EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOC/00520 Petitioner: Buckinghamshire County Council Published to Collaboration Area: Wednesday 07-Oct-2015

Page 1 of 340

No Exhibit Name Page

1 A1436 Tunnel costs CDC July (A1436 ) 3

2 A1437 Tunnel costs CRAG July (A1437 ) 4

3 A1438 Derivation of non market effects note July (A1438 ) 5

4 A1439 DfT Advice note on VfM assessment (A1439 ) 6 - 30

5 A1440 Bucks intro (A1440 ) 31 - 39

6 A1441 Waste and SP (A1441 ) 40 - 55

7 A1442 Community Fund slides (A1442 ) 56 - 71

8 A1443 Community Fund BCC ideas list (A1443 ) 72 - 82

9 A1444 Community Fund WCC ideas list (A1444 ) 83 - 90

10 A1445 Flood and water (A1445) 91 - 96

11 A1446 Heritage (A1446 ) 97 - 107

12 A1447 Steeple Claydon Mitigation Plan (A1447) 108 - 132

13 A1448 Steeple Claydon Station Edi Smockum (A1448 ) 133 - 137

14 A1449 Steeple Claydon Station PB (A1449 ) 138 - 154

15 A1450 Landscape (A1450 ) 155 - 190

16 A1451 Landscape route wide (A1451 ) 191

17 A1452 SW Aylesbury (A1452 ) 192 - 204

18 A1453 Traffic and transport (A1453) 205 - 282

19 A1454 Ecology (A1454 ) 283 - 314

20 A1455 PRoWs (A1455) 315 - 324

HOC/00520/0001 EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOC/00520 Petitioner: Buckinghamshire County Council Published to Collaboration Area: Wednesday 07-Oct-2015

Page 2 of 340

No Exhibit Name Page

21 A1456 PRoWs letter (A1456 ) 325 - 326

22 A1457 Property (A1457 ) 327 - 340

HOC/00520/0002 True additional cost of options

gPS CLT CLTi CRAG T3i

Difference in construction costs £0m £532m £465m £396m (using HS2 figures where available) BUT

Acquisition of land costs £50m £3m £3.3m £3.3m AND

Non market effects £510m £56m £56m £56m AND Direct economic effects in the Chiltern District £170m - - -

Consequent likely £730m £591m £524.3m £455.3m additional cost

A1436 HOC/00520/0003

Do not remove this if sending to pagerunnerr Page Title

Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers

December 2013

A1439 (1) HOC/00520/0006

Executive summary

1. The Department for Transport uses the 'Transport Business Case'1 approach to support decision making for major investment. A key element of this approach is the Value for Money statement, which summarises the impact on the 'Economic Case' of the transport intervention under consideration.

2. The ‘Economic Case’ and supporting Value for Money assessment uses the HM Treasury Green Book2 method of cost benefit analysis. This assesses the value of a transport project by weighing the benefits against the costs to indicate whether it is Value for Money. The Value for Money assessment is, however, not just about money and saving people time; a wide spectrum of impacts is considered in a detailed appraisal, including various impacts on the economy, the environment and social welfare. Further details of DfT’s transport appraisal process, and how it relates to decision making, can be found in recently published note3.

3. As part of the devolution process, a significant portion of the DfT budget is being devolved and is part of the Local Growth Fund from 2015. The selection and approval of funding for individual local major transport schemes will now be the responsibility of local decision makers.

4. It is for local decision makers to determine the most appropriate criteria for prioritising spend on transport and the level of analysis required. Value for Money should nevertheless always be a factor considered in such decision making and in approving funding for individual schemes at all stages.

5. This note has been produced to help promote sound decision making and ensure that Value for Money of schemes is appropriately considered. It provides details of the Value for Money assessment process that DfT has developed over many years to assess major transport schemes, including the role of qualitative, quantitative and monetised information. It also shares some advice on the use of uplifts and values which have previously been used by the DfT in the assessment of major schemes. The presentation of this information and the use of standard tables such as the Analysis of Monetised Cost and Benefits Table and the Appraisal Summary Table are also discussed in this paper.

1 Transport Business Case: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-business-case 2 HM Treasury Green Book: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and- evaluation-in-central-governent 3 Transport Appraisal in Investment Decisions: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253484/transport-appraisal- in-investment-decisions.pdf

4

A1439 (4) HOC/00520/0009

proposal are assessed using qualitative, quantitative and monetised information.

1.6 The Value for Money assessment of a transport intervention has been designed as a staged process to ensure that a complete and robust analysis is undertaken by the practitioner. The Appraisal Summary Table9 (AST) helps to inform this process by providing a template for a summary of all the monetised, qualitative and quantitative impacts of the transport scheme to be presented as a coherent package.

1.7 The box below outlines the main 4 steps in the assessment process and how they make use of the detail presented in the AST.

BOX 1: Value for Money Process

Appraisal Summary Table

Monetised Impacts 1. Initial BCR & the AMCB Table

Qualitative & quantitative 2. Adjusted BCR information

Adjusted BCR 3. VfM Category Qualitative & Quantitative Information

Benefits vs. Costs, 4. VFM Statement Risks, Sensitivities

1.8 The assessment starts with the calculation of those impacts, positive and negative, that can be expressed in money terms (“monetised”). This would typically include things like capital cost of the scheme and revenues. These monetised impacts are summed to construct an Initial Benefit Cost Ratio (Initial BCR) – that is the amount of benefit being bought for every £1.00 of cost to the public purse. A summary of the monetised information along with the Initial BCR is then presented in the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Table10.

9 Appraisal Summary Table: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/xls/U2_7_2- appraisal-summary-table110418.xls 10 AMCB table: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/unit2.7.1.php

7

A1439 (7) HOC/00520/0012

2. Initial BCR

2.1 The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) considers the impacts to the economy, society, the environment and the public accounts. It offers an estimate of the value of benefit generated for every £1 of public expenditure on a project or scheme.

2.2 The Initial BCR can be constructed using the DfT's WebTAG guidance. WebTAG Unit 3.5.4 provides advice on monetising the different benefits and costs of a transport intervention and also outlines the different assumptions for the appraisal of such impacts.

2.3 Benefits and costs that contribute to the Initial BCR can be presented in the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Table13.

2.4 The Initial BCR defines the initial Value for Money category. Proposals are judged to offer poor, low, medium, high and very high Value for Money based on the BCR boundaries. These categories include:  Poor VfM if BCR is below 1.0  Low VfM if the BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5  Medium VfM if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2.0  High VfM if the BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0  Very High VfM if the BCR is greater than 4.0

2.5 The Value for Money assessment should then account for quantitative and qualitative information. The following sections of this advice note provide more advice on the use of this information, construction of the Adjusted BCR and final Value for Money categorisation.

13 AMCB Table: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/xls/amcb-table.xls

10

A1439 (10) HOC/00520/0015 COST BENEFIT SUMMARY Net Present Value of activity / impacts Cost / Benefit of T3i Savings to HS2 Ltd (£m, 2011 prices) Savings in the cost of additional mitigation (if no long tunnel) +100 Savings in ‘Zone’ compensation paid by HS2 Ltd 10 Wider economic savings (conservative estimates) Landscape and Environment 185 Property Blight 100 Transport 4-19 Tourism 99 Overall savings 498-513 Additional engineering cost of T3i 204-286 NET PRESENT VALUE OF T3i £212-309m

A1437 HOC/00520/0004 Buckinghamshire Local Authorities and Chilterns Conservation Board

Derivation of £510M: Non-market Effects

[Typed note of handwritten version handed to committee during local authorities’ presentation in July 2015]

1. Refer to Department for Transport Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Makers, December 2013

2. Annex A identifies “Landscape Values”

3. Land types are described and values assigned

4. These land types include natural and semi-natural land and rural forested land (amenity)

5. There is no land type described by reference to AONB designation

6. The Local Authorities and CCB say that value attached to such rare and important land must be at least equivalent to that described in 4 above

7. In the AONB there is a permanent loss of 200ha and a temporary loss of 170ha: the temporarily lost land as designated becomes “agricultural land (extensive)”. This is valued at £0.88m per hectare. The value attributed to the designated land set out at 4 above is £1.8m per hectare

Calculation

Loss = 200ha x £1.8m = £360m

Plus difference between: 170ha x £1.8m less 170ha x £0.88m = £156.4m

£360m + £156.4m = £510m

p:\hs2\chiltern\derivation of non market effect note.docx

A1438 HOC/00520/0005 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.

Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General email enquiries [email protected]

© Crown copyright 2013

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

A1439 (2) HOC/00520/0007

Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Initial BCR ...... 10 3. Adjusted BCR...... 11 4. Qualitative Impacts...... 18 5. Value for Money Case...... 19 Annex A: Landscape Values ...... 21 Annex B: Qualitative Scores for Dependent Development ...... 23 Annex C: Q&A...... 24

3

A1439 (3) HOC/00520/0008

6. The DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG)4 contains a wealth of material covering detailed advice on modelling, appraisal and the assessment of social and distributional impacts5. WebTAG includes specific values for use in appraisal that are based on detailed research. Inevitably the evidence available for some appraisal aspects and some scheme types will be less certain; and this note seeks to explain the best practice for dealing with these circumstances.

7. The methods described in this note have, in general, been used by the DfT for assessment of major schemes rather than smaller scale investments. This advice should therefore be considered in that context and proportionality should be a key consideration in application.

8. This advice, in itself, is not mandatory. Individual devolved funding streams may, however, be subject to minimum requirements on Value for Money and these will be communicated separately. In any event this advice note should serve as good practice.

9. In particular, this advice will enable Local Transport Bodies to fulfil the requirements of their ‘Assurance Frameworks’ in relation to Value for Money and should be seen as the DfT’s definitive guidance in this regard.

