Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Wednesday, 18 November 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr David Crausby (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Marcus Rogers

WITN ESSES

Mr Ne il Ta ylo r Mr Antony Pearce Mr Yazd i Batki Mr David Starr Mrs Eileen Stewart Mr Paul Walter Mr John Jakobi Mr Paul Gaisford Ms Ruth Ga is fo rd Ms Ama nia C la rk Mr John Vince Mr John Cooper and Mrs Christine Cooper Ms Trisha Woodcock ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

The Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement Introduction from Mr Mould 3 Submissions by Mr Taylor 4 Response from Mr Mould 6

Antony Pearce Introduction from Mr Mould 7 Submissions by Mr Pearce 8 Response from Mr Mould 13

Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group and others Introduction from Mr Mould 17 Submissions by Mr Rogers 19 Evidence of Mr Starr 22 Evidence of Mrs Stewart 24 Evidence of Mr Rogers 26 Evidence of Mr Walter 27 Evidence of Mr Jakobi 28 Response from Mr Mould 30 Closing submissions by Mr Rogers 39

Michael Gaisford and others Introduction from Mr Mould 43 Submissions by Mr Gaisford 43 Submissions by Ms Gaisford 46 Response from Mr Mould 51 Closing submissions by Mr Gaisford 60

Ama nia C lark Introduction from Mr Mould 61 Submissions by Ms Clark 62 Response from Mr Mould 64

John Vince Introduction from Mr Mould 66 Submissions by Mr Vince 66 Response from Mr Mould 68

John and Christine Cooper Introduction from Mr Mould 70 Submissions by Mr Cooper 71 Response from Mr Mould 74

Tenants of Layby Farm Business Park Introduction from Mr Mould 75 Submissions by Mrs Woodcock 76 Response from Mr Mould 79

(at 14.00)

1. CHAIR: Order, Order. Welcome back. Petitioner number 1005, the Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement. Neil Taylor. Mr Mould, would you like to introduce this?

The Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement

2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The petitioner has lands that fall within the Bill limits; they’re shown on the screen in front of you and the outline of the petitioner’s la nd s in red in the usual way. If we turn on to plan P10564, you’ll see that this is the construction phase. You’ll see that there are lands which lie to the eastern side of the railway; those, as I understand it, were the subject of the joint statement that I read out to you just before you broke this morning. Then there is a pylon run that is included within Bill limits to the west side of the railway that is included, so that the pylons can be restrung along that line. And there is also the line of a track included within Bill limits; that’s been included so that access can obtained to – over an accommodation overbridge, which is proposed here, carrying accommodation route and a footpath.

3. If we go to P10565, you’ll see the reason for that. That access provides a route through for maintenance purposes to the balancing pond which is located at this point here.

4. My understanding is that Mr Pearce, who is the next petitioner, wishes to explore with the project, the relocation of that balancing pond elsewhere within this area. And there’s also, as you know from previous petitioners, back in October, a proposal that, as part of the works to realign the Princes Risborough line, a vehicular route, future proof for a possible Aylesbury southern relief road, should be provided in this location. And if that were done, that should provide an alternative means of access to the balancing pond, and thus enable us to consider whether we need to secure access for vehicles along this route.

5. None of that can be dealt with conclusively today, but those are matters that are fo r further consideration.

6. It may be helpful if I just say that insofar as that issue of providing provision –

future proofing the realignment of the Princes Risborough line to allow for a possible Aylesbury southern relief road, as far as that issue is concerned, discussions with the interested parties, both the landowners and the local authorities, have been progressing in a positive way, in relation to that. They haven’t reached a position where the project is able to recommend a particular solution, but the moment is forward and I hope to be able to report back to the Committee on that within the near future. I think that’s a ll b y way of introduction.

