Petitioner believes that information can negate the claim that an alternative would result ih costs and programme delays. Your Petitioner respectfully suggest that avoidance of the negative environmental impacts and associated disruptions affecting the use of the club and neighbouring communities, alongside the reduction in the impacts on communities from rOad works can more than justify changing the Route 3 alignments. The alignment through ridges can be helpfol.
Your Petitioner has not seen convincing evidence that the Prohioter of the Bill has properly considered all route altematives. For example the ICC and HS2 (UK) routes in the 2009 HS2 areas.
Furthermore, yoUr Petitioner is disappoihted that the Bill pays insufficient attention to mitigation or compensation connected with the consfruction of the best Chiltem tannel alignment. The latter consfruction may cost £2 Billion for a foil length tannel. The tannel length(s) depend(s) on eleVatioh;
Your Petitioner suggests that there are altematives which have lower inipacts on your Petitioner's club property as well as private functions businesses. Aiterhative plans will reduce impacts on the club and course by tunnelling and/or alignments changes. Other configurations can provide wider rail commuter benefits as experienced where Javelin uses HSl for faster London/Kent commuting.
The use of a different route will prqvide more commuting capacity with longer intercity distant rail services cohnecting with more numerous rail lines, provide more cohnections, and avoid expensive arid environmentally impacts at Aylesbury Vale,
Your Petitioner envisages that there is also adequate land available for route enhancements to the Chiltem Line, WCML, Midlapd Mainline and the East Coast Mairiline that can provide increased capacities on all the mairi North/South rail routes to meet the capacity iricf ease requirements of the 18' train paths each hour in each direction HS2 aims to deliver without intermediate stations. -.
If it is deemed essential that frains use the HS2 Route 3 your Petitioner humbly suggests to the Honourable House that a better proposition, in respect of Aylesbury, would be achieved if DfT/HS2 Limited realigned the section in Work Numbers 2/27,2/28, 2/49, 2/50,2/51/51A and 2/52. The costs are similar and there is time in the consfruction for the rural open country sectiori according to HS2.
There is the need to examine and re-examine alternative route alignments and elevations to avoid community amenities and reduce impacts on villages and existing roads with capacity deficits. The opportariity to change the Route 3 alignment will reduce costs for the comrriunity and road impacts.
16 Environment Statement Loss of Greien Corridor The loss of a Green Corridor is of particular concem to your Petitioner given the paucity of green areas and the continued rieedfo r more established arid sustaiuable biodiversity.
The loss of the greenbeit land caused by the new railway line is of particular concem to your Petitioner given the paucity of green areas and the importance of retaining greenbeit land in this rural- historic park land-urban interface area. Furthermore, the course is used as a greeacorridor for flora and fauna and should be conserved in the interests of natare conservation. Its loss would be contrary to the Environmental Audit Committee and your Petitioners biodiversity plans and the current stewardship of the club's recorded range of insect and wild life species.
Loss of Recreational Land and Countryside Your Petitioner considers that the loss of recreation for all people young and old is uuacceptable and this will cohflict with the current government policy which encourages an increase in the widest cohimunity participatiori in sport and physical activity. In addition it will significantly diminish the opportunity for schoolchildren to undertake golf (which is to be an Olympic Sport at the next Olympics) and outdoor sport and exercise.
The golf club course is a long, linear green area which is recognised locally as a site of natare conservation with two Covenants for protection. Use of a large area of the course for the spoil dump will impose a severe impact on the ability of various species to use the area as part of a chain of routes between all these important local green spaces and water bodies.
The golf club is particularly reliarit on the biodiversity resources for the short to medium term, especially for the estabUshment of insect and butterfiy populations. Breaking the link to the meadows will be a severe loss to what was, again, one of the specifically targeted places which results in good biodiversity. The intended use of the site will have significant impacts on lowering the biodiversity of the club course itself; and riot only that, but also the much wider area, because of the interconnectioris between the ponds and river and loss of free groups.
The HS2 route: divides a section pf the River Thame and Bear Brook arid the Safe Lake and course ponds used as breeding sites by wildfowl, which will be affected by the freefelling , excavation and spoil dumping. There are a number of feeding habitats for bats, known to be feeding shortly after dusk, which means that they are roosting nearby. There are very rare fresh water mussels in a stream on the golf course.
HS2 has released inadequate environmental impact assessment data and do not appear to have fully assessed the health impact of their plans, despite there being clear and robust methodologies for such stadies. Ypur Petitioner has particular concern, as suggested above, for the impact on the golf club and on the health impact of the scheme in an area with high rates of respiratory diseases. The Environmental Statement (ES) Your Petitioner submits that the deposited plans, sections, book of reference and the Environmental Statement do not give sufficient detail of the works to be undertaken in the vicinity of the property, the natare of use of the worksite or the programme of such works. As required by Council Directive 85/337/EC (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC), the ES is required to describe a project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The ES is also required to describe the measures that will be taken to avoid or reduce ahy adverse impact oh the erivironment. Your Petitioner submits that the HS2 ES is deficient in a number of ways as were the AOS's, including, an inadequate description of the likely significarit effects of the Scheduled Works, insufficient detail of the proposed mitigation measures and assessmerit of their effectiveness in avoiding, reducing or remedying significant adverse effects and insufficient analysis of altematives from 2009, The HS2 2009 AOS was very basic.
Effects on local ecology during enabling works, construction and HS2 railway operation Your Petitioner objects to HS2 failing to address mitigations such as moving the route following the identification of the safety impacts on the HS2 train operatioris and wild birds in the golf club, Putlowes, River Thame and the Safe Lake. These include Herons, Geese, Ducks, all which can and will damage pantographs and train windscreens. There are other birds. Pheasants, Red Kites, Hawks and Buzzards with habitats between the A418 and A41, The farms ahd the golf course practice ecological and environmental stewardship to protect and encourage diversity and continuation of the nataral habitats, ecology and environment. The golf club course has a diverse humber of butterfly species your Petitiorier has recorded for years.
The loss of the golf club and course will increase the costs and the local carbon footprint as golfers will have to drive to get to alternative venues between 5Km and lOKm from the Aylesbury Park Golf Club, The closure of this viable community facility will be damaging to some of the user's health that play golf at the local course as their means of keeping fit and healthy, Consfruction and works within your Petitioner's course will severely damage the sustained biodiversity of this locality, HS2's proposed consfruction works will rUin this historic park land, destroy endangered wildlife habitats and blight this much loved area forever.
The Environriiental Statement is inadequate regarding the reduction or mitigation of npise, dust, mud, emissions, pollution or damage caused by the construction of HS2,
Your Petitioner objects to the Clause that relates to the disapplication of free preservation orders and relates to the preservation of freesi n conservation areas.
Ypur Petitioner objects to the loss of vegetation and significant short free screening and local habitats. The course vegetation is recognised as an important green corridor. The proposed consfruction sites fall within your Peititioner's golf course, part of which is under natare conservation management. The consfruction sites include areas with park land Covenant protection known as a Greeri Wedge,
Your Petitioner objects because no detail of consfruction specific information has been supplied and discussed directly with the Promoter. The final loss of vegetation is unknowri, as is the area available for tree plaritirig and reinstatement of vegetation that will use existing course areas. The area will not retarri to its existing hiatarity for at least 50 years.