4 WebTAG: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index.php

5 Social and Distributional Impacts Guidance: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.17.php

5

A1439 (5) HOC/00520/0010

1. Introduction

Background

1.1 The Department for Transport uses the 'Transport Business Case' approach for decision making. Using this approach means that business cases are developed in line with the Treasury's advice on evidence- based decision making set out in the Green Book6. The Transport Business Case is a five case model that shows whether schemes:  are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives – the ‘Strategic Case’;  demonstrate value for money – the ‘Economic Case’;  are commercially sound – the ‘Commercial Case’;  are financially affordable – the ‘Financial Case’; and  are achievable – the ‘Management Case’.

1.2 The five cases can be developed with the help of guidance and tools made available by the DfT to ensure that the assessment is robust and consistent. WebTAG7, the DfT's guidance on the conduct of transport studies, provides advice on the development of transport options and the appraisal and modelling requirements underlying their assessment.

1.3 Evidence from each of the five cases feeds into the decision making process, where this information is reviewed in three stages. Stage 1 sets out the need for intervention (Strategic Outline Business Case), stage 2 concentrates on the detailed assessment of the options (Outline Business Case) and stage 3 is the Full Business Case supporting the decision to commit funding.

1.4 This decision making process is intended to be flexible to ensure that time and resources spent on the development of a business case are proportionate to the size of the investment. More information on the five cases and the DfT's decision making process can be found on the DfT's website8.

Value for Money

1.5 The Economic Case assesses the impacts and the Value for Money (VfM) implications of all the options outlined in the business case. The economic, environmental, social, distributional and fiscal impacts of a

6 HM Treasury Green Book: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and- evaluation-in-central-governent 7 WebTAG: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index.php https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-business-case 8 Transport Business Case:

6

A1439 (6) HOC/00520/0011

1.9 Not all impacts lend themselves as easily to being monetised. The next step is then to look at those impacts where there is at least some evidence to support calculation of a money value. This might include aspects such as reliability improvements or landscape impacts. The resulting numbers can then be added to those used for the Initial BCR to calculate an Adjusted BCR.

1.10 Once the impacts that can be expressed in monetary terms have been calculated, and the sensitivities and uncertainties surrounding those calculations have been logged, the assessment needs to capture the remaining impacts that cannot be monetised (for example the impact an urban scheme might have in improving the aesthetics of the public realm). Taking all this information together allows a judgement to be made on the Value for Money category of the proposed scheme.

1.11 Table 1.1 below helps to provide an overview of the benefits and highlight those that are included in the Initial and Adjusted BCR. The table also outlines those benefits or costs that are currently not monetised and may be presented as qualitative information.

Table 1.1 Impacts of a Transport Scheme

Category of Impacts typically Impacts that can be Impacts currently impacts monetised monetised not normally monetised (Initial BCR) (Adjusted BCR)

Economy Business users and Reliability; providers11 Regeneration; Wider Townscape Impacts; Heritage Environment Noise, Air Quality Landscape Biodiversity Greenhouse gas Water Social Commuting & Other Reliability users12; Accidents, Security Physical Activity and Option and non-use Journey Quality values Access to Services

Public Accounts Cost to broad Affordability transport budget Severance Indirect tax

11 Business users and providers benefits may include impacts to travel time, vehicle operating costs, user charges and impacts during construction and maintenance. These benefits may also include impacts to revenue, operating and investment costs, grants and developer contributions. 12 Commuting and other users benefits may include impacts to travel time, vehicle operating costs, user charges and impacts during construction and maintenance.

8

A1439 (8) HOC/00520/0013

1.12 Finally, a Value for Money statement is produced using this information to provide a summary of the conclusions from the Value for Money assessment. It appraises whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the costs whilst identifying any key risks and sensitivities that may affect the Value for Money conclusion. An example of the steps above is provided in Section 5 (Value for Money Assessment) of this document.

A Note for Practitioners

1.13 This note can be used by local decision makers when undertaking a Value for Money assessment of major transport schemes.

1.14 This advice, in itself, is not mandatory. Individual devolved funding streams may, however, be subject to minimum requirements on Value for Money and these will be communicated separately. In any event this advice note should serve as good practice. In particular, this note will enable Local Transport Bodies to fulfil the requirements of their ‘Assurance Frameworks’ in relation to Value for Money and should be seen as the DfT’s definitive guidance in this regard.

1.15 This note provides an overview of the Value for Money process including advice on the different stages of the assessment and how these contribute to the final Value for Money statement.

1.16 Whilst this advice note does provide some advice on the development of the Initial BCR, the main focus of this document is outlining the Value for Money assessment process and providing detail on the impacts that contribute to the Adjusted BCR. This note should therefore be seen as complementary to, and be used in conjunction with, WebTAG.

1.17 A key consideration when applying both the advice in this note and WebTAG guidance is the need for proportionality. The scale and severity of the impacts of the scheme and the uncertainty in assessment should define the level of effort needed for each element of the assessment.

1.18 The advice provided herein on the monetisation of quantitative and qualitative information for the Adjusted BCR reflects best practice in the DfT. These uplifts and values have not been included in WebTAG, but provide an indicative order of magnitude of the benefits. The results are not intended to provide precise estimates but may be used to help judge the Value for Money of a scheme.

9

A1439 (9) HOC/00520/0014

3. Adjusted BCR

3.1 The second stage of the Value for Money assessment process builds on the initial monetised costs and benefits. This stage considers the qualitative and quantitative information on some impacts and how these contribute to the Value for Money of the scheme.

3.2 This section of this advice provides advice on the monetisation of qualitative and quantitative information. The methods outlined may make use of uplifts and benchmark values in cases where evidence base is less well developed. They help to provide some indication of the Value for Money impacts of the individual costs and benefits.

3.3 The evidence base used to derive the monetary values here is necessarily less robust than values used for the initial BCR and therefore it is important to consider these estimates as part of the Adjusted BCR.

3.4 In order to ensure a robust analysis, it is important to follow a structured and consistent approach. The sections below on Reliability, Option Values, Regeneration, Wider Impacts and Landscape outline the basic method and principles for assessing these individual impacts.

Reliability

3.5 WebTAG Unit 3.5.7 provides guidance for modelling and monetisation of changes in journey time reliability for dual carriageway, motorway and urban road users. This assessment is usually generated through use of the reliability modelling software. Reliability benefits accrued to rail passengers can be similarly and systematically modelled for rail projects.

3.6 However reliability modelling may not be achievable for some road schemes, such as single carriageways outside of urban areas and public transport schemes. For public transport schemes, reliability would be based on the difference between the Preferred Arrival Time (PAT) and the actual arrival time. However, very little is known about PAT for most public transport schemes. In these instances reliability cannot be captured in the BCR but reliability valuations can be approximated and monetised for the Value for Money process.

3.7 Reliability benefits have previously been estimated in the DfT by applying uplifts of 5%, 10% and 20% of time savings. These provide an indicative measure of reliability benefits to reflect Slight, Moderate or Large impacts respectively.

3.8 The first step of estimating impacts outside of the model is to understand the evidence base for reliability impacts. For journeys on single carriageways outside urban areas, WebTAG unit 3.5.7 recommends the use of a stress based approach. In this case, the assessment of changes in reliability should be based on changes in "stress"- the ratio of

11

A1439 (11) HOC/00520/0016

annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow to the Congestion Reference flow ( a definition of capacity).

3.9 WebTAG provides advice on how the stress test results can be interpreted as Slight, Moderate or Large based on the values calculated. The appropriate uplift to time savings can then be applied to monetise the reliability impact. These results along with the evidence used (e.g. stress test) should be clearly covered in the Value for Money assessment.

3.10 If a stress based approach has not been undertaken, sensitivity tests for reliability using the uplifts should be undertaken. This would help to provide a useful indication of the likely impact of reliability on the VfM category. Any key impacts should also be summarised in the Value for Money statement.

Option values and Non-use values

3.11 Option values measure the willingness to pay to preserve the option of using a transport service for trips that are currently undertaken by other modes, over and above the expected value of any future use. For example, a car owner may value the option of a rail service being available for circumstances when they cannot use the car.

3.12 Non-use values or existence values, on the other hand, represent the value society places on the very existence of a service or facility regardless of any possibility of future use; this may be related to its usefulness to others or perhaps as a matter of civic pride.

3.13 WebTAG Unit 3.6.1 provides monetary values for different transport packages for schemes that consider changes in local bus and rail services. This unit also provides detail on the circumstances and methods for applying these values in appraisal. Because the evidence base used to derive the monetary values is less robust14, it is important to consider such estimates only as part of the Adjusted BCR.

3.14 The Appraisal Summary Table should include details of the assumptions used in the assessment along with the final Net Present Value. If a monetary assessment has not been undertaken, the AST should provide a summary of the evidence used to assess this impact qualitatively.

Regeneration

3.15 WebTAG Unit 3.5.8 provides advice and links for identifying regeneration areas (RA) and the method used for assessing transport schemes that affect travel to, from or within one or more RAs.

3.16 The first task is to understand whether the scheme lies in a Regeneration Area. A Regeneration Report would then need to be prepared using the

14 Refer to WebTAG Unit 3.6.1 for further detail on the evidence base.

12

A1439 (12) HOC/00520/0017

guidance provided in WebTAG. The report should demonstrate the role transport plays in the RA's economy and how the proposed scheme is expected to affect job creation and employment levels in the area. WebTAG Unit 3.5.13 also provides advice on data sources that can be used when preparing a Regeneration Report. This is not an exhaustive list of sources but provides a starting point for this analysis.

Wider Impacts

3.17 WebTAG Unit 3.5.14 provides detailed instruction on how to measure wider impacts. This includes agglomeration impacts (i.e. the impact an increase in the concentration of economic activity has on productivity), increased or decreased output in imperfectly competitive markets (i.e. welfare gain/loss from increased/decreased output in these circumstances) and the effect on labour markets. The assessment of these impacts is usually undertaken using WITA (Wider Impacts in Transport Appraisal) software which automates the process outlined in WebTAG.

3.18 The use of such software is highly recommended by the DfT as it can help produce more accurate and robust results. However, in the absence of evidence, uplifts may be used to provide some understanding on the magnitude of such benefits.