7. CHAIR: My Taylor?

8. MR TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name’s Neil Taylor, I’m a chartered surveyor, I’ve been managing agent for the Carrington family since 2005. This is going to be very much an abridged version, a you’ve heard already that we’re delighted to have agreed heads of terms with the promoter only this morning, on two of our three significant issues. I wonder if we co uld have slide 16122 please?

9. Thank you. Just to set the scene, Standalls Farm is part of the Carrington family’s property. The family has owned it since 1802. It’s just over 570 acres of grade 3 land, mainly arable, but also with some permanent pasture land, which is home to a beef enterprise, and it’s farmed by a long term tenant. Can we have slide three?

10. At the heart of the farm, there’s a Grade II listed farmhouse. You can see, there’s a sort of white patch in the centre of the slide on your screen. Together with a range of traditional buildings, modern grain storage, and livestock housing. The access to the fa r m, both buildings and houses, is along a single farm driveway, which you can see running, sort of roughly north south and it’s about a quarter of a mile long. It has the status of a public footpath, I think it’s known as footpath 28 in the eyes of Buckinghamshire County Council, but it’s no more than a footpath. I’ve tried to mark on the slide the boundaries of Standalls Farm, such as they relate to HS2.

11. If we could jump now to slide 7. So, against this background, we now have one remaining concern with the promoter’s proposals and that is over their proposed use of the main farm driveway, as a permanent access to the balancing pond and pumping station which are to be built on the opposite side of HS2. That will involve a new accommodation bridge, which will, as we understand it, need to be robust enough for tanker lorries. We do appreciate that the route has been slightly amended already, so

that it now passes just to the east of our farm buildings, rather than running directly through the farmyard, which was originally the case. But we still believe that there’s a better alternative route. If we could have slide 8.

12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry, the system seems to have –

13. MR TAYLOR: So, on slide 8, again, our boundaries are show with a red line, and you can see a yellow line coming from the extreme right of this slide, which is the main farm driveway leading to Standalls Farm. It passes around the far side of the farmyard, and then joins up with footpath 16, which is on the boundary of the Pearce family’s land, and the crosses HS2 via a proposed new accommodation bridge.

14. For tanker access, that involves upgrading a track of about 1.3km from the public highway to the proposed balancing pond, as well as an expensive bridge. And, as you’ve already heard, in October, Bucks County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council petitioned for an underpass, under the existing Princes Risborough to Aylesbury railway line; that’s being raised anyway, to accommodate HS2 and we very much support that proposal and recently signed a joint statement, together with our neighbours, to that effect. As we as preserving both Buckinghamshire and Aylesbury Vale District Council’s long held ambitions for an Aylesbury relief road, the underpass would provide a much shorter route of only about 550 metres to the balancing pond, and it would allow the accommodation bridge to be downgraded to just a footbridge, which, according to Ridge and Partners, who have provided figures for us, would be significantly less expensive.

15. The underpass itself would be on our neighbour’s land; you can see there’s some white writing that says, ‘Existing Princes Risborough railway’, and there’s a hedge line running just to the right of it. It would be approximately at the end of that section of hedgerow. But we are affected by this, insofar as the present access is shown through our farm, and that wouldn’t be necessary if the shorter route under the existing railway line, from the Stoke Mandeville bypass were possible, and therefore, footpath 28, in yellow on this plan, could remain as a footpath. If we could have slide 9 please?

16. This is just view of the existing farm driveway; as you can see, it’s not a major highway, and a view of Standalls Farm, looking from the existing edge of Aylesbury across the fields. There are some significant pylons, and, looking into the distance, the

photograph is taken from Standalls farmland. The second pylon is on Pearce family land, and then the third one, I believe, is back on Carrington land.

17. Jumping now to the final slide 13. So, in summary – next slide please. In summary, our request to the Committee is that you ask the promoter to provide us with an assurance that it will use the shorter route, for permanent access to the balancing pond. We would also simply like to reserve the right to come back in the event that the assurances we received this morning don’t come good in the way that we hope and expect they will, but other than that, we’re grateful for your time in listening.

18. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

19. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I anticipated the points that have just been made by indicating where we were with negotiations on providing an underpass beneath the realigned Princes Risborough line. I can’t say anything more than I have at the moment on that, if that is to proceed, then clearly, it will provide the opportunity to do that, which is set out on the first bullet on this slide.

20. If it doesn’t proceed, that is to say if the decision is made not to provide an underpass, then the question as to whether that should nevertheless happen, simply to accommodate the desire of this petitioner, not to have an access across their existing drive, would need to be considered in its own right, but I would have thought it’s probably sensible not to address you on that now, but to await the outcome of the continuing discussions and negotiations on the larger accommodation of the underpass underneath the existing railway.

21. CHAIR: Okay. Any further comments, Mr Taylor?

22. MR TAYLO R: No. We would prefer not to have the access through Standalls land, we believe that the underpass would be a cheaper option, and we understand that the promoter is still in discussion with not only ourselves, but our neighbour, the Pearce family, who you will hear from next, over how that might be possible.

23. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Can I ask a question, Chairman? Good afternoon, Mr Taylor. As a fellow chartered surveyor to another one, is there any silver lining in this coming up your access road? I could see the potential conflicts with traffic coming in

and out of the access road, but on the other hand, the slide that you’ve showed us shows that the access road is currently of a pretty low grade standard.

24. MR TAYLOR: Yes.

25. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Presumably, if HS2 were going to bring heavy tankers up and down your access way, they would have to upgrade that standard?

26. MR TAYLOR: That’s right.

27. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : So there is a bit of a silver lining.

28. MR TAYLO R: It could be a double edged sword in that it could also attract traffic that we’re not, at the moment, getting.

29. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : You might have to have a locked gate or barrier –

30. MR TAYLOR: Possibly, yes, but I take that point, yes.

31. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you for your evidence. I’m now going to go to petitioner number 42. Antony Pearce. Mr Mould?

Antony Pearce

32. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m afraid at the mo me nt, the system is not working, we’re trying to get it fixed, and so, what I suggest in those circumstances is, if we can revert to the use of the paper copies; if your files follow the same tabulation as mine, you should find the petitioner’s exhibits behind tab 31, in the first volume. And the first page of that tab should look like this. So, if I perhaps, conveniently just introduce this by reference to the third page of the tab, which should be numbered A16133, the petitioner won’t mind if I use his documents for this purpose. This is a screen shot from the flythrough; you can see we’re looking southwards, with the south eastern corner of the built up area of Aylesbury to our left. And the railway running mid screen, in a southerly direction. You’ll see that the petitioner has outlined in yellow, the extent of his holding, Moat Farm, and has shaded in blue, lands that are lost to the – well, lands that are included within the Bill limits, as he puts it, ‘Extent of land lost’.

33. This is working farm as I understand it, and I believe also, correct me if I’m

wrong, but the petitioner was party to the joint statement that I read out just before lunch as regards to the future use and development of the blue area of land which lies to the east of the railway, or to the left of the line, as you see it on this screen shot. That’s all.

34. CHAIR: Okay.

35. MR PEARCE: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. My name’s Antony Pearce, I represent the Pearce family. We farm on the outskirts of Aylesbury, and Yazdi Batki s its be s ide me, who is an engineer, consultant for Ridge who’ve provided costings with regard to the underpass, as my – as a witness if you need his skills.

36. The first point on the opening slide 1631, refers to the items raised in our petition. Starting with the degree of grassland habitat creation which was covered by the statement made earlier, so I shall not dwell on it, and item labelled 28, refers to the Standalls overbridge, which has just been raised by the Carrington representation, which we fully support as well.

37. There are items that we have worked together on, we require access via some of their landholding, as part of our mitigation, and we are providing them with access as well.