Your Petitioner is concemed by the absence of any specific provisioh to compel the Promoter to implement mitigation measures when identified and if needed added to the Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill. Failure to include such provision will, your Petitioner submits, is contrary to the purpPses of Council Directive 85/337/EC, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC.
Your Petitioher seeks to re-establish that the following principles to altematives in the broad corridor to obtain least impacts and protect their and users' interests as affected by the Bill: (i) avoidance - that effects are avoided wherever possible; (ii) notice - that adequate notice is given before your Petitioner's area is affected or it is required to take meaningful steps; (iii) compensation - that foil compensation is made for any costs incurred or loss suffered as a result of the HS2 scheme.
The Promoter has indicated that matters relating to natare conservation will be dealt with in its Environmental Minimum Requirements, Consfruction Code of Practice arid Erivirorimental Memorandum. Your Petitioner remains to be convinced that these documents can, or will adequately address the needs for your Petitioner as respects the design and consfruction of the works so as to avoid Or mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Furthermore, your Petitioner is cOrieerried that omissions and conflicts may arise in the freatniento f relevarit matters arid make impacts worse near Aylesbury and increase the already frequently flooding of the River Thame and Bear Brook as occurs.
Your Petitioner does have some substantial concerns respecting the provisions of the Bill as affecting the golf course and club. Your Petitioner is concemed that no adequate provision has been made to secure that damage and disruption are kept to a minimum or to secure that in other respects their property interests are reasonably safeguarded, currently your Petitiorier corisiders they are riot.
Air Quality Your Petitioner is concemed about the wider impact of construction related activities on the public realm,: for example the impact that air pollution generated from worksites would have on their property, and occupiers and people in the vicinity. Your Petitioner objects to diesel generators and plant/vehicles being used in the area and adherence to the Environment Act 1995. Monitoring data of air quality and noise in the vicinity of the club house are required. Wherever practicable equipment powered by mains or battery elecfricity should be used for all consfruction activities.
Archaeology Your Petitioner has perceived a need for the Noininated Undertaker to provide adequate opportunity and funding for archaeological investigation iri respect of each of the consfruction and worksites. In your Petitioner's submission the appropriate authority should be required to agree a programme of such work with your Petitioner, English Heritage and with the Council of British Archaeology. Your Petitioner also submits that the funding of this should be home by the Nominated Uridertaker, The Envirorimental Statement has highlighted several sites in your Petitioner's golf club which are of archaeological importance. These sites variously have, inter alia, high potential for prehistoric and palaeo-environmental remains, Roman and later river management, stone quarrying and nataral and medieval domestic remains. Your Petitioner seeks to be assured that appropriate mitigation measures will be put in place by the Promoters and agreed with your Petitiorier from Sedrup to Fleet Marston,
Your Petitioner objects to the removal of topsoil and ground for the purpose of "research" prior to detailed geophysical and non-intrusive surveys for part of the Aylesbury Park Golf Course, the River Thame Valley where there was a Roriiari crossirig and where the viaduct is proposed to be located.
Use of the Property as a worksite The matters with which your Petitioner is particularly concerned regarding the proposed use of part of the propeity as a worksite, or as access to a worksite, include the issues of land take, impacts on golfirig and uses of the golf club and courses. Noise, access, vibration, dust, dirt and emissions and hours of work are of concem. In addition, the Environmental Statement provides no information on whether or not any works of adaptation, or alteration required to the property will allow for its uses and, if so, what works of re-instatement will be undertaken. Your Petitioner accordingly objects to the provisions of the Bill on the basis of this omission and requires information of any such proposed works of adaptation or alteration arid re-instatement in relation to both the existing and proposed course/club house at the property notwithstanding that your Petitioner objects to any proposed use that is inconsistent with its current operations. Further there is no evidence to show that works have been considered in sufficient depth arid thoroughness in accordance with the applicable Directives, nor have the cumulative effects of the works been sufficiently assessed, suggesting that the Environmental Statement is deficient for the golf club property. The Environmental Statement indicates lorries and Other plant will access the worksites. No technical and consfruction analysis, has been presented to your Petitioner to provide activity figuresan d durations. Your Petitioner submits that further detailed information ori, iriter alia, lorry movements and hours of work are required to allow ari assessment of the impacts of the Scheduled Works and use of the worksite on the property, both physically and in terms of beneficial use.
Environmental Effects of Construction within a golf course YoUr Petitiorier notes the CFA ES Report No 11 and pages 33 to 38 and others referring to Aylesbury and your Petition's iriterests arid is coricerned about the environmental and other effects On the loss of ponds and compromise to the west east drainage and sfream fiowsan d the immediate loss of course space land that will compromise the golf and the use of the property, causing prematare closure and compensation to offset lost incPme and the additional itindown and closure costs.
Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should riot be permitted to interfere with your Petitioner's rights and interests unless and to the extent that comprehensive assessments of the specific likely effects at the property have been undertaken, demonsfrating that, effective mitigation measures to which the Promoter is bound will not be significant to reduce the impacts.
The Promoter recognises that adverse environmental effects will be caused by the corisfrUction of early works and proposes a Code of Consfruction Practice, a series of individual agreements under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and statements of policy to which the Pronioter is to adhere to. Your Petitioner is coricerried that too few of these measures will take irito account the very particular circumstarices and character of the golf club and its established uses for people in the community.
The golf club is in use and your Petitioner submits that the Promoter ought to adopt working hours that are flexible for the golf club and include these in the standard Code of Constmction Practice published by the Promoter. Significant consfruction activity during the hours of use of the golf club and weekends should be avoided.
Your Petitioner requires the Promoter folly and properly to explore the environmental effects of the consfructiori of the works ori the property and that provision be made for all necessary mitigation measures tP be employed. Your Petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound personally by a specific written binding agreement including good practices for works in the vicinity of the property, in order to mitigate and regulate all erivirorimental effects and operational impacts.
Your Petitioner' s principal purpose is to protect and enhance the environment and in doing so to make a contribution towards the objective of achieving sustainable developnient. Your Petitioner carries Put a broad range of fonctionswhic h include conservation, fishing, recreation, waste management and good care of the course.
The proposals under the Bill will have a significant impact upoh your Petitioner's fonctionst o which yoUr Petitioner objects for the reasons stated in this petition,
17 EIA Envirpnmental Impact Assessment Your Petitioner responded to the Promoter's invitation to submit commerits ori the draft and Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill as well as to the EnvirOrimental Audit Comriiittee Inquiry, Your Petitioner submits that the Environmental Statement is deficient in several respects and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EC, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, In particular:
(a) There is inadequate description of the likely significant effects of the HS2 Project, particularly on the specific effects in the vicinity of the property and ho consideration given to direct and indirect effects - for example the effect on the business and local people not being able to use the gOlf club, (b) Insufficient data has been provided in order to identify and assess the main effects of the works. including the excavation, ehibankment forming works and the consfruction of any tannellingo r bridging in or beneath the property, (c) There is insufficient detail of proposed mitigation measures to continue golfing, nO assessnient of their effectiveness in avoiding reducing or remedying significant environmental effects and no provision within the Bill compelling the Promoter to undertake identified mitigation measures including broad corridor altematives, (d) There is insufficient analysis of altematives iri the coritext of the aligriment through the course for each HS2 work section and little analysis of altemative methods of consfruction, altemative configurations and altettiative locations for tannels, with less community disruption from the changes to the A418 and losses of fotarehous e building larid from the HS2 land take across the Ernest Cook Trust Estate land that the golf club is located in and loss of the farmland along the west of Aylesbury.