3.19 An indicative measure of the value of increased output in imperfectly competitive markets can be estimated using a 10% uplift to Business User Benefits15. This represents the additional consumer surplus associated with increased output in imperfectly competitive markets.

Dependent Development

3.20 Dependent development is defined in WebTAG Unit 3.16D as housing which is dependent on the provision of some form of transport service. The dependency test outlined in this unit helps to establish whether the transport network could still provide a reasonable level of service in the absence of the transport intervention but with the new housing development. If this is not the case, the development can be considered to be dependent on the transport intervention.

3.21 The assessment then mainly involves two key steps:  assessing the benefits of the transport intervention in isolation (without the new housing development)  assessing the (dis-)benefits of dependent housing.

15 Feldman O. Nicol J, Simmonds D, Sinclair C and Skinner (2008)-"Use of Integrated transport land use models in the wider economic benefits calculations of transport schemes". Paper presented at 87th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2008, Washington DC, USA. Forthcoming in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

13

A1439 (13) HOC/00520/0018

3.22 The analysis for the transport intervention can be presented like any other transport assessment, including presenting the results in the AMCB Table and AST.

3.23 In this context the assessment of the benefits of dependent housing also plays a vital role in the transport assessment. Although transport schemes may play a fundamental role in the facilitation of housing and other development, it is important to note that transport is not the only infrastructure item needed; other items such as supply of electricity and water will also play a role. The benefits of a development arise from a planning decision that depends on a package of infrastructure investments and hence it would not be appropriate to attribute all the benefits of the dependent housing to the transport scheme in isolation.

3.24 Full details of the analysis required to assess the benefits of dependent housing can be found in WebTAG Unit 3.16D16. The advice below provides a brief summary that can be followed for presenting the information and results from the analysis of the dependent housing:  Values: The promoters should report the number of dependent homes together with the hectares of land affected. The report should set the out the assumptions and values underlying estimates of ‘planning gain’ associated with the dependent housing and similarly for any external costs that have been calculated. Where local values have been used, the report should justify the basis for using these values instead of those recommended by the DfT.  Results: The estimated value of benefits of the dependent development can be used to obtain a qualitative assessment score. Guidance on the classification of these scores can be found in Annex B. The qualitative assessment of the dependent housing unlocked by a transport scheme is considered alongside any other non-monetised impacts to reach the overall assessment of the Value for Money of the transport scheme.

Landscape Assessment

3.25 The Landscape guidance published in WebTAG Unit 3.3.7 provides advice on how a qualitative assessment of these impacts can be undertaken. In the presence of moderate or large landscape impacts, an illustrative monetisation of the impact helps understand the Value for Money implications of landscape damage. The landscape assessment in WebTAG may differ from, but will be complementary to, any analysis needed for other (e.g. statutory) environmental assessments.

3.26 The following advice provides instruction on how practitioners can assess the landscape impact of a planned scheme and monetise this using recommended landscape values. The values help provide an indicative estimate of the monetary value of impacts but they are not

16 WebTAG Unit 3.16D Transport Appraisal in the Context of Dependent Development: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/U3-16D-dependent-development-Oct-2013.pdf

14

A1439 (14) HOC/00520/0019

suitable for giving precise estimates. The following advice should be used in conjunction with the assessment outlined in WebTAG Unit 3.3.7 as this will help inform whether a detailed monetised assessment is required.

3.27 The table below summarises the 6-step procedure on monetising landscape impacts:

Table 3.1 Summary of Landscape Assessment Process

Step Key aspects

1. Identify Landscape features Utilises information from the landscape worksheet and an environmental constraints map (identify moderate or large landscape impacts)

2. Segment the scheme Segmentation of scheme where landscape impacts vary significantly

3. Determine Land Type From information or other sources (environmental constraints map/ google maps) determine the appropriate (mix of) land type

4. Mitigation Identify any current mitigation structures or measures proposed to reduce impacts on the landscape.

5. Landscape Impact valuation Assessment using the landscape values recommended in this advice.

6. Sensitivity Tests Sensitivity analysis for the key assumptions used in the assessment. This could include a range of values (upper and lower bounds).

3.28 The starting point of the assessment depends on the analysis produced in the Landscape worksheets (from WebTAG Unit 3.3.7). If the landscape impact is considered to be neutral or slight, it is not proportionate to carry out a detailed analysis. If the scheme is judged to have a large or moderate impact, a detailed analysis should be undertaken to understand the potential impact on the BCR and Value for Money of the scheme.

3.29 Segmentation of the scheme would help identify homogenous aspects of the landscape. It is also essential to identify the "footprint" of the scheme or the area judged to be most affected. This assessment uses the assumption that the scheme or structure would affect the landscape up to 500m either side of the scheme. A linearly declining impact is also assumed and effectively implies that for each kilometre of the scheme, 25 hectares of land are fully impacted on each side of the scheme.

3.30 Steps 2 and 3 require the practitioner to make a judgement and can be aided through a variety of sources such as environmental constraints maps, OS maps, environment statements, aerial photos, artistic

15

A1439 (15) HOC/00520/0020

impressions, digital images such as Google earth or street view or site visit.

3.31 The assessment should also consider mitigation measures as these may imply a lower area for the impact. Mitigation for landscape impacts can be in various forms:  Existing structures: In this scenario, where a structure is nearby, the footprint of the existing and proposed development may overlap. Schemes that widen an existing road will also have a smaller impact than developments that are offline. Alternatively, the impact of existing housing or woodlands may act as a screen. The assessment should then only account for the marginal impact.  Mitigation within the Scheme: The scheme design may include mitigation directly, for example through use of tree planting or sympathetic materials.

3.32 Unit values for landscape and the definition of land types are adapted from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) literature review study concerning the benefits of undeveloped land (DCLG/ODPM, 2001)17. The Present Values are presented in per hectare and are taken to provide an indication of the flow of non-market benefits that may be associated with a particular land type. More detail on the derivation and origin of these estimates can be found in Annex A along with Table A1 which provides the values by land type.

3.33 The text box provides the calculation to be used when assessing these impacts. The approach proxies the loss of welfare resulting from the landscape impact of a proposal to the area of land affected by the proposal.

Landscape Calculation V  Length (km )  Value (£ )  A (ha ) s , I I ha s km V is the present value of the landscape impact associated for proposal s for land type l. This is calculated by multiplying the scheme length (for linear based schemes) by the appropriate landscape value for land type l (in present value terms), and a further factor A, which establishes the area of land which is impacted upon (i.e. the number of hectares per km of scheme). The mitigation measures discussed should be accounted for in this factor. For instance, if mitigation measures within the scheme are likely to reduce landscape impacts by 50%, A would be 25, or 50% of 25 on both sides of the scheme.

3.34 Judgement needs to be applied at many stages of this assessment process and therefore sensitivity analysis should be undertaken to test

17 DCLG/ODPM (2001) Valuing the External Benefits of Undeveloped Land: A Review of Economic Literature, Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) Appraisal Guidance, London.

16

A1439 (16) HOC/00520/0021

the assumptions used. The assessment could therefore assess a "best case" scenario and a "worst case" scenario with varying assumptions for mitigation, landscape character and the design envelope of the scheme. It will also be important to consider other underlying assumptions, especially those that are used elsewhere in the appraisal process (e.g. income growth), and ensure consistency in approach. In some cases it may be proportionate to carry out more detailed analysis, including consideration of the timing of the impacts. The impact of any sensitivity tests can then be presented within the Value for Money conclusions.

3.35 The suggested approach and values presented here may be adapted to suit different transport appraisal requirements. It is however necessary to understand that this approach cannot produce precise estimates and is only to provide an illustrative monetary figure of such impacts.

17

A1439 (17) HOC/00520/0022

4. Qualitative Impacts

4.1 Where a monetary assessment is not feasible, WebTAG provides guidance on the qualitative assessment of the impacts. This is covered in the WebTAG units for each impact but a brief outline of the basic methodology is discussed in this section.

4.2 The approach in general is the same for most qualitative assessments and should firstly consider how the transport scheme will affect each of the impacts individually. This is done by considering each impact with and without the scheme.

4.3 The impacts are then assessed using the recommended 7 point scale which breaks down impacts into Slight, Moderate or Large Beneficial or Adverse and Neutral. The WebTAG units also provide guidelines on the type of evidence to be used when applying this scale. These units may also contain worksheets to help with the assessment.

4.4 The Appraisal Summary Table should record the overall assessment of the qualitative impact along with details of any key assumptions and uncertainties.

4.5 A qualitative assessment may not contribute to the BCR but should be given equal weight when defining the Value for Money category. Large and Moderate impacts are more likely to affect the Value for Money and therefore should be highlighted in the Value for Money statement accordingly.

18

A1439 (18) HOC/00520/0023

5. Value for Money Assessment

5.1 A Value for Money conclusion can be drawn by considering all the evidence pulled together as part of the Value for Money statement.

5.2 The final Value for Money category should consider any key risks and uncertainties relating to the scheme. Sensitivity tests undertaken as part of the assessment should help inform how these risks may impact the Value for Money of the scheme. For instance, the assessment could consider the impact of high and low demand forecasts upon which the appraisal is based and high and low ranges for the Value of Travel Time savings. The assessment may also consider the impact of cost ranges or different levels of optimism bias.

5.3 The appropriate range of sensitivity tests should be determined on a case by case basis; with proportionality a key consideration.

5.4 Sensitivities undertaken to test the robustness of the results (e.g. implications of cost changes) can then be used to inform the final judgement on the Value for Money category.

5.5 The table below provides a worked example of how the assessment results can be used to arrive at a Value for Money category.

Table 5.1 Value for Money: Worked Example

Assessment Detail

Initial BCR 1.5 (BCR) Estimated using WebTAG Guidance

Adjusted BCR 1.9 (BCR) Includes estimates for Reliability Impacts

Qualitative Assessment Largely Beneficial There is strong evidence of impacts relating to Severance and Security benefits.

Key Risks, Sensitivities Risks reflected in VfM Cost estimates are not final. conclusion. Higher optimism bias rate applied to account for uncertainty in cost estimates.