38. What I would like to dwell on is my unique situation with regard to not only the HS2 but East West Rail and the Princes Risborough line and the Stoke Mandeville bypass. So, if we turn the page. As outlined by Mr Mould, the boundary of my holding is marked in yellow, with HS2 passing through the middle of it, and sort of on the vertical access, with East West rail, or the Princes Risborough line running left to right. And as correctly identified in the next slide, the area in blue indicates the land take and as agreed earlier, this is reduced on the area directly to the right of the housing, is reduced by virtue of this morning’s agreement.

39. The next slide, number 4. I’ve tried to use the fly-throughs methodology to identify in blue, the traces of both HS2, the realignment of the Princes Risborough line, and the Stoke Mandeville bypass, A4010, as it cuts through my holding. And the next slide, number 5.

40. As a result, I am left with three parcels of land which have no access. The

smallest piec e in the background of the slide, outlined in yellow, we have recently received an assurance from HS2 that although not on any plans, that we will be granted access to this piece of land. However, the lion’s share of our holding, the two items in the foreground, we are left with no access to either of these under the current proposal. Next slide.

41. The next slide shows an HS2 plan outlined in red and clearly demonstrates two places where the farm could cross the Princes Risborough line. These are referred to as crossing number two and crossing number four, in Network Rail speak. However, if we go to the next slide, 16137, you will see these two crossing points marked with blue circles, and under the current East West upgrade, both these crossings are marked for closure. Leaving me with no method to cross the railway.

42. Similarly, the proposed solution as far as East West is concerned, is an overbridge marked with a green circle, and on the next slide, you will note the green circle coincides with drainage lakes for HS2.

43. I understand the basis under which both these projects are designed, in their first come, first served b as is, so one has to be designed first, and then a subsequent project designed around the other. However, this doesn’t help my situation on the ground.

44. We were first informed of East West plans to close these crossing points on 17 December 2014. And their conflict with HS2 was pointed out at that point. And negotiations have continued with Network Rail, to date, and the last specifically, to see if they would support our proposed underpass solution. It – and I have an email which I submitted as evidence, but not as part of my slides, from their engineer, who states that the underpass solution requires a two meter vertical realignment which is part of HS2’s plans, but without that, he cannot entertain an underpass. So, we’re left in the situation again, where I’m potentially looking at having two large chunks without any access.

45. So, what I’d like to go on to explain is the proposed la ndowner solution, which we’ve drawn up in collaboration with Bucks County Council, AVDC and Carrington and Ernest Cook Trust. So, next slide, 16139.

46. The blue circle marked around Stoke Mandeville number four, as this crossing is closed, we’ve negotiated the opportunity to access our land, our severed holding via the

Carrington land, and in a recent meeting on 9 November, HS2 agreed to follow up on this proposal further, so I look forward to hearing from them at a later date. To the next slide, 161310.

47. The Committee heard significant evidence from Bucks County Council on 14 October, where they asked for a costed solution. In fact, we had supplied HS2 with Yazd i’s costings on 24 September. And I believe the Committee has asked HS2 to report back and I refer to the opening comments of Mr Mould before Carrington’s presentation, where he said, ‘Discussions had progressed in a positive manner’, and I would wish to challenge that.

48. On the ground that on – we had a meeting with AVDC and HS2 on 4 November, where HS2 refused to provide the assumptions behind their costings. They are claimed there is a £3 million increase in spending, where Yazdi’s evidence is between £700,000 and £1 million saving. And without access to the assumptions made under the HS2 mod e ls, we are powerless to counter any arguments, or come up with any better solutions. So, really, I would call on the Committee to try and fix a schedule by which HS2 has to abide by, you know, we were here negotiating this morning, and it doesn’t – it’s not very helpful to negotiate on a last minute basis.

49. So, this solution for the underpass, satisfies a lot of the requirements o f the Committee. It covers the fact that the safeguarded route for the southern bypass is not hindered as a result of HS2’s p la n, it satisfies AVDC’s and Bucks County Council’s future development plans, and it ensures that the severed land of Carrington and Pearce are accessible from the A4010 Stoke Mandeville bypass.