Disregard of the your Petitioner's nature conservation aims In accordance with the Environment'Act 1995, your Petitioner has a principal aim, to discharge stewardship duties to protect or enhance the environment as to contribute towards the objective of sustainable development and also specific coriservation and recreation areas. Your Petitioner considers it desirable, to promote conservation and recreation and to have regard to conservation in exercising pollutiori coritrol fonctionsand , in the case of other forictions, apply forther conservation interests and to take into account the effect which proposals would have on fiora arid fauua. Your Petitioner also understands sites of special interest and the golf club does take reasonable steps to be sustainable and conservation.
18 Impacts Deterioration of condition Your Petitioner is concerned that the condition of their property will deteriorate as a result of the works. Your Petitioner submits that provision should be made to their reasonable satisfaction for a condition survey of the property shortly before the commencement of the works, early in the works and shortly after completion. The costs of rectifying any deterioration in the condition of the property found to be due to the works should, also be reimbursed by the Promoter.
Disturbance to business Your Petitioner has severe reservations about the effect upon their business of the consfruction works and the general distarbance and loss of amenity to the areas surrounding their property. In particular, your Petitioner is concemed with the following matters: (a) the possibility of there being several worksites in close proximity to your Petitioner's, the Ernest Cook Tmst being the most significant of which is anticipated to be the worksites on the National Trust leased land with the Emest Cook Trust and/or others and associated with the unnecessary moveriient of the A418 and at Sedrup and/or Coldharbour Way, Andrews Way and Fairford Leys; (b) the proposed temporary closures sfreets and access; (c) the proposed diversions necessary due to water, sewer or other utility diversion works which may impact on your Petitioner's employees, as well as visiting menibers and users of the golf club, course and others visiting the property; and (d) the generation of unacceptable levels of construction traffic and of construction noise, vibration, emissions, mud and dust.
In the unfortanate event that the existing proposals are adopted, your Petitioner would respectfolly point out that the Ernest Cook Trust land in which the golf club is located and is dissected by Route 3 reducing the value fOr farming land near Stoke Mandeville or for foture housing development and preventing the golf club business continuing and requiring significant works to the dangerous A418 road. Construction vehicles will travel to and from the worksites and your Petitioner will be affected by increased fraffic congestion and reduced income from the golf club and fonctionsa t the club house.
Your Petitioner is concemed about the proposed works adjacent to and upon, the embankhient(s) and cutting(s) which fraverseth e golf course along the longest axis from the A418 to the River Thame. It would appear that it is intended to form a temporary access road from the golf club car park leading across the fairways. There are currently niature freesan d other vegetation which forms a partial barrier between the HS2 railway and buildings which can be achieved with noise walls to reduce land taken. The matare frees will be removed to facilitate the works access road to the detriment of future use of the area for cohimunity golfing. Sound and visUal impacts can be reduced with engineering but land take cannot be reduced except by this being the HS2 priority. Indeed, it seeras that the current intention of HS2 is to widen the embankment fortherwit h bunding, so that there is less opportanity to retain vegetation and matare frees. New freeswil l be required and will take years to be established and will take additional course space.
Your Petitioner believes that if HS2 progresses with Route 3 as currently proposed, there will be very adverse effects upon the value of the golf club and many of the houses along Coldharbour and Fairford Leys as well as to the Hartwell House and Hotel. Therefore, if not already catered for, your Petitioner humbly requests that the Bill is amended so that compensation wiU becoriie payable commensurate with any and all loss of value suffered for the business and the golf club-
Your Petitioner is prompted in raising concerns at the wide-ranging potential impacts of the HS2 scheme for which the Bill does not address a number of more particular concems. These include a particular concem for the Bear Brook, course streahis, drainage ahd watercourse works which may result in mobilisation of contaminants and movement of sediments causing hydraulic and ecological iriipacts. These are matters that your Petitioner believes require forther assessment in order to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental and drainage impacts and to not result in earlier closure of the club.
19 Flood defence concerns generally The Bill should not give rise to new or enhanced flood defence risks. To that end, your Petitioner is particularly concemed both about loss of water storage capacity and about residual flood risks and they consider that it will be necessary for some additional studies to be undertaken which, if the Promoter so agrees and these are undertaken sufficiently in advance of the prospective works, it may be possible to deal with through the mechanism of the approval procedures contained in the protective provisions. In relation to such stadies, your Petitioner has particular concems regarding, amongst other matters, the absence or inadequate assessments to determine the impact of the HS2 Route run-off from proposed works or operations (such as water fransportation arising in consfruction and after Route completion and how this will adversely affect the River Thame, Bear Brook and course drainage and the wild bird and crayfish and mussels habitats.
Your Petitioner considers the loss of flood storage capacity and extra run-offs to be unacceptable. Loss of local flood storage capacity will increase flood risk from the River Thames to the town of Thame and River Thames Valley, as experienced in 2014 twice and in previous recent years, and set an unacceptable precedent fOr fotare housing development near Aylesbury, Sedmp and Fairford Leys.
Your Petitioner contends that the appropriate course is for the Promoter to take steps to mitigate this loss of flood storage by providing, an altemative route in the Bill but not by loss of more golf club land with small balancing ponds which will have some contaminants from the HS2 route drainage.
Residual flood risk Ypur Petitioner is concemed that adequate provision has not been made in the Bill to survey and monitor flood impacts to assess and mitigate against any residual risks arising from failure to store and hold back water during any tannelling, dredging, drainage and other consfruction activities.
The use of balancing ponds is inadequate and increase land take from the club course.
Having regard to the principles that were embodied in Planning Policy Guidance 25, including the need to take account the risks of flooding, the standards of existing flood deferices and the ability to improve them, and the application of the precautionary principle, your Petitioner is concemed that the proposed works should incorporate a higher standard of mitigation measures. It should be emphasised that the existing flood mitigations can reduce but not eliminate the risk of flooding, especially in the River Thame and Bear Brook catchment areas. The Aylesbury sewage plant is now short of capacity.
Your Petitioner respectfolly submits that the Promoter should undertake forther investigations to identify measures which could be implemented to mitigate this risk, arid agree with your Petitioner's arrangements for the implementation of such measures ahd delays to current course drainage of this very heavy heaving clay land the golf course and football pitches occupy.
The Environmental Statement notes that groundwater flows will be monitored during constmctiori and that necessary measures will be taken to ensure riosigriifican t adverse impacts occur. There is insufficient information and data as to the type of necessary measures or the impact of those measures. Your Petitiorier submits that groundwater levels and flows must be monitored throughout constmction and for an agreed period following completion and the impacts of the works on the streams and/or drainage ditches/ pipes shall be repaired as directed by your Petitioner to ensure , integrity of the drainage of this heavy heaving clay land.
Your Petitioner seeks confirmation that Undertakings are given in relation to consequence of works and de-watering on the use of areas of the course.
20 Construction Traffic Routes for construction traffic The HS2 route section through the golf course must be the only route used for consfruction traffic and plant and not by crossing the course with one or more access temporary routes. The club erifrance should not be used for access to the consfruction works or for workers.