VfM Category Medium/High Qualitative assessment suggests BCR may be high. Medium/High Value for Money is judged appropriate as it is not possible to distinguish between the two categories with any certainty.

19

A1439 (19) HOC/00520/0024

Value for Money Presentation

5.6 A Value for Money Statement summarising the Value for Money conclusions should then be produced to be included in the Economic Case.

5.7 The VfM statement should include:  The VFM category of the scheme (low, medium, high or very high). This is based on the overall results in the AST.  The present value of benefits and costs along with the Benefit Cost Ratio. The values for both the Initial and Adjusted BCR should be reported separately.  A concise summary of the benefits and costs that have been assessed including any assumptions that may influence the results. This may include details such as the optimism bias and any assumptions used to calculate benefits and costs for the Adjusted BCR.  Details of the non-monetised impacts particularly if these are estimated to have large or moderate impacts. For example, if journey ambience has not been monetised but is judged to have a large or moderate impact this should be presented in the statement.  Identification of any key risks, sensitivities and uncertainties underlying the appraisal.  An explanation of the reasons why the proposal is considered to fall in a specific VfM category.  Any significant social or distributional impacts (SDIs). The key findings from this should be reported in the Appraisal Summary Table.

5.8 The Value for Money Statement thus provides a concise description of the main conclusions. This is typically presented as a few paragraphs at the most in order to ensure that the key messages are effectively captured. Further detailed results can be presented in an Annex to the main document. The Appraisal Summary Table is also included to provide further detail on the costs and benefits included in the assessment.

20

A1439 (20) HOC/00520/0025

6. Annex A: Landscape Values

A.1 The landscape values reported in this advice are sourced from a study by the Department of Communities and Local Government18. The figures were obtained from an extensive literature review which consolidated and considered evidence from 47 relevant studies, mainly from the U.K but also from the U.S., Europe and Australia dating from 1984 to 2001.

A.2 The present value calculation accounts for a relative price effect; namely that willingness to pay may grow over time, principally due to rising incomes or increasing scarcity of land. This is a common assumption when considering the future value of non-market benefits.

A.3 The derivation of these values is sensitive to certain key issues:  Landscape impacts are assumed to exist in perpetuity. Even if a road lasts for 60 years (the current appraisal period) its impact is assumed to continue - unless costs of returning the landscape to its original form are included. Changing the time horizon would reduce the recommended guideline values.  The study assumed a 3% rate of increase to annual per hectare values composed of an income growth of 2.5% and an income elasticity of 1.2 (i.e. landscape values grow faster than income). Both parameter assumptions differ (and pre-date) from default values in the Green Book - which point towards a 2% rate of appreciation (and would approximately half current landscape figures).  The study values also pre-date Green Book discount rates - and use a 3.5% flat-rate discount rate rather than a declining rate over time as suggested by the Green Book19. This is in part a technical issue to allow the calculation of impacts over perpetuity (avoiding values exploding to infinity due to the interaction with the rate of appreciation).  The lower the discount rate, the less weight placed on benefits today relative to the future. Aggregated benefits accrued over a period of time will therefore be valued higher the lower the discount rate, tending towards infinity as the net effective discount rate diminishes.  It is also important to note that the reported landscape valuations do not just include landscape amenity benefits (where landscape character and quality combine to produce attractive views). They may also include the external benefits of recreation, biodiversity, cultural heritage, hydrology and tranquility. Some of these benefits

18 DCLG/ODPM (2001) Valuing the External Benefits of Undeveloped Land: A Review of Economic Literature, Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) Appraisal Guidance, London. 19 Green Book, p99 - 3.5% for first 30 years, 3% for subsequent 45 years, 2.5% for next 50 years, 2% for following 75 years, 1.5% for 100 years after that, then a 1% rate.

21

A1439 (21) HOC/00520/0026

may have also been captured as part of the other objectives in the AST.  The table below provides the Landscape values by the type of land as defined in the study. These are presented in annual values and values over an infinite time horizon. This is based on the assumption that undeveloped land yields benefits in perpetuity.

Table A1 Landscape Values20

Land Type Value per Present Value Comments hectare per hectare (£)

Per year(£) (2010 prices, infinite period)

Urban core 75,153 15,031,00 Central urban area. Examples include public spaces and city park

Urban Fringe 1,237 247,000 Areas of transition where (greenbelt) urban areas meet countryside

Urban Fringe 3,758 752,000 Forested land on urban (forested land) fringes, more valuable than typical urban fringe

Rural forested land 9,222 1,844,000 This value represents the (amenity) range of forests in the UK, including both commercial and amenity forests

Agricultural Land 4,384 877,000 Areas of rough grassland (extensive) where extensive agricultural practices such as sheep farming dominate. May include farm buildings forming part of the agricultural holdings

Agricultural Land 143 29,000 This type of land is usually (intensive) in farmland under intensive agriculture (usually land under food production). May include farm buildings forming a part of the agricultural holdings

Natural and semi- 9,208 1,842,000 This includes uncultivated natural land areas, wetlands and areas with nature conservation designations.

20 The Landscape values are based on the original study values. These have been presented in 2010 prices using the GDP Deflator and rounded to the nearest 100 (annual values) and 1000(infinite value).

22

A1439 (22) HOC/00520/0027

7. Annex B: Qualitative Scores for Dependent Development

B.1 A qualitative assessment score should be reported depending upon the estimated value of the benefits of the dependent development unlocked by the transport scheme and should follow the guidelines below:

Table B1 Suggested Qualitative Score

Benefits Score

Greater than £100m Large Beneficial

Between £100m and £25m Moderate Beneficial

Between £25m and Zero Slight Beneficial

Zero Neutral

Between Zero and -£25m Slight adverse

Between -£25m and -£100m Moderate adverse

Less than -£100 Large adverse

23

A1439 (23) HOC/00520/0028

8. Annex C: Q&A

What is a Value for Money assessment?

C.1 The ‘Transport Business Case’ sets out the Department for Transport’s approach to producing business cases to support decision making. This approach ensures decisions are made by taking account of all the relevant information set out in five cases, consistent with the HM Treasury Green Book21, specifically, to show whether schemes:

 are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives – the ‘Strategic Case’;  demonstrate value for money – the ‘Economic Case’;  are commercially sound – the ‘Commercial Case’;  are financially affordable – the ‘Financial Case’; and  are achievable – the ‘Management Case’.

C.2 The Value for Money assessment focuses on the Economic Case, and therefore forms one part of the overall advice. The information considered in a Value for Money assessment should be obtained through an appraisal that is consistent with the Department for Transport’s WebTAG22 guidance.

C.3 A Value for Money statement provides a summary of the conclusions from the Value for Money assessment. The statement should provide a concise summary of the economic, social, environmental, and public account impacts that transport interventions may have and, based upon these, give advice about the Economic Case for a proposal.

Why is a VfM Assessment needed?

C.4 In addition to its role within a Transport Business Case set out above, a VfM assessment is produced to help to ensure value for money of public spending, as set out in HM Treasury guidance ‘Managing Public Money’23.

When is a Value for Money assessment needed?

C.5 A Value for Money assessment should be produced within any Transport Business Case that is used to support major investment decisions using public funds. The process described in this advice note is aimed at supporting decisions on major transport investments.

21 HM Treasury Green Book: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_guidance.htm 22 WebTAG: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/ 23HM Treasury Managing Public Money: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_mpm_index.htm

24

A1439 (24) HOC/00520/0029

How should a Value for Money assessment by undertaken?

C.6 The initial Value for Money category is identified based upon the Initial Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme, using monetised impacts in line with WebTAG guidance. These categories are:  poor VfM if the BCR is less than 1.0  low VfM if the BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5  medium VfM if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2.0  high VfM if the BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0  very high VfM if the BCR is greater than 4.0

C.7 However, appraisals that are produced following WebTAG guidance do not necessarily monetise all costs and benefits of a transport intervention. The VfM assessment should take account of quantitative and qualitative assessments of impacts in two stages.

C.8 Firstly, an Adjusted BCR should be constructed following DfT guidance (including that outlined in this note) to monetise some of the quantitative and qualitative assessments using evidence for monetisation which is subject to greater uncertainty.

C.9 Secondly, all other impacts that have not been monetised should be taken into account. Depending upon the expected magnitude of these impacts, an assessment should be reported of whether consideration of these non-monetised impacts is likely to alter the VfM category of the proposal.

How should the Value for Money statement be presented?

C.10 The purpose of developing a Transport Business Case, including the Value for Money statement, is to enable an informed decision to be taken about the merits of a proposal. It needs to be comprehensive and comprehensible.

C.11 A VfM statement, summarising the conclusions from the VfM assessment, should be reported as part of the Transport Business Case and should include:  The VfM category of the scheme (and an explanation of the categorization).  The present value of benefits, present of value of costs, and the Benefit Cost Ratio.  A concise summary of benefits and costs have been assessed, including any assumptions that influence the results.  Assessment of non-monetised impacts.  Identification of any key risks, sensitivities and uncertainties.  Any significant social and distributional impacts.