50. Right, the –

51. MR HENDRICK: Mr Pearce, can I presume the la nd, is it used as an active farm at the moment?

52. MR PEARCE: It is used…

53. MR HENDRICK: Obviously, a large chunk of the land is going to disappear; are you saying that it’s still va r iab le as a farm afterwards?

54. MR PEARCE: Yes; it is our intention to stay farming it, and we would still need

access to the other side, whatever type of farming we would wish to undertake.

55. MR HENDRICK: What percentage of the farm would still be available afterwards?

56. MR PEARCE: About – it’s part of a bigger holding, but within this particular area, I would say it’s 50%.

57. MR HENDRICK: So it’s half of it gone.

58. MR PEARCE: Yes, 50% of the farm’s gone.

59. MR HENDRICK: Okay, thanks.

60. MR PEARCE: The total – before this morning’s agreement, I think the total land take was about 160 acres. That has been reduced a little bit this morning. But that calculation’s not simple.

61. MR HENDRICK: And are you saying you’ve over 300 acres?

62. MR PEARCE: In this particular parcel, yes.

63. MR HENDRICK: Okay.

64. MR PEARCE: The next slide, 161311, we believe the balancing pond could be relocated closer to HS2. There is some – Bucks County Council has indicated some concern about the route of the southern relief road in future, if the balancing pond is kept in the same place, so we are asking for it to be moved. And again, HS2 have agreed to look at this, but we have no further information at this point.

65. Coming back to the issue raised about working the farm after HS2. One of our big concerns is slide 1613(12). We have a concern about moving large agricultural machinery across the proposed A4010. It’s not gaining access to the carriageway that we have concerns with, but rather crossing the carriageway. There’s a lot of requirements for us to go from our farm buildings, located in the middle of that slide, to gain access onto the A4010. As you can see, in the middle of the slide, there’s a sort of a runway down to the middle of a field, which was a proposed solution. Obviously, there would be quite an embankment to climb, the vehicles would be moving slowly,

they would then have to cross the line of traffic.

66. A proposed solution suggested by HS2 on 9 November, was to access the A4010 through the small slither on the far left of the diagram, on the marked access to A4010, and, adding a roundabout at that point, so that if farm traffic wishes to cross the carriageway, they could access it from both sides, and we really very much like that idea to be developed further.

67. If we move onto the next slide, number 13; I know this item has been raised by the NFU in their representations with regard to hedgerow removal, and the better use of remnants. And really, I just wanted to draw this to the Committee’s attention because it’s a very good example of what we’re struggling with.

68. Due to the linear nature of HS2, we have a number of hedges that get left making economic arable farming difficult…

69. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Mr Pearce, I see what you’re getting at here, and I can see why it’s – surely it’s not in this Committee’s remit, is it? This is in the remit of the District Council, is n’t it?

70. MR PEARCE: Well, yes –

71. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Planning permission.

72. MR PEARCE: Thank you for raising that point. So we – that was suggested by HS2, and so we ran a trial to find out. We have a letter of support from HS2 and we had a county ecologist do a survey for the hedge, who confirmed it was of no ecological merit. And we applied for planning permission to have it removed on the grounds that, in future, it would impinge our ability to farm economically. And the planning application was refused. And all I’m trying to do is to demonstrate to the Committee that, although those assurances are given, actually in reality, it’s still very difficult to remove hedgerows, even when the country ecologists backs you. And so I just want the Committee to understand quite how difficult it is. The assurance given by HS2 isn’t quite as straight forward as it might first appear.

73. MR HENDRICK: What were the grounds for refusal?

74. MR PEARCE: The grounds of refusal were that HS2 was highly unlikely to ever occur and that was the sole reason.

75. MR HENDRICK: Shouldn’t it have been taken on the merits of the hedgerow, rather than on…?

76. MR PEARCE: O ne would have thought so, but that is why I applied for planning permission to demonstrate that it was not as straight forward as that.