21 Code of Construction Practice Your Petitiorier notes that the Bill ahd the supporting documents adopt similar regimes to those which were established for the consfruction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and notes that this regime will include the agreemerit of Code of Consfruction Practice consisting of general requirements relevant to all worksites, and site-specific conditions for each individual site. Your Petitioner wishes to ensure that the Code of Constmction Practice is complied with properly, and in that respect yOur Petitioner will incur expenditare. Your Petitioner wishes to ensure that all of its reasonable expenses in monitoring consfruction sites are met by the Nominated Undertaker, together with expenditare incurred by your Petitioner in planning and programming activities related to the Code of Consfruction Practice,
Your Petitioner is concemed to ensure that the Nominated Undertaker is required to adopt the very highest standards in respect of mitigation of the effects of air quality, diesel emissions, noise, dUSt, mud and vibration caused during the consfruction period and in particular that the Code of Consfruction Practice replicates best practice requirements imposed on other major construction projects including the Considerate Confractor and Sustainability requirements. There should also be a guarantee that any fotare changes to industry standards, regulatioris, statatory procedures and formal government advice will also be complied with folly and agreed to by your Petitioner.
22 Works Diversion of utility services during preparatory works Your Petitioner notes in the Bill arid the supplementary documents tp the Bill that there will be various service diversions. Your Petitioner has not been provided with adequate information regarding these diversions and is concemed that the diversionary works may cause settlement and subsidence and leaks to the water pipeline, which has not beeri assessed. Your Petitioner's request greater specificity regarding these works, and submits that the same safeguards that are to be applied to the main consfruction works should be applied to the works undertaken during the preparatory phases. More particularly, your Petitioher wishes to be satisfied that there will be no disruption to statatory services as a result of the constmction of the proposed works. In your Petitioner's submission a coordinated programme of works to services on this property needs to be established by the Pronioter and the details provided to and agreed in writing by your Petitioner. Utility Services across the Golf course and to the Golf club It is essential that there will be no early disruptiori to the large water pipelirie crossing the golf course or other utility services provided to the golf club especially the telephone, water and electricity which are absolutely vital to your Petitioner's business. Any dismption in the services could be Very costly for your Petitioner and such an interruption is unacceptable to your Petitiorief. In your Petitiorier's submission a co-ordinated programme of works to any such services leading into the prpperty, including works to examine^ or divert, or renew the large water pipeline fleedto be established by the Nomiriated Uridertaker arid agreed with your Petitioner so as to ensure that the carrying out of the works to such services do not cause disruption to your Petitiorier's busiriess and users' enjoyment. Your Petitioner considers it to be important to avoid a succession of statatory undertakers accessing and opening the surface of course and failing properly to reinstate the ground and tarf because other undertakers will be carrying out further works at a later date. Your Petitioner wishes to receive advance notice of the dates when existing'services are programmed to be taken out of use and diverted or new services are to be substitated in their place to enable yOur Petitioner to avoid scheduling activities at the club or on the course that would be disrupted in the event that services are accidentally interrupted and accidents to people do not occur.
Subsidence, settlement and associated damage to properties during and after construction Your Petitioner is concerned about effects on their properties. In order to reduce settlement damage to a minimum, your Petitioner contends that the cuttings, embankment and/or tunnels should be consfructed to impose the least damage and loss of course surface land and for the tannelt o be at the most practical depth under the River Thame to reduce the side gradients and that the freedom under the Bill to deviate upwards should be strictly limited. The flatvalle y enables river diversion to be nearer the river bed with reduced entry and exit gradients to the HS2 track/route,
23 Excavated Materials Removal of Excavated Material Your Petitioner is concemed to ensure that the hours during which consfruction and the removal of spoil from the works take place are programmed and minimised so as to prevent undue nuisances to residents and this business.
The excavation work both below and adjacent to the property will involve the removal of large quantities of spoil arising from the construction Your Petitioner submits that the Nominated Undertaker should be obliged to make satisfactory arrangements for the removal of spoil in such a manner as will cause least dismption to your Petitiorier and impacts on the business of your Petitiorier. The Environmental Statement does not appear to have folly assessed all route altematives and the better uses of removed ground and spoil for more effective use(s) of the land.
Shorter tunnelling or A418 bridge work near your Petitioner's golf club would involve the removal of large quantities of spoil, not only from the digging of the proposed 'land bridge' but also from the consfruction of the surface infrasfructure works. This is not optimal and your Petitioner submits that the Nominated Uridertaker should be obliged to make satisfactory arrangemerits for the removal of spoil iri such a manner as will cause least disruption to your Petitioner and be of most economical use to the landowner to transform land into higher ground for future housing with more beneficial land shaping than for bUnds which take more surface land to reduce noise impacts little for people in the west of Aylesbury, Longer tunnels can create the ground required to increase the capacity of the expanded sewage treatment and runoff processing works near Rabans Lane which is repeatedly discharging due to inadequate capacity and raise land levels between Stoke Mandeville and Sedrup,
Reclaimihg areas between Stoke Marideville and Sedrup with excavations from a longer tannel is a practical approach to offset the additional costs from the tannel and reduce development land lost to HS2 with the removal of the surface barrier resulting from HS2, The material can be moved by conveyors over the flood plain to elevate this above the curreht land level and increase its value. Your Petitioner is also particularly concemed about effects of re-radiated noise from the sites; where spoil is removed and wishes to ensure that the Nominated Undertaker complies with the strictest standards as regards minimising such rioise, emissioris, dust and mud dropping. Many houses along the west side of Aylesbury will have prevailing wind dust/emission ingress as will the golf club house,
24 Nominated Undertaker The Bill does not provide that obligations imposed on the Secretary of State be binding, where appropriate, on the Nominated Undertaker. The Bill should be amended to provide for a Nominated Undertaker to be bound by such obligations and for the Secretary of State to remain liable.
Your Petitioner also objects to the Bill on the basis that whereas Clauses provide(s) for the Secretary of State by Order to specify a person (the Nominated Undertaker) to perform certain provisions of the Act, there is no provision that confractual undertakings of the Secretary of State bind the Nominated Undertaker. Your Petitioner accordingly submits that the Bill be amended to require the Secretary of State to ensure that his confractaal commitmehts also bind the Nominated Undertaker and that the Secretary of State guarantees the performance of the Nominated Undertaker with respect to your Petitioner's property, rights and interests.
Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter and/or Nominated Undertaker should meet any costs incurred by your Petitioner in providing additional security measures at the golf club and property in response to the works and use of the golf club by the public and members.
Given the very large costs that your Petitioner would incur if their ability to undertake their business at the golf club is consfrained by the carrying out of the works, your Petitioner considers it would be reasonable to expect that your Petitioner's interest should be noted on any insurance policy effected by the Promoter and/or Nominated Undertaker in respect of these works and to hold the golf club and its members harmless and to be insured by the Promoter and/or Nominated Undertaker for any damage, injury including consequential losses and loss of eamings arising.
Your Petitioner objects to the powers that are proposed to be provided by the Bill to the Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker and respectfolly submit that the Bill should be amended or undertakings should be required so that HS2 Limited, the Secretary of State and/or the Nominated Undertaker must review the construction sfrategies for each Work Number section of the project and its related works and any prior Transport Works Act (TWA) or utilities Works Orders, including those of Network Rail and Thames Water for advanced/enabling works and/or surveys, investigations or tests by considering their cumulative impacts on each community, land owner and/or amenity. The parties need to suggest necessary changes frorii the results of each review with the persons impacted before works design, planning and consfruction strategies have been finalisedan d consfructioh confractors enter/access land to mobilise and/or start work.