25

A1439 (25) HOC/00520/0030 Buckinghamshire County Council

Cumulative Impact of HS2 on Buckinghamshire

Martin Tett Leader Buckinghamshire County Council

A1440 (1) HOC/00520/0031 Buckinghamshire County Council HS2 PHASE 1

• Length 225 km

• Across 25Local Authorities

• 65km in Buckinghamshire

• 8 CFAs in Buckinghamshire Almost one third is in Buckinghamshire

2 A1440 (2) HOC/00520/0032 Buckinghamshire County Council Buckinghamshire Constituencies

HS2 Buckingham

Chesham and Amersham Aylesbury

Wycombe Beaconsfield

3 A1440 (3) HOC/00520/0033 Buckinghamshire County Council

HS2 SCALE OF IMPACT

• Bucks bisected by 65km of route

• Up to 10 years of construction

• Up to 70% increase in HGVs

• Over 20 communities affected

• 3,100 businesses within 3 kms of route

• Significant number of businesses impacted by construction routes

A1440 (4) HOC/00520/0034 VISUALBuckinghamshire AND County CouncilNOISE IMPACT

Authority Length of No of No of No of No. of Minor No. of Phase 1 new new Viaducts Accommodation culverts tunnels Line - Km Highway PROW Bridges Bridges bridges

Bucks 65 21 28 10 9 132 2

A1440 (5) HOC/00520/0035 Buckinghamshire County Council

6 A1440 (6) HOC/00520/0036 Buckinghamshire County Council NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

• 228,500 jobs in Buckinghamshire, growing economy • Significant dislocation of economy risks slowing growth. • Critical that HS2 is sensitively managed and mitigated • Bucks businesses get nothing unique from HS2 ‘all pain-no gain’ • 185 businesses within 500m line of HS2 are impacted

A1440 (7) HOC/00520/0037 Buckinghamshire County Council

ENGAGEMENT WITH HS2 • ‘Bucks Blueprint’ produced and distributed to senior Ministers and HS2 over two years ago • 120 community engagement events and forums held in past two years • Small ‘Team Bucks’ has worked to gain maximum mitigation on all aspects including roads, landscape, noise etc. • Proactive engagement with HS2 has been sought but ‘difficult’ and intermittent. • Significant community frustration

A1440 (8) HOC/00520/0038 AGREEMENTS OUTSTANDING Buckinghamshire County Council

Good progress on rights of way and secured 13 Waste although limited assurance on waste management, mineral assurances across the county in 8 County Councillor requirements; “sustainable placement” constituencies 3 assurances on ecology and transport Ecology

2 assurances seek to protect Ancient Woodland in Community and Environment Fund & Colne Valley Business and Local Economy Fund

Significant assurance ensures slip roads off M25 put in Water Resources and Flood Risk place for construction in Colne Valley

Upgrade of signals on A412 means HS2 construction Transport – Route Wide (Jointly with Warwickshire & Camden) traffic shouldn’t make congestion worse in South Bucks and Local Transport Issues affecting residents and businesses in (Colne Valley) Bucks including Sensitive Junctions, A413 Denham to Wendover, A355 Beaconsfield and the Aylesbury road network ) Assurances offered on heritage (now subject to local Landscape consultation) Verbal offers of assurances on waste, rights of way, Rights of Way ecology, landscape, flood, water, transport resulted in incomplete, last minute written offers Impact on Council Services and Property

Steeple Claydon & Calvert Mitigation Plan

South West Aylesbury Linear Park and Princes Risborough Line A1440 (9) HOC/00520/0039 underpass HS2 in Buckinghamshire

Excavated Materials and Waste

Stephen Walford- Director of Growth and Strategy

A1441 (1) HOC/00520/0040 Overview of Waste Policies

European Waste Framework Directive

• It (Directive 2008/98/EC ) sets out the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management, such as definitions of waste, recycling and recovery. • It explains when waste ceases to be waste and becomes a secondary raw material (so called end-of-waste criteria), and how to distinguish between waste and by-products. • Promotes the Waste Heirachy

A1441 (2) HOC/00520/0041 The Waste Hierarchy

Prevention • Prevention of waste is the most important part of the Waste Preparing for reuse Hierarchy. • ‘Sustainable Placement’ is dumping and belongs at the bottom of the Recycling waste hierarchy. It is worse than landfill. Other recovery

Disposal

A1441 (3) HOC/00520/0042 National Policy

• All development is required through the National Planning Policy Framework and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to be determined in accordance with Local Development Plan policies and National policies. • All applications should be approved by Local Authorities as of s.70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 • Parliament has made Buckinghamshire the Minerals and Waste planning authority

A1441 (4) HOC/00520/0043 Local Policy

Buckinghamshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste Core Strategy

• CS9- To ensure Buckinghamshire is self sufficient by 2026 by meeting the waste management capacity needs of Buckinghamshire • CS15- No additional landfill capacity for non-hazardous and inert waste to be provided in Buckinghamshire up to 2026 • CS21- Proposals for mineral extraction or waste development that would conflict with the purposes of the designation will not be permitted within the Chilterns AONB. Except under specific circumstances.

A1441 (5) HOC/00520/0044 Summary of asks

The Council asks that the Select Committee directs:

(a) HS2 to use the most sustainable way of reducing waste to a minimum.

(a) As respects the waste that remains, the most sustainable method of disposing of it is used.

A1441 (6) HOC/00520/0045 A HS2 Waste Strategy?

A Waste Strategy produced by HS2 should: • Be agreed by Local Authorities along the route • Promote the Waste Hierarchy, with land raising as disposal • Put forward local alternatives including a Working Group established by HS2 to look at receptors on a Route wide basis • Look at alternatives for transportation of excavated material • Aim for a higher percentage of reuse (99%)

A1441 (7) HOC/00520/0046 The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)

The Waste and Resources Action Programme is a charity that aims at reducing the amount of waste produced within the UK and increase the amount of recycled materials. It works with Local Authorities, the retail sector and the Waste Management Sector. It has also worked with major schemes including Crossrail.

1. HS2 should sign up to the WRAP commitment to halving the amount of construction, demolition and excavation waste going to landfill (as Crossrail has) 2. HS2 should run workshops with WRAP and its own design teams to minimise waste and look for opportunities to maximise reuse of materials 3. HS2 contractors should attend workshops with WRAP staff

A1441 (8) HOC/00520/0047 Crossrail as an example to HS2

Crossrail’s waste performance at the end of 2014: 97% of demolition waste has been reused or recycled 98% of construction waste has been reused or recycled 99% of clean excavated material has been beneficially reused

HS2 is only aiming for: • “at least 90%” reuse, recycling or recovery of demolition materials. • “at least 90%” reuse, recycling or recovery of construction waste.

A1441 (9) HOC/00520/0048 Precedents- Beneficial Reuse of Spoil

1 2

3

1) and 2) Samphire Hoe in East Kent created from spoil from the Channel Tunnel. 3) Movement of spoil to Wallasea Island from Crossrail.

A1441 (10) HOC/00520/0049 Engagement with Local Authorities

HS2 should use existing mechanisms and planning forums to ensure:

1) Identification of local projects that could benefit from the excavated materials. For example new road schemes and flood defence schemes that come forward.

2) That excavated materials are reused as close as possible to source.

3) Local Authorities are informed which Waste receivers (landfill sites) will be required by the project to help ensure capacity is managed within each area.

A1441 (11) HOC/00520/0050 ‘Sustainable Placement’ at Shepherd’s Furze Farm

HS2 sets out its outline reasoning for the use of Sustainable Placement at Shepherds Furze Farm as follows (within Information Paper E19):

- ‘To avoid causing environmental effects that would otherwise be associated with off- site disposal of material.’ - ‘Calvert within CFA13, has been selected to provide certainty of disposal of surplus excavated material from the bored tunnels in the London Metropolitan area. This material will be moved off‐site by rail as the location at which it arises and the volumes that will be generated will make road transportation impracticable. It will therefore be most efficient to take this material to a rail‐connected disposal site.’ - ‘Sustainable placement in this area will avoid approximately 250,000 road lorry movements’ - ‘HS2 Ltd considers disposal, including on-site disposal, to be the option of last resort.’

A1441 (12) HOC/00520/0051 Shepherds Furze Farm

A1441 (13) HOC/00520/0052 ‘Sustainable Placement’ at Shepherd’s Furze Farm

The major issues the County Council has with these proposals are as follows:

• The principle of ‘Sustainable Placement’ goes against National and Local Waste policy. It is a new term that has not been used in policy before.

• Buckinghamshire's Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy 15 states- No additional landfill capacity for non-hazardous and inert waste to be provided in Buckinghamshire up to 2026.

• This dump would form permanent land raising on a generally flat landscape

• The proposed site is located less than 2km from Calvert Waste operations site which has rail access and enough capacity to take the spoil. A site that took spoil from both Crossrail and the Olympics (waste arising from London).

• There will be a significant temporary loss of agricultural land resulting in the inability for a farming business to continue.

• No rationale provided for why this site was chosen despite requests starting in December 2014. No sift report or detailed plans have been received by the Council.

A1441 (14) HOC/00520/0053 Summary of the ask 1. Creation, and adoption, of a Waste Strategy, to be agreed with Local Authorities. 2. HS2 should target a 100% beneficial reuse of Excavated Materials- this could be in the form of a stretch target. 3. HS2 should commit to being a member of the Waste and Resources Action Programme or another industry best practice group. 4. ‘Sustainable Placement’ should not be used and is unacceptable. 5. A Local Authority Engagement strategy should be agreed

A1441 (15) HOC/00520/0054 APPENDIX 1: Discussions and Correspondence with HS2ltd Main Meetings/ Correspondence Outcome

17th March 2014: Meeting with FCC, Mike Woods and HS2 HS2 outlined Sustainable Placement verbally as the last Ltd to suggest alternatives to Shepherds Furze Farm resort. Reasoning for this site not qualified. Sustainable Placement 24th April 2014: HS2 and BCC Waste Disposal Meeting Rationale for Sustainable Placement again questioned. HS2 provided rationale report on Hunts Green Farm 4th December 2014: HS2 and BCC Waste Working Group BCC requested information on Sustainable Placement at Meeting Shepherds Furze Farm to same detail as Hunts Green Farm 1st July 2015: BCC provided HS2 with Waste Strategy and HS2 agreed to assess Waste Strategy. Put off meeting and requested meeting by end of July sent a letter as response on 6th September. Only then requested meeting 16th September 2015: HS2 provided BCC with Waste HS2 sent this ahead of meeting on the 18th September Strategy 18th September 2015: HS2 and BCC Waste Working Group BCC asked for a set of assurances on engagement and Meeting stretch targets. BCC also requested justification for Shepherds Furze Farm 24th September 2015: BCC outlined in a letter remaining points to avoid Select Committee appearance

A1441 (16) HOC/00520/0055 Buckinghamshire County Council

Community and Environment Fund (CEF) and Business and Local Economy Fund (BLEF)