Your Petitioner submits that, when remedial measures become necessary as the works proceed, they should be entitled to require the Nominated Uridertaker to carry out those measures inimediately, rather than delaying such measures until the conclusion of the Works.
Your Petitioner submits that the Nominated Undertaker should provide detailed proposals for Local Planning Authority agfeemeht, includirig method statements, site layout plans and work programmes, (including for abnormal deliveries) in relation to each major worksite, well in advance of the commencement of Operations, by means of an a,greed programme similar to Channel Tunnel Railway Link arrangements. Your Petitioner should be notified well in advance of any alterations in methods of construction and construction operations, particularly in relation to site servicing and set Up arrangements.
Yours Petitioner is concemed to ensure that disruption to access to the property both vehicular and pedestrian^ caused bythe construction of HS2 is kept to an absolute minimurii during the consfruction periods. Your Petitioner notes the obligatiori in the Bill to provide reasonable access for pedestrians going to or frPm premises abutting a highway that has beeh temporarily stopped up. Your Petitioner requests that the club's access and parking spaces be maintairied in all other cases as well, such as in the event of the erection of hoardings and fences and diversions, use of footways next to the property, the placing of equiprhent, plant and apparatus and the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles. No cohsfruction vehicle or lay down of plant materials shall be permitted on the course or club's property, or car park, or road accesses.
Your Petitioner is also concemed about cement, contaminants, diesel/oil leaks, burst pipes, dust and dirt produced during construction. Your Petitioner wishes to see the Nominated Undertaker to adhere to strict measures to reduce these and to carry out additional mitigation measures if the condition(s) contiriue(s) to be a nuisance to your Petitioner's golf club. Provision should be made for additional cleaning of the club house property or for compensation to be paid in respect of the additional expenses which will be incurred in undertaking such operatiohs.
Your Petitiorier submits that there needs to be a systematic and specific evaluation of the likely iriipacts of the corisfructiou works on the property, including hours of working, heavy goods vehicle type, size and movements, traffic flows, stacking of constmction traffic, road and footpath closures, visual infrusion of consfruction activities, nuisance, noise, light, dust, vibration, settlement, heave, run-offs or groundwater changes. The assessment of impacts should iriclude details ou the possible cumulative impacts.
The Promoter should be required to ensure that noise and vibration during the consfruction period is kept to an absolute minimum by the use of the most advanced technology arid machinery. The Nominated Undertaker should put in place a comprehensive consultatiori exercise with, regard to monitoring, Such a scheme should be subject to a compensation code when criteria are breached,
25 Survey Your Petitioner is concerned that HS2 has previously made substantial changes to the prpposed works as with the 2010 realignment through the golf course without discussion with your Petitioner. Helicopters were not used by HS2 in the early formative periods but are now routinely flying along the route and course. HS2 has admitted to some errors locally resulting in misrepresentations to affected areas as one local MP has recorded. HS2 intends to rriake appropriate amendments to the Bill before Parliament and produce technical revisions after the closing date for the submission of the petitions. This is of concern as HS2 has made such defrimental changes previously with little effective consultation to obtain objections from your Petitioner and its niany users and the Club's management. Your Petitioner submits that the lack of early engagement, timing and level of consultation by the Promoter including HS2 Limited has been inadequate and inconsistent throughout the process to date to address the impacts arising from this Route 3. There has been a pPor corrections approach by H$2.
26 Monitoring Your Petitioner would wish tp see an effective and agreed monitoring system in place before commencement and during consfruction of the works, to determine reliably the effect of any settlements oh the property. There must in your Petitioner's submission be a set of criteria agreed between your Petitiorier arid the PrPhioter for ground movemehts within the property, If such criteria are exceeded then it is imperative that the Nominated Undertaker is obliged to cease constraction until such time as remedial measures are in place which will minimise settlement and corisequently avoid distress. Your Petitiorier requests that they be given notice of the intended passage of any tunnel boring machines TBM or shield header, or excavations across their property. Any necessary safeguarding or remedial measures should be agreed between your Petitioner and the Nominated Undertaker,
Having regard to the narrow triangular and long layout design Pf the golf courses and the nature of the business carried out, your Petitioner submits that any necessary safeguarding or remedial measures and any systems to monitor the effect of the works upon the property must be agreed in writing between your Petitioner, the Pronipter and the Nominated Undertaker in advance of such measures or systems being adopted. Further your Petitioner requires notification and foil access for themselves and their consultants to all engineering details and plans, intmsive site surveys, works information and data relatihg to the effects of the activities and works on the course and business including that data obtained from monitoring.
27 Bill Your Petitioner respectfully seeks clarification of the interaction between the gerieral powers to be conferred, upon the Nominated Undertaker power to alter the positions of, mains, sewers, drains and cables, to enter upon any highway withiri the limits of deviation and to alter or remove apparatus and the protections to be afforded to your Petitioner. Your Pefitioner seeks express confirmation that in the event of any coriflict the provisions contained iri the Bill for the referral of differences to arbifration or agreed mediation should apply.
There are Pther clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand, may prejudicially affect of your Petitioner and their property, rights arid interests and for which no adequate provision Is made.
Heritage Controls Your Petitioner objects to the Bill in so far as they seek to disapply the legislation connected with listed buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas and park land and would be vulnerable by reason of the Bill. Your Petitioner accordingly submits that the Bill be amended to require the Secretary of State to adopt a Heritage Protocol, as applied to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
Your Petitioner objects to the Clauses for: Control of consfruction sites: appeals. Proceedings in respect of statatory nuisance: defence. Permitted development: tiriie limit.
Your Petitioner objects to the disapplication of confrols as stated above, as well as to the changes proposed in confrol of construction sites and statatory nuisance proceedings. The effect of the relevant Clauses is to remove the protection afforded to the environment and heritage by the confrols. Residents affected by changes in their environment as. a result of wPrksfor HS2 therefore have limited recourse, and the HS2 Environmental Statement lacks the planning, detail and specifics to afford your Petitioner protection. The vagueness of the HS2 Environmental Statement in parts is due to inadequate local knowledge and haste will encourage the Nominated Undertaker to act in an expedient manner so as to minirhise financial cOst at the expense of costs to the environment and the quality of your Petitioner's surroundings. ES documents of large projects were compared to HS2.
Where steps are taken, as required by the provisions of the Bill as your Petitioner submits it should be amehded, the Bill should provide for the Nominated Undertaker to reimburse the foil costs and expenses incurred by your Petitioner incidental to the taking of any such steps.
Your Petitioner notes that the Schedules to the Bill contain no requirement as to reasonableness and no power to the owner or occupier to dispute the necessity for the makirig of site frial holes. Your Petitioner submits that the Bill and Schedules should be amended to provide in writing a binding agreement between all parties.
Authorisation Procedures In line with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, the Bill contains provisions which provide outiine planning permissipn for the developmerit authorised by the Bill arid displace a number of other statutory regulation regimes which would normally apply in relation to the construction of works, including controls in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Your Petitioner wishes to ensure that if those controls are to be removed or suspended then in their place there is a robust alternative approval mechanism in each case, in which your Petitioner can play a foller part. Your Petitioner will in conjunction with those local authorities affected by the Bill, be seeking to ensure that such arrangements are put in place. If this is not achieved your Petitioner asks that the Promoters be required to accept satisfactory arrangements including realistic timescales for the consideration of applications.
Your Petitioner does not support proposals that result in loss of course areas and changes to land use from golfing to wet land and waste ground habitats. The community's golf course can be saved.