Martin Tett, Leader Buckinghamshire County Council

12 October 2015

A1442 (1) HOC/00520/0056 Buckinghamshire County Council

Route-wide issue

Buckinghamshire County Council is leading on this issue on behalf of:

• LB Camden (76) • LB Hillingdon (199) • Chiltern DC (185) • Aylesbury Vale DC (75) • South Northants Council (51) • Warwickshire CC (111) • Stratford DC (96) • North Warwickshire BC (101) • Staffs CC (54) • Lichfield DC (35) • Solihull MDC (481)

• Also other local organisations 2 A1442 (2) HOC/00520/0057 Buckinghamshire County Council

Establishment of an HS2 Community Fund

• On 26 August 2014, local authorities wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for a Community and Environment Benefit Fund to be established

• We asked to work with the government to bring this about

• Then on 10 October 2014, government announced £30m to cover both a Community and Environment Fund and a Business and Local Economy Fund combined

3 A1442 (3) HOC/00520/0058 Buckinghamshire County Council

How was £30m arrived at? • Demand is unquantified

• Allocation between the 2 funds not clear

• 25 local authorities on Phase 1 so barely £1m each area

• 27 directly affected towns and villages in Bucks alone

• Based on knowledge and experience, demand will massively exceed supply

4 A1442 (4) HOC/00520/0059 Buckinghamshire County Council Buckinghamshire Petition Response Document (PRD) – examples of demand from HS2 Ltd Buckinghamshire’s and Warwickshire’s PRD contain references where applications to CEF could be made:

• Linking of two footpaths on a 40m stretch

• Steeple Claydon and Calvert Mitigation Plan – Including extended screening and better visual mitigation

• Improvements to the River Tame in Warks

5 A1442 (5) HOC/00520/0060 Buckinghamshire County Council

Examples of adverse community impacts

• Severance of communities in the Calvert and Steeple Claydon areas

• Proximity to the line of large numbers of residents in South West Aylesbury

• Impacts on southern Wendover

• Colne Valley Park and Denham Country Park

• Travel delays in Chiltern District alone will cost an estimated £89.8m

6 A1442 (6) HOC/00520/0061 Buckinghamshire County Council Unhelpful comparisons with HS1

• Government based proposed funds on HS1, But…

• HS1 a third the length of HS2

• HS1 was c.20 years ago and the fund was solely environmental

• HS1 fund had much narrower terms of reference

• HS1 fund was negligible compared to the impact of the scheme

• An exercise identified a fund 10x greater than the value of HS1 fund was needed

7 A1442 (7) HOC/00520/0062 Buckinghamshire County Council

More unhelpful comparisons with HS1

• HS1 provided local economic benefits (stations at Ebbsfleet and Ashford) • HS2 routed through sensitive areas and not a major transport corridor

HS1 and M20 HS2 and A413

8 A1442 (8) HOC/00520/0063 Buckinghamshire County Council Our rationale

• Funds should lessen the burden of hosting national infrastructure and leave a legacy

• Funds should reflect the length and scale of HS2

• Funds should be comparable to other funds compensating for national infrastructure

9 A1442 (9) HOC/00520/0064 Buckinghamshire County Council HS2 – ‘The largest infrastructure project in Europe’ however…

• Gatwick airport - £256m being offered for second runway

• Davies Commission have recommended £1b community compensation for Heathrow

• Hinkley Point C £128m

10 A1442 (10) HOC/00520/0065 Buckinghamshire County Council Current government thinking

• Administration costs will be provided for separately (Jul 2015)

• Likely to be centrally controlled and managed

• Funds only available 2017-2026 (during construction)

• ‘Grants to be awarded on quality of projects’ – so competition between communities

11 A1442 (11) HOC/00520/0066 Buckinghamshire County Council Our key funding principles

• Be locally influenced

• Be distributed by an independent body, able to draw on local knowledge and expertise

• Offer grants up to 100% - LAs should not have to match fund (businesses not expected to)

• Prioritise projects in areas with greatest detriment 12 A1442 (12) HOC/00520/0067 Buckinghamshire County Council

Lifetime of the funds

• Stopping funds at 2026 does not recognise disturbance of operation

• Other schemes recognise the long-term nature of impacts

• Only £3m per year?

13 A1442 (13) HOC/00520/0068 Buckinghamshire County Council

Select Committee Interim Report

‘We want the Promoter to brief our successor committee on the scale and scope of the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund, on what real schemes they might cover, on the criteria for applying to them, and on how they will be distributed, so that we can assess whether they should be extended’

14 A1442 (14) HOC/00520/0069 Buckinghamshire County Council

A fairer fund

• £775m ‘contractor administration costs’

• £435m ‘project overheads’

• £913m HS2 Ltd actual spend to end Jan 2015

• A fairer fund of at least £150m

15 A1442 (15) HOC/00520/0070 Buckinghamshire County Council

Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire – project ideas

• BCC and WCC have developed lists of potential projects, in conjunction with parish councils and others

• Without criteria it is difficult to know which projects might be eligible

• These are illustrative and not costed or worked up in any detail

16 A1442 (16) HOC/00520/0071 Community benefit fund ideas - Buckinghamshire

Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Provision of an Economic Development Officer for Chiltern District Chiltern District £100,000 Chiltern District Council Council Installation of footway in Green Lane, Prestwood, as Prestwood Great Missenden £50,000 this is a route used by schoolchildren and is a safety Parish Council issue particularly in winter.

Two play areas at Buryfield: one toddler (needs a Great Missenden Great Missenden £250,000 complete overhaul with new equipment, safer Parish Council surfacing and fencing); one for older children needs an update. Sibleys Rise playground – which is very close to the Great Missenden Great Missenden £50,000 location of HS2 – and is in need of an update. This is a Parish Council small but well-used playground. Great Missenden Memorial Centre. Recently the toilets Great Missenden Great Missenden £200,000 were refurbished at a cost of £30,000 but the Parish Parish Council Council has identified that this memorial centre needs a major renovation including new windows, better lighting and other works. Great Missenden vehicle-activated signs at entrances Great Missenden Great Missenden £30,000 to Great Missenden (x three) Parish Council Prestwood shared space scheme to reduce speeding Prestwood Great Missenden Up to £1 million through Prestwood and improve the local environment Parish Council Great Missenden shared space scheme to improve the Great Missenden Great Missenden Up to £1 million local environment and traffic Parish Council Prestwood trim trail (fitness and nature project) at Prestwood Great Missenden £14,000 Angling Spring Wood. Parish Council Moat Lane school safety scheme, which is an Prestwood Great Missenden £60,000

1

A1443 (1) HOC/00520/0072 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body identified need in the local area. Parish Council Nairdwood Lane grasscrete to improve parking for Prestwood Great Missenden £80,000 users of the allotments and common. Parish Council Reduction of speed from 40mph – 30mph along the Great Kingshill Great Missenden £14,000 A4128 between Great Kingshill and/or junction of Parish Council Peterley/Perks Lane to the Lodge Lane Junction BMX track/skate park in Prestwood (nearest one is in Prestwood Great Missenden £90,000 Great Missenden) and there is a need for this type of Parish Council facility for young people in Prestwood as the route to use the one in Great Missenden is not safe for young people to cycle. Footpaths across Prestwood Common to improve the Prestwood Great Missenden £100,000 accessibility of the common, to include other Parish Council landscaping including benches, etc. Provide a gym to replace ‘Weights and Measures’ gym South Heath Great Missenden Up to £1 million which will be demolished during the construction of Parish Council HS2. Create a community facility for South Heath – meeting South Heath Great Missenden ? rooms, shop, doctors surgery, swings/slide which Parish Council could be part of the gym. Contribute towards the purchase of The Pheasant Ballinger Great Missenden £50,000 Public House (Ballinger) as a community pub to Parish Council provide an amenity to compensate for the loss of Annie Baileys pub/restaurant which will be demolished during the construction of HS2. A Community Interest Company has already been set up to purchase The Pheasant Public House and now needs funds, so this is a viable project Provision for walkers and cyclists along Hyde Heath Hyde Heath, Great Missenden £50,000

2

A1443 (2) HOC/00520/0073 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body road and down Frith Hill (B485) to Great Missenden, to South Heath and Parish Council provide safe access for school children from Hyde Great Missenden Heath, Hyde End and South Heath to Great Missenden. Extend the mobile phone coverage to all parts of the Great Missenden Great Missenden ? hilltop villages and increase the speed of the Parish Parish Council Broadband network. Provide a free and regular shuttle bus service for South Heath Great Missenden £50,000 South Heath residents. In an aging population, Parish Council residents rely on easy access to Great Missenden for medical support such as doctors as well as shopping. Provide additional car parking for Ballinger Memorial Ballinger Great Missenden £20,000 Village Hall. Parish Council A new footpath to link GMI/27 with LMI/21 through Great Missenden Great Missenden £20,000 Hedgemoor Wood as both paths will be stopped by the Parish Parish Council proposed route. Bury the electricity power lines running alongside the Great Missenden Great Missenden ? proposed route. Parish Parish Council The creation of a sustainable Tourist /Visitor Centre in Great Missenden Great Missenden Up to £1 million Great Missenden to promote Tourism in the Chilterns Parish Council AONB. Public Rights of Way: Great Missenden Great Missenden 1. All new footbridges over the HS2 to be in keeping Parish Parish Council Bill mitigation with the brick and flint of the Chilterns and to be wildlife friendly green bridges 2. A footpath along the River Misbourne from Great £20,000 Missenden downstream. Cycleways: Great Missenden Great Missenden 1. A new cycleway between Great Missenden and Parish Parish Council £50,000

3

A1443 (3) HOC/00520/0074 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Little Missenden including a subway through the Chiltern railway embankment at Deep Mill Lane* * This is also on the list for Little Missenden PC 2. A new safe cycleway between Great Missenden and Prestwood to encourage cycling to schools in Great Missenden 3. A dedicated safe cycle track from Great Missenden to South Heath and Hyde Heath for the same reasons as 2 above 4.Off road marked cycle trails from Great Missenden to the north Footpath/cycle path on the A4128 from Perks Lane to Great Missenden, Great Missenden £300,000 Great Kingshill (or potential for shuttlebus) Prestwood, Great Parish Council Kingshill More community facilities to be created on Prestwood Prestwood Great Missenden £50,000 Common and in the centre of the village. The Abbey Parish Council Gym club in Prestwood has over 300 children attending plus a large waiting list, other local groups are in the same position and not enough space is available for the demand. As a Parish we should have facilities for all ages. The possible creation in Great Missenden of an Great Missenden £50,000 attractive village centre with seats and wildlife around Parish Council a pond at the back of Origins. An increase in the amount of off-road parking. The Great Missenden Great Missenden £50,000 Parish as a whole is poorly provided with parking Parish Council spaces leading to obstructions on comparatively small roads to the detriment of traffic flow. Improve condition of Holmer Green pond including Little Missenden Little Missenden £5,000 o Drain and desludge Parish Council

4

A1443 (4) HOC/00520/0075 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body o Construct stone perimeter o Landscape adjacent grounds o Install road drainage interceptors o Install filtration and aeration equipment.

Little Chalfont Nature Reserve: £10,000 funding Holmer Green Little Missenden £65,000 already achieved towards the target of developing land Parish Council that is owned by the community into a nature reserve for all sectors of the community, which will include a disability accessible path. Other funding will be achieved pre-opening.

B) Post Opening Additional features as further funding achieved. Estimated cost totalling £65,000, including: i. Sensory Area £9,000 ii. Play area equipment/log pile £21,000 iii. Sculptures (sensory, animals, fruit) £5,000 iv. Slide & ramp £6,000 v. Wooden Hedge Bank bridges £4,500 vi. Waymarkers £1,500 vii. Rustic Shelter £12,000 viii. Further woodland clearance £5,000

Little Chalfont Parish Council, supported by the local Little Chalfont £400,000 Community Association, is planning to replace a 60- Parish Council year-old village hall with a new, much larger Community Centre. Public consultations have produced overwhelming support for such a project and architects have been instructed to design a building

5

A1443 (5) HOC/00520/0076 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body that would be suitable for the community which has more than doubled in size since the present hall was built. The expected cost is around £1,500,000 and a grant of £400,000 would mean the scheme could become a reality within a short period of time. Trees along Amersham Road and Chenies Parade, Little Chalfont Little Chalfont £4,000 Little Chalfont: The approach to Little Chalfont from the Parish Council east (Chorleywood) side is along Amersham Road which, until recent years, had a series of flowering trees welcoming people to the village. These have mostly died and local residents would like new ones planted. Up to 14,000 vehicles a day drive along this road.

Chenies Parade, the main shopping centre in the village has a similar problem and new trees (probably a different species) would enhance the area.

The cost of replacing the trees in both locations is estimated at £4,000. Improving the centre of Little Chalfont village: A major Little Chalfont Little Chalfont £65,000 item within the Little Chalfont Community Action Plan Parish Council is ‘The Big Vision for Little Chalfont’ which is still to be addressed. The Plan was created following completion of the Market Town Health Check.

Requires all aspects to be considered for which professional input is required at an estimated cost of up to £15,000. Amersham Market Hall: A lift at Market Hall would Little Chalfont Little Chalfont £4,000

6

A1443 (6) HOC/00520/0077 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body mean that the Town Council could apply for a wedding Parish Council licence in this wonderful Grade Two-listed building (consent for a lift will not be an issue) and would also enable the building to be used by a wider number of people/make it more commercially viable.

Hervines Park, Amersham: The current pavilion is £15,000 outdated and also in a poor location. It has been confirmed to the Town Council that it is more economical to rebuild rather than renovate. Rebuilding in a more appropriate location – a beautiful woodland area which is also more accessible – would enable a café to be added and the improved sports facilities/showers would be of huge benefit to the local community. Stanley Hill pedestrian crossing: A need has been Amersham Amersham Town £50,000 identified for a pedestrian crossing near to St George’s Council School in Stanley Hill, Amersham. More schemes need to be identified in Amersham. Amersham Amersham Town £60,000 (lift) Council £30,000 (towards the renovation work on outside of building).

Coleshill – funding for new playground equipment in Amersham Amersham Town £500,000 the village. There is a small playground behind Hill Council Meadow, but a better-sited playground is needed in the village. Seer Green traffic calming: A need has been identified £200,000 for traffic calming measures in Seer Green with build- outs/chicanes and other measures to reduce speeding and improve the safety of road users.

7

A1443 (7) HOC/00520/0078 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Chalfont St Giles High Street environmental Seer Green Seer Green Parish £200,000 improvements Council Gorelands Lane/Deadhearn Lane traffic calming Chalfont St Giles £90,000 measures: petition brought to the Local Area Forum about inappropriate vehicles using this route. Chalfont St Giles traffic calming, in particular Chalfont St Giles Chalfont St Giles £90,000 Deansway Parish Council Jordans Village Hall: The current hall is in need of Chalfont St Giles Chalfont St Giles £50,000 substantial renovation and is no longer fit-for-purpose, Parish Council so the village is in need of a new building. Other Chalfont St Giles – playgrounds, village halls (in Chalfont St Giles Chalfont St Giles £120,000 need of better facilities), etc. Parish Council Bull Lane safety improvements: petitions have been Jordans Village Chalfont St Giles £140,000 brought to the Local Area Forum in respect of PC/Jordans Village residents’ concerns about speeding traffic/walking Hall Committee along this route. Chalfont St Peter Community Centre: The memorial Chalfont St Peter Chalfont St Peter £500,000 hall is well-used but has limited and out-of-date Parish Council facilities. The village has a shortage of public rooms for its many community groups and a building similar to the one in the neighbouring parish of Gerrards Cross has been identified as meeting the needs of local residents and community groups. Playgrounds in Chalfont St Peter: There are three Chalfont St Peter Chalfont St Peter £100,000 playgrounds in Chalfont St Peter (Mill Meadow, Parish Council Cheena Meadow and Gold Hill) in need of a substantial refurbishment with additional facilities. The replacement of out-of-date equipment with facilities for young people such as multi-use games areas (MUGAs) has been a long-term aim but is outside the

8

A1443 (8) HOC/00520/0079 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body funding ability of the Parish Council. St Peter’s Garden: There is an identified need for a Chalfont St Peter Chalfont St Peter £25,000 new war memorial in the parish along with landscaped PC gardens in this well-loved community facility. Public toilets on the High Street: The public toilets on Chalfont St Peter Chalfont St Peter £200,000 the High Street in Chalfont St Peter are in need of a PC/Community substantial upgrade, particularly with improved Centre Committee facilities for disabled residents. Skatepark at Mill Meadow: Young people in Chalfont Chalfont St Peter Chalfont St Peter Up to £3 million St Peter have identified a need for a skate park and PC have run a skating consultation event to demonstrate wide-spread support for an improved facility. The young people have looked at a number of designs and consulted with residents by attending a number of events.

Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Fitting and extension of cricket pavilion / village hall Westbury Westbury Village £300,000 Hall Association Country Park; endowment for future maintenance and Calvert Green BOZ Trust £1,000,000 development Paralympic Museum, Cultural and Archives Centre Stoke Mandeville ? £1,000,000 Development of cycle routes to provide complete Aylesbury BCC? £500,000 circular route Extension of tiny village hall to accommodate needs of Edgcott Edgcott Parish £300,000 the village Council Extension and renovation of Village Hall Calvert Green Calvert Green £400,000

9

A1443 (9) HOC/00520/0080 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Parish Council Cricket / sport pavilion Turweston Turweston Parish £250,000 Council Continued renovation including disabled access and Edgcott Edgcott Parish £50,000 extension for disabled toilets Council Street Lighting - replace old equipment Edgcott Edgcott Parish £16,000 Council Broadband - installation of fibre optics Edgcott Edgcott Parish ? Council Gas main - supply to village Edgcott Edgcott Parish £30,000 Council Village pond - dredge and fence Edgcott Edgcott Parish £4,000 Council Church - continued restoration work Edgcott Edgcott Parish ? Council Redevelopment of village; hall much needed East Claydon East Claydon £500,000 renovation of existing facilities and provide additional Parish Council space to increase the letting capacity.

Full traffic calming survey in Buckingham Buckingham Buckingham Town ? Council Rebuild the Almshouses on Church Street Buckingham Buckingham Town £600,000 Council A study of the impact of the construction traffic on the Buckingham Buckingham Town ? bypass, and nearby villages and any amelioration Council works necessary Link from Buckingham station to the E-W Rail Link Buckingham Buckingham Town £50,000 Council Multi-storey car park Buckingham Buckingham Town ?

10

A1443 (10) HOC/00520/0081 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Council New Non-Conformist church to replace Well Street’s Buckingham Buckingham Town ? Council Cycleways Buckingham Buckingham Town £50,000 Council Cublington Playground is in need of refurbishment to Cublington Cublington Parish £15,000 – 30,000 ensure a safe and secure environment for young Council children. Following a village consultation process, a portion of Cublington Cublington Parish Based on research where land called the North Field Orchard Ground will be Council similar projects have been available for new use by the Parish Council in the near implemented (e.g. Aston future, and the majority of Cublington residents Clinton), a cost range between supported the principle of converting some of this land £10-20k can be seen as to a woodland activity based amenity (subject to realistic. feasibility, logistics and budget estimates). The aspiration is that walkers/runners children and adults will use fitness equipment to keep themselves fit, reduce health issues relating to being overweight, and most importantly, enjoy this new facility. Double glazed windows for West Wycombe Village West Wycombe West Wycombe £55,000 Hall Parish Council Studley Green teen Area Stokenchurch Stokenchurch £5,550 parish Council Estimated total £15,111,550

11

A1443 (11) HOC/00520/0082 Warwickshire Community and Environment fund ideas

Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body

Community halls in the parish Kingsbury KPC

Outdoor Gyms Kingsbury KPC The cost of one piece of equipment including installation To provide 8 or 9 items of outdoor fitness equipment is from £1,000 to £1,500. for all ages (eg skiing machines, cycling and stretching Circa £15k all in machines). This will be placed on our recreation ground that is easily accessible from the Water Park and Kingsbury village for all to use. These items are becoming more popular in areas easily accessible to the public as a means of keeping fit and healthy without the cost of expensive gym fees.