Ambit of powers Powers sought to be conferred on the Promoter by the Bill are exfremely wide and your Petitioner humbly submits that such powers ought to be more constrained in the interests of your Petitiorier:
In particular. Clauses authorising the Promoter to acquire compulsorily land outside the limits of deviation for the scheduled works and outside the lihiits of land to be acquired or used, where it is required for or in connection with the works authorised by the Bill or otherwise for or in connection with the proposed railway system is too wide and too uncertain.
Your Petitioner respectfolly submits that such powers, particularly in the context your Petitioner's golfing operations and club fonctionsar e uhacceptably wide and threaten to blight the property, including its interests, in the immediate vicinity of the limits of deviation. Further express authority for the acquisition of land outside the limits should be necessary, and cpnsidered only in specific instances on its merits and given only if acquisitiou is proven at the relevant time to be agreed with your Petitioner as necessary for the constmction of the HS2 railway route.
Your Petitioner is concemed that the provisions in the Bill for renewal of compulsory purchase powers and planning permission are too widely drawn and prolong the period pf blight suffered by your Petitioner. Whilst the renewal of compulsory acquisitiPn powers is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, your Petitioner submits that greater protection should be given to the busiriess, amenity owner and occupier of land affected by the proposed works througb regulation of the circumstances in which such renewal may be ordered. In the event that the validity of the powers or the planning permission is extended, your Petitioner seeks provision for the affected landowner and the occupier (your Petitioner) to be consulted and to be given the opportunity to make written representations.
Your Petitioner submits that as it currently stands the Bill fails to provide for such matters. This is a significant omissiori. During the time limit for compulsory acquisition powers and for implementation of planning permission circumstances can change significantly and so too can the impact of the exercise of such powers or the implementation of such permission. It is essential that impacts should be comprehensively reassessed. Your Petitioner submits that the same considerations should apply to the power to correct deposited plans at a scale to readily identify the specific details in the property.
Your Petitioner considers if passed into law as they now stand Clauses and provisions Of the Bill will prejudicially affect your Petitioner, their rights, interests, property and the ability to provide services and that inadequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner and the golfing customers' interests.
Statutory Nuisance This Clause disapplies and provides a defence against statatory nuisance caused as a result of the works.
This would seriously prejudice your Petitioner's rights to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Bill makes no defence for the aggrieved to seek redress against such nuisances.
For preparatory purposes, the Proriioter may survey or investigate any land within the limits of deviation, or withiri the limits of land to be acquired, or Used which may include making frial holes to investigate the natare of the soil. It is required this is banned on the course until 2018 or later. Your Petitioner objects to the incorporation of the whole of Section 16 of the Railways Clauses Consolidatiori Act 1845 iri the Bill iri so far as they relate to the proposals affecting your Petitioner's interests and rights. The powers conferred under Section 16 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 are too wide ranging and do not provide for consultation with your Petitioner.
Your Petitioner fortherobject s to the incorporation of Sections 32 and 33 of the Railways Clauses CohsoHdation Act 1845 in the Bill. The effect of the aforesaid section is that the Nominated Undertaker may occupy or endeavour to occupy any land within the limits of deviation (subject to certain exceptions relating to ornahiental grourids) for various purposes including the depositing of spoil, without any need for prior payment and only a minimum requirement of three weeks' written notice.
In light of the above, your Petitioner reserves the right to raise the above matters and ariy further matters of coricefn relating to the substance of the Bill and this petition that may arise fromcontinuin g discussions, the preparation and publication of reports, any possible revisions that may be made to current worksite proposals, or any other matters relevant to our expressed concems that may occur in due course and prior to out representation before the Select Committee of your Honourable House,
For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless those Clauses of the Bill referring to the proposed HS2 Route 3 alignment are removed or amended to move the Route 3 from the golf course surface, then the Bill should not be allowed to pass intp law.
28 Procedure Your Petitioner illustrates unacceptable considerations in this list and understands others may be determined during in the petitionirig period and to the time when the petition is being considered:
Lack of effective consultation From 2009 there was not the opportanity by the Promoter for your Petitioner to discuss issues arising from the proposal and nPw the Bill but this was avoided by HS2 and was so since spring 2011 when your Petitioner became aware of how invasive the proposed Route 3 was being planned to be. YoUr Petitioner provided a landing location in 2011 where the HS2 Route would intersect the golf course. This was to measure noise levels and to produce a video recording of the proposed HS2 route in May 2011 using a professional TV recording helicopter. The impacts of this landing and noise levels resulted in your Petitioher's management and the petitioning officer becoming aware of the seriousness of the works and route would be to the golf club and course. HS2 were advised and did not respond directly to presentation of altematives using twO ridges to reduce road and rail works.
Your Petitioner's concerns and objections to planning outcomes of HS2 Route 3 Phase 1 Your Petitioner has considered the consultation reactions to HS2 and objects to the methods that were used to promote this rail route with the early fixation on the Route 3 Phase 1 alignment by Aylesbury through your Petitioner's course and the location of the Calvert frifrasfructure Maintenarice Depot (IMD and Chiltem tannel portal). This was prior to HS2 exploring all the current route alternatives, incomplete in-depth assessments of all feasible IMD alternative locations including the one near Poundon and Bicester and the other near Wihslow, both along the: East/West proposed rail route. Either site will minimise impacts on several Buckinghamshire villages and on the town of Aylesbury and avoid the loss of the community amenities at Sedmp, Hartwell, Coldharbour and Fairford Leys.
Your Petitioner objects to this Route 3 Phase 1 as HS2 Limited and DfT have riotexplore d sufficiently the selection and assessment of both shorter and longer route altematives to achieve the maximise avoidance of the costly deep cuttings along Route 3 Phase 1 with limited tannel sections through the hills of the Chiltern and the hills of Ufton, Great Missenden, Wendover, Thorpe Mandeville and Chipping Warden whilst still dissectirig several amenities (including the Aylesbury Park Golf Course/Club and Turweston point to point race course) and disrupting key existing key roads, including the A4010, A418 and A41, Lack of surveys and consultation with intent to avoid direct and significant impact to amenities Your Petitioner objects to the serious shortcomings by DfT and HS2 and its agents to fail to work from aerial photographs, LIDAR data and from other technologies in 2009 until 2012 when the determination to prefer Route 3 Phase 1 was being made with inadequate local knowledge and detailed understanding of the conflicts^ elevations, situations and the impacts of Route 3 in detail and of the other 90 route sections and 8 HS2 routes. Unlike CTRL (HSl) where first British Rail and then Kent County Council with London and Continental Railways produced four folly detailed potential routes and assessed each ahd riiodified these to fmally select the current consfructed HSl. Such diligent planning is possible for a specific defined scope. HS2 has changed the route scopes, its functions and its extent without considering to the same level of detail the altemative routes. These should be reassessed to reduce impacts. The Bill method worked for Crossrail because it was mainly underground works. HS2 has been a one pass approach no rework approach which has not been accepted in consultations and route reassessments can help relieve impacts in several areas.
Your Petitioner has serious concerns over the provision of information supplied by the Promoter, both prior to the deposit of the Bill and up to the date of the deposit of this petition. This has meant that thorough and detailed assessments of the proposed project, its impacts and beuefits have been difficult to determine and compile from the many documents and file formats included with the Bill. In particular, your Petitioner is still not satisfied about the adequacy of the Environmental Statement. Baseline assumptions made for a number of generic issues have yet to be substantiated. Ancillary documentation such as the Code Pf Consfruction Practice is not yet accepted by a Nominated Undertaker and is subject to the value for money aims the Chairman of HS2 Limited is indicating.
Your Petitioner is concemed that the consultation process has flaws from haste and inadequate comparisons SEA reviews may resolve, indicating a failure on the part of the DfT and HS2 to communicate with all the stakeholders equitable, some did hot have working meetings with the Promoter or consultants before 2011 to explain all the heritage, business and other implications such as on the golf club and course earlier in the alignment processes when HS2 could have responded.
Your Petitioner believes that the HS2 route selection was not fransparentan d was done with far too little up-to-date local information. There has been a sihiple alignment between Wendover and Calvert which was curved by the position of Aylesbury tOwn, There was not an attempt to avoid the impact on your Petitioner's business by HS2 only slight noise and visual considerations with an adverse curvatare made in 2010 by HS2 to the route across the course. Decisions of this magnitade are usually made with Public Inquiries and the use of competent planning inspector and appeal reviews as Lord Justice Ouseley advised in Court, not by leaving Out your Petitioner a relevant stakeholder.
Your Petitioner understands that a project of this type would now be subject to much more detailed design work than it appears has been undertaken by HS2. Not only is such detail missing forthe current scheme and impacts have not been properly analysed at the right time and the most appropriate tunnelling and route alignments have not been chosen taking all criteria into account. Your Petitioner believes insufficient budget and shortage of time are now consfraints at this stage if the aim to obtain Royal Assent in this Parliamerit still applies. Iri consequeuce, the impacts upon your Petitiorier's property arid other iriterests in the community are still not defined to your Petitioner's acceptance and yOur Petitioner is handicapped in their ability to engage with the Promoter to safeguard their interests equitably.
Your Petitioner objects to the little detailed scope and timescale schedules being made available for access to your Petitioner's land and amenities for intrusive surveys and/or enabling works for diversion or renewal of utilities and the construction of access roads.
Your Petitioner objects to the lack of specific detail and agreement on the tasks and scopes intended by HS2 for the Aylesbury Park GOlf Club and course, iricluding the detailed plans for the diversion and replacement pf utilities across the course and across Lower Hartwell and Whaddon Hill farmland. 29 Programme for the Works The Environmental Statement states that the main consfruction works will take place over a two to three year period, ih addition to which, enabling works will be undertakeri iri advance of the main consfruction works. This is within a consfruction programme of up to ten years. Works within your Petitioner's course should be delayed possibly up to the latest time2024, 7 years from 2017.
Your Petitioner wishes to establish that the programme for the works is kept as short as possible in order to minimise the disruption caused to your Petitioner's operatioris during the use of the worksite. Your Petitioner acknowledges, however, that any reduction in the tinie allocated for the carrying out of the works should not be achieved at the cost of causing unacceptable harm to the amenities , Your Petitioner wishes to be corisulted ou the phasirig and timing of the works, the location of surveys and detailed works, resfrictions on access and other effects including the examination of the large water pipeline across the course which has burst occasionally.
Your Petitioner forthef submits that a 10-year extendable time limit if included in the Bill is too long and should become a fixed 2 year limit. The affected property and business will be rendered blighted by this Bill, and prolonging this situation is unacceptable, especially as HS2 proposals for Aylesbury were not in sufficient detail at the public consultation making the impacts uncertain to assess for example seen by comparing the area of Sedrup, A418 and the Aylesbury Park Golf Club property with the current alarming land take and works information in the 2013/2014 Environmental Statement. The thin line on maps up to late 2013 became very wide strips and areas of land take,
30 Deviation Your Petitioner objects to the Bill in that the effect of it is to give the Secretary of State the power to deviate laterally from the lines shown on the deposited plans to any extent within the limits of deviation apd vertically from the levels shown on the deposited sections to any extent not exceeding several metres upwards and to any extent downwards. Your Petitioner submits that the limits in the Bill cause uncertainty in view of the possible effects and likely impacts of the works.
Your Petitioner seeks aniendment to Clauses of the Bill to provide for ari effective corisultation period where such deviations are proposed and amendments to Schedules are required to provide for suitable mitigation of adverse effects in an appropriate manner.
The Nominated Undertaker may deviate from the level shown for work on the deposited sections to any extent not exceeding several metres upwards and to any extent downwards. Any such deviation either laterally or vertically can have an increased defrimerital effect On your Petitioner's golf club. Such deviation should therefore not be undertaken without foil cohsultation of those who, like your Petitioner, will be affected and the Bill should be amended to contain a procedure to this effect.
Your Petitioner requires the limit of the deviation to be moved away from the course fairways so that more of the land occupied by your Petitioner is taken out of the limit of lahd liable to be compulsorily acquired and not available for golfing.
31 Local Planning Your Petitioner is guided by Lord Justice OUseley that planriing for infrastructure requires credible inputs from those impacted to scrutinise development plahs and by the Supreme Court that all altematives are available to Parliament in progressing the Bill and is guided by the Honourable House's Select Cohimittee's rUles proposal to consider changes within the broad corridor.
Your Petitioner agrees with petitioning to identify the direct and specific impacts and sitaations that result from the imposition of the confiscation and use of land for a different purpose to its existing use or purpose by requesting specific measures.
Your Petitioner is concemed that without input from your Petitioner others have publicly stated requirehiehts for the leases interests and business without your Petitioner's inputs or agreements for legacy requireniehts for the areas used for golf and within which the golf club is located. These are not acceptable to your Petitioner.
The Aylesbury Vale District Council recent local plan was not accepted by Govemment and your Petitioner has not been involved in this process, or other Council plans. Your Petitioher's petitiori requiremerit is to sustairi the golf club arid course and business within the 173 acre area riow established successfully to provide a significant share for the local community's golfing needs.
32 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Review specific measure request Your Petitioner petitions that the promotion of Route 3 was prematare as altemative route engineering using a systematic process SEA with EIAs has not been examined in detail and as a result the best route proposal by Aylesbury has not been selected taking, all criteria into account, and without this analysis the Environmental Staterrient may be in breach of the European Community Directive for the full assessment Of effects on certain projects with altematives as may apply to the HS2 rOute selection.
Accordingly, your Petitioner requests your Honourable House to request the use of the SEA method as a specific measure and the Promoter is put to provide reviews that are clear for discernible altematives to the current Route 3 alignment by Aylesbury, For example, your Petitioner would submit that another aHgnment and/or tannel might be better placed to reduce envirorimental and other impacts to your Petitioner's course and a longer realignment will reduce impacts at more locations.
Your Petitioner does not wish to lose or close the club and is very concemed that more than 375 people will suffer directly, especially if they are forced to leave because of HS2 preliminary works.
Your Petitioner employs approximately 11 local staff at the golf club. A SEA may help both groups.
Schedule 2 of the European Directive sets out the criteria of 0,5 hectare to a length of 2km of railway route for the SEA to be considered and applied. The course is 2km long on one axis and the HS2 Route 3 crosses 1.75km of the course and then crosses 0.5km more of the Chairman's adjacent land and then crosses a forther 1km of the Emest Cook Tmst Estate. This total of 3km section of route at Aylesbury can be relocated to save Aylesbury from being bounded by a surface fenced area forever.