Kingsbury Station Kingsbury KPC SDC parkway was £5m as a Kingsbury Councillors have come up with the idea that indicative figure if the Kingsbury Station and parking were reinstated this would considerably reduce the traffic on the roads. Possible funding from LTP3 (new stations fund) Will need political backing Capacity and new train services

BODYMOOR HEATH VICTORY HALL Bodymoor Heath Bodymoor Heath £10,000 Victory Hall To improve the environment of the village hall

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (1) HOC/00520/0083 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body Railhead Community Collaboration Group Kingsbury Rail Lea Marston £20,000 The purpose of the Railhead Community Collaboration head Parish Council Group is to broker and facilitate community over 20 years @ £1,000 a year. engagement to deliver environmental topic mitigation outcomes.

Provide infrastructure support for the 20 year operational life of the Railhead Community Collaboration Group Railhead Community Collaboration Group Kingsbury Rail Lea Marston £2m Community Benefit Grant. head Parish Council over 20 years, £100,000 per year The purpose of the Railhead Community Collaboration Group is to broker and facilitate community engagement to deliver environmental topic mitigation outcomes.

Provide community environmental and educational support for those communities who will be impacted on during for the 20 year operational life of the Railhead. This Fund will be held and administered by the proposed HS2 Railhead Community Collaboration Group.

Heritage Centre in the old school Water Orton All this could cost up to Re-fit the Victorian part of the school to make it £100,000 to refit plus the value suitable for a Heritage Centre, with display Boards, of the building and the ongoing electronic media equipment, some computers and a running costs small kitchen to provide teas. Security alarms and possible upgrading of the heating and a thorough

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (2) HOC/00520/0084 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body check of the actual building structure especially the roof. The same would apply to the hall except here the toilets would need upgrading as presently they are for children and a shower block would need to be installed and we would need sports equipment and tables and chairs etc as well as a small kitchen.. M40 footpath upgrade to meet safer route to school Water Orton WCC See highway planning team – for local area- benefits include health, well being and Pam for project cost comparison access to open space

Community Centre redecoration Coleshill CTC £10,000

Coleshill CTC £30,000 Replacement of lead lined windows to the front of the Town Hall. Coleshill CTC 50,000

Coleshill CTC £23,000 Town Hall Green Room internal doors Coleshill CTC £120,000 Cemetery purchase Coleshill CTC £5 -20,000, no land aquisition Coleshill Community Forest Coleshill CTC £480,000 Memorial Park Project – existing plans Coleshill CTC £40,000 River Cole footbridge Shed project Coleshill CTC £9.500 per year to support long-term unemployed and homeless

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (3) HOC/00520/0085 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body residents back into work and back into the local Coleshill community.

Park equipment (children’s play area, adult ‘trim trail’, Burton Green BMX landscaping…)

Community minibus

Community café

Community workshop (place for creative hobbies – pottery/blacksmith/….)

You may be aware that County Highways are designing a scheme to help overcome traffic diversion We believe that the scheme issues when the Ford is impassable by automating the Kenilworth KTC would be of greater benefit if the warning signs. This might even be a direct benefit number of signs was increased during the construction period of HS2. but this requires an additional £20-30,000.

The success of the children’s playground in Abbey Fields has emphasised the inadequacy of the toilet Kenilworth KTC Although not specifically costed block there. A major refurbishment of the toilets both such a project could easily cost there and at Abbey End is needed. up to £50,000.

There are current discussions between the Councils, the Environment Agency and English Heritage about

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (4) HOC/00520/0086 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body the possibility of limited reinstatement of the Mere at Kenilworth KTC the Castle in order to reduce the risk of flooding in the town.

It is possible that HS2 might wish to be involved in such a scheme particularly as it would also reduce the risks associated with realigning Canley Brook. The total costs involved will obviously be of a different order of magnitude, but it is too early to have an estimate as investigations of feasibility continue.

The pavilion is also in need of major refurbishment. Kenilworth ??? ??? Weston – Cubbington Weston under The creation of a footpath/cycleway from Weston to Weston under Wetherley Parish Cubbington along the B4453. This is a project which Wetherley Council was requested during the first Parish Plan undertaken in the village, and strongly endorsed at the Parish Plan review a few months ago.

The existing pavement on the B4453 ends at Garryvoe Lodge. The village would like a footpath/cycleway from the lay by on the south side of the road along the B4453 to where the pavement begins in Cubbington. There are several justifications for this:

i) Road safety - the B4453 is not safe for either pedestrians or cyclists

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (5) HOC/00520/0087 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body ii) Access to services in Cubbington ( schools, shops, pubs, healthcare, sports and social facilities) on foot or by bicycle would be appreciated by those who otherwise have to rely on an inadequate bus service

iii) Health interests - to encourage the use of bicycles or walking in order to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and reduce carbon emissions. North Cubbington Wood, trust to own and manage it. North TBC The placing of an environmental management Cubbington wood contract, to include provision for the felling of intrusive species and restoration planting over a period of time, with a suitable organisation, e.g. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust. The building of all-weather footpaths through the wood and the seeking of creation orders to establish them as public footpaths.

Making a small area for off-road car parking. Offchurch Offchurch Village Hall committee Double/ secondary glazing to the village Hall Jane Inman

Offchurch Offchurch Village Hall committee Improvement to the outside space, toilets, shed and

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (6) HOC/00520/0088 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body event area Jane Inman

Amenity/ Activity Park Southam

Adjacent to the Bloor homes development Health Trail – around Southam inc outside gym Southam

Cycling infrastructure Southam

General improvements Village Hall – Improve disabled access by extending Ladbroke LPC £20,000 Village Hall on West side.

- Upgrade car park to improve accessibility for disabled £10,000 car user Church restoration work. Preservation of Grade 1 Ladbroke LPC £40,0000. Listed Building Contribution towards full cost of Flood protection - protection to vulnerable village Ladbroke LPC £24,000 properties. (Complement ongoing programme by WCC) at £2000/property £50,000 - Fund dredging of the brook and restoration of banks - Needs WCC support. Fund FTP (fibre to premises) Internet connections – Ladbroke LPC

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (7) HOC/00520/0089 Idea Location Accountable Estimated Value body improves values of village properties offsetting HS2 blight impact. Museum for artefacts found locally during the Wormleighton Wormleighton Unknown construction of HS2 Parish meeting

Total £8,142,000

C:\Users\alewis\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FNX8L9ZL\Community benefit fund ideas master list Warks.docx

A1444 (8) HOC/00520/0090 Buckinghamshire County Council HS2 and Flood Issues

Karen Fisher MA (Oxon) CEng MICE Strategic Flood Management Team Leader Expertise in Environmental River Issues

12 October 2015

A1445 (1) HOC/00520/0091 Buckinghamshire County Council

Progress on Flood Risk Issues

• Petition in May 2014 contained many concerns • Letter with comprehensive list of 25 issues sent to HS2 Ltd on 13 June 2014 • Eventual written response from HS2 Ltd on 22 December 2014 • First meeting with HS2 Ltd experts on 23 January 2015 • Meetings with HS2 Ltd on Groundwater issues on 31st March 2015 and 1st October 2015

A1445 (2) HOC/00520/0092 Buckinghamshire County Council

Main Issues

1. Balancing ponds in designated flood area • List of 7 sent to HS2 Ltd on 23 February 2015 2. Provision of baseline is required to establish groundwater flood/flow and drainage patterns and conditions in chalk in Misbourne Valley 3. Lack of assurance that monitoring and associated further work and mitigation associated with groundwater flows and flooding will take place 4. Increased flood risk during construction

A1445 (3) HOC/00520/0093 Buckinghamshire County Council Why do we want to address these issues

1. Balancing ponds had been placed in areas of current flood risk 2. Baseline is required to ensure design and mitigation are appropriate to the locations and issues 3. To protect local communities against increased flood risk from groundwater 4. To eliminate increased flood risk during and post construction

A1445 (4) HOC/00520/0094 Buckinghamshire County Council

Latest position on balancing ponds • Meeting on 18 September 2015 with HS2 Ltd – Informed that some balancing ponds re-sited

– Need to check in AP4

• Assurances received on 6th October 2015

A1445 (5) HOC/00520/0095 Buckinghamshire County Council

Assurances Sought

Many issues cannot be addressed until detailed design; at this stage the following assurances are essential:

• Groundwater baseline for flood risk should be agreed with Local Lead Flood Authority • If monitoring highlights issues with groundwater levels and increased flood risk then further investigation work should be established and agreed • A remediation and mitigation plan, suitable and specific to the area, should then be agreed for dealing with flood risk and should include provision about steps to be taken if flood risk changes as a result of the construction of the HS2 works

A1445 (6) HOC/00520/0096 Heritage Asks (Non-tunnel)

Catherine Murray, Chiltern District Council

A1446 (1) HOC/00520/0097 1) Lower Bottom House Farm, Chalfont St Giles

Lower Bottom House Farm Granary

A1446 (2) HS2 Exhibit V (P8 127; HOC/10518/0009)HOC/00520/0098 Lower Bottom House Farm: the problem

HS2 need 4 metres

Hedgerows 3 metres Grass verges

Post and rail fencing No kerbs

A1446 (3) HOC/00520/0099 Lower Bottom House Farm: Ask

Assurance that HS2 will: • Limit permanent access road to 4 metre maximum width • Restore as rural lane – without kerbs – with grass verges – with post and rail fencing – with native species hedging as existing

A1446 (4) HOC/00520/0100 2) Potter Row: appropriate mitigation for landscape setting and noise

Hunts Green Farm Bury Farm Hammonds Hall Farm

HS2 Exhibit V (P8 149 HOC/10518/0034) A1446 (5) HOC/00520/0101