Your Petitioner objects to the proposed works (those parts of Works Numbers: 2/27, 2/28, 2/49, 2/50, 2/51, 2/5 lA and 2/52) which may have a direct affects, or significant indirect affects on the property, rights and interests of your Petitioner and the Chairman of your Petitioner, club members and other golfers on the ba;sis the Secretary of State for Transport has not established and demonstrated that an appropriate design is to be adopted by not using a local SEA, The Environmental Statement responses and Environmental Audit Committee Iriquiry indicate that HS2 has not identified a design (the "Alternative Design") offering a better engineering solution more sjmipathetic than the HS2 route proposed. Alternative designs are able to reduce risks and reduce significant construction impacts by removing the need for the works, together with the associated worksites and reducing harm. If, notwithstanding your Petitioner's submissions, the HS2 route must be retained at its present location, then your Petitioner submits that the Secretary of State for Trarisport should be required to adopt an acceptable Alternative Design with realignment or taimelling in the broad corridor to save the club.
Your Petitioner forthersubmit s that the Bill should stipulate that there is a range of feasible alternatives and decisions should be made so as to cause the least damage to the golf club and cpurse, the environment, residents and the community, and not mainly on the basis of cost,
A SEA provides with EIA's the means to undertake and demonsfrate comparisons for locations.
Your Petitioner intends to rely upon expert evidence from consultants as well as provide witness evidence of some members and others who use the club and/or course for enjoyment and fonctions, taking account of any adverse or forther affects that arise within the petitioning and/or SEA periods. ReconfigtiratiOn of the course during a SEA review
The details of the ability to reconfigure the course cari be assessed for each SEA altemative.
33 Specific Measures Your Petitioner proposes the following specific measures to try to save the golf club arid course for the community and provide much needed local emplpyment. Your Petitioner has a number of concerns regarding the impact of the Bill's proposals and the adequacy of the safeguards provided for in relation to the environnient. Your Petitioner must resolve all outstanding issues of concern with the Promoter. Nevertheless, there are some riiatters, particularly in respect of conservation to sustain the golf course, which your Petitioner has concluded should be pursued through this petition in case they cannot be resolved with HS2 directly.
Your Petitioner further subriiits that as Route 3 with the 2011 alignment remains within the Bill, the Bill should await a SEA review with detailed land use and consfruction plans for all altematives and your Petitioner agrees to maintain a viable main golf course if the hiaximum of course space permits offset reinstatement of equivalent biodiversity vegetation and habitats in another suitable location.
Your Petitioner requests specific measures for the Aylesbury Park Golf Club to operate to include:
1. Delaying intrusive surveys and advanced work until the latest dates to enable the facility to remain a viable fonctioninggol f club and course for the longest period of time by delaying works.
2, Delaying the detailed ground and site investigations and drillihg ori the course to meet BTS/ABI joint risks requirements for tannelling and similar processes for cuttingSj excavation and disposal of ground materials to enable golfing to continue as long as possible on the course,
3 . Your Petitioner requests the removal of sloped earth bunds for little noise reduction which take more land from the course open areas to the narrowest walled channel and viaduct with effective vertical noise walls instead of the earth and trees and visual mitigation walls through the golf course. This will reduce land lost from your Petitioner's golf course by the HS2 route and works for the least width land take whilst providing similar mitigation effects..
4, Reducing the land take that will be used for consfructioh and the removal of the extension of tree corridors by using vertical noise walls and visual wall screening,
5, Changes to consfruction vehicle arid plant access route (s) crossing the golf course and Lower Hartwell and a different access to the River Thame area by using the HS2 construction corridor and Rabans Lane. Movements to be along the route corridor from the A41 ahd A418 with a temporary bridge across the River Thame,
6, The request to reinstate the course embankment viaduct or a similar bridge instead of the embankment with over bridge in Works Number 2/50 to access more areas of the course.
7, Deterftiinihg other rail route aligriments or route altematives tP sustain use of the course for golf
8, The use of a long tunnel under the River Thame, the course, A418 arid part of the Sedrup area to avoid the need to realign the A4l8 and build a 'land bridge' with significant cOrigeStiori arid works,
9, Reducirig the current total larid takes across the course arid football pitches to enable continual uses,
10, Preventing the course becoming wetland habitats, ponding and storage areas by recommending increasing the use of agricultural grazipg and grassland if the course carinot be saved. "V
11 ,Your Petitioner requests a SEA review as a specific measure as a changed HS2 route is a far better option if it caused far less severe community impacts to the course and west of Aylesbury.
12.Your Petitioner requests a specific measure for reducing the train and line speed by Aylesbury for HS2 to allow by greater routing alignments and a lower carbon footprint.
34 Conclusions Lord Justice Ouseley and the Supreme Court suggested the application of a SEA is a discretion your Honourable House can authorise during the passage through Parliament. Your Petitiorier submits to your Honourable House the equity in HS2 undertaking a SEA to review the routes to reduce an Aylesbury comniunity's golf club impacts from Route 3 compared to other altematives to find an approach to sustain the fonctions of the club and the course.
Your Petitioner' s requests if it is shown to the satisfaction of your Honourable House that a changed HS2 route is a better proposal that will result in far less severity of cumulative community impacts along the bousing line of Aylesbury Town and enable the golf club and course to continue to fonction.
Your Petitioner submits that, in the respects mentioned and in other respects, the Bill fails adequately to safeguard and protect the interests of your Petitioner when route altematives are possible.
Your Petitioner objects to the proposed HS2 Route 3 where it crosses the Aylesbury Park Golf Club and course near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire when it is possible to save the community club.
Your Petitioner respectfolly requests assurances that any rules made in exercise of this power will ensure impartiality of an arbifrator and will provide a procedure in line with the Arbifration Act 1996 or an independent mediator.
There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill, which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner and its rights,interest s and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.
Your Petitioner and her rights interests and property will be injuriously affected by the proposals in the Bill to which your Petitioner objects, for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.
YOUR PETITIONER therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they may be heard by their Counsel, Agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights and interests of your Petitioner and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedieht for their protection. Or that sUch other relief may be given to your Petitioner in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet,
AND your Petitioner will ever pray, &c.
Signed by the petitipner officer GEOFFREY LEGOUIX
Signature.. .^-r..^
Managing Director of Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited. .dl
IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-14
HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL
PETITION OF AYLESBURY PARK GOLF CLUB LIMITED.
Against the Bill — On Merits — ByCPunsel &c.
Signed by the petitioher officer Geoffrey Legouix Managing DirectorjrfA^jtes^ry Park Golf Club Limited
Signature.
Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited Andrews Way, Coldharbour Way Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP17 8QQ
Telephone number: \
E-Mail: ^ r 'Lette.r of AMthority
Petition of Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited Registered in England Regisfration Number: 3883455
We hereby authorise Geoffrey Legouix the Managing Director to act as the petitiprier officer Pn behalf Of the Aylesbury Park Golf Club Limited in all iriatters relating to the Hybrid Bill: HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL
Aylesbury Park Golf Club Ltd
Andrews Way Signature of the Company Secretary.
Off Coldharbour Way Carole Bames - — 1 0)cford Road Signatare of Chairman Aylesbury X)hn Woodforli Buckinghamshire HP17 8QQ Date 7-
Dirertors: Geoffrey Legouix (Managing) John Woodford (Chairman) Company Secretary: Carole Barnes Company Registration No.,3883455. VAT Registration No. 718 2960 19