77. CHAIR: And have you appealed?

78. MR PEARCE: I haven’t appealed, but I was going to wait until HS2 was – after Royal Assent. Next slide please.

79. So, what I’d like to suggest is, these field remnants, that we are not looking for a loss of habitat; I suggest there can be a no net loss of habitat situation, whereby field remnants which have no agricultural merit, could be used as a way of mitigating hedgerow removal. It would be a lot easier if we could have an assurance that as long as there was no net loss in habitat, similar to that undertaken, which HS2’s given, along the rest of the route, that we were allowed to move field boundaries within these access areas.

80. And really, that concludes my presentation.

81. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

82. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Going back to the question of the Princes Risborough line, I hadn’t really got any more to say. I’m sorry if the petitioner feels that matters haven’t been progressing as positively as I had been instructed they were, but I believe that at least one further meeting is planned and I hope we can redress any concerns that may have arisen in that respect, at that meeting. Clearly a decision has to be made by the promoter of this project, as to whether the promoter is willing to undertake works and the question of funding of those works will have to be considered as well, but that is work in progress at the moment, and I don’t propose, unless you’d like me to, to go into that.

83. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: No, but Mr Mould, can I ask a question? Since the

petitioner’s told us that they can’t work out a counter proposal, because you haven’t given them the information, HS2 has not given them the information of their costings.

84. MR MOULD: Yes, that was news to me.

85. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : It does seem to me that that is unfair.

86. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, if that’s right – I mea n, it’s news to me, and I’ve actually asked the question whether we recognise that concern and I haven’t been told that we do, but I don’t want to debate that before you. I understand the concern that’s been raised, and I will make sure that those who are involved, that’s reported back to them, because it’s clearly not in anyone’s interests that what is designed to be a se ns ib le and constructive negotiation, is being hampered by either a lack of information or, a perception that information is not being provided. I think I can leave you with that.

87. MR HENDRICK: Creating an undertaking that this information will be provided to Mr Pearce?

88. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It doesn’t, it equates to an undertaking to go away and to make sure that, from our part, we are pursuing those discussions in a way that is sufficiently transparent, to enable everybody to understand the factual information that is needed.

89. MR HENDRICK: But, just given a headline figure without the basis behind is isn’t really…

90. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is what you’ve been told has happened. I have asked the question, is that what has happened, and those behind me are saying that they don’t recognise that. But I don’t want to get into a –

91. CHAIR: You’ll get the opportunity to come back, Mr Pearce. Mr Mould?

92. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The next question was regarding the balancing pond, I think, and all I think I need to say about that is that – it’s a A1613(11) – it’s clearly sens ib le that further consideration is given to the precise location o f that facility, in the light of the joint statement that was made this morning, because that joint statement, if you remember, was predicated on a common acknowledgment by all parties, including

the promoter, that the railway should be constructed in such a way as to enable development aspirations, to meet the housing needs of Aylesbury, on these and other lands, to be accommodated as far as reasonably possible. And the location of that balancing pond is part of that discussion.

93. Equally, I am sure that the petitioner will recognise that that balancing pond is there for a purpose, it’s there in order to accommodate the requisite drainage and flood management needs of railway, and that therefore, it is a facility that needs to be located so that it can perform those functions in an effective and sensible way. So, as always, there are some potentially competing interests and a proper balance has to be struck. That, I suggest, is not something that can be resolved today, it’s best dealt with through further negotiations.

94. MR HENDRICK: Have you got ideas about where the balancing pond might be able to go?

95. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We may be able to show – I don’t know, are we still lacking the – if you can find A1613(11), it is possible that we may be able to shift it in a south-easterly direction towards the hedge line that you can see on that page. It’s less likely, I’m told, that we could locate it in precisely the area that is shown on the plan by the petitioner, because both the railway and if the southern relief road is built, the southern relief road are likely to be in some form of cutting, and this is an area which is floodplain and so you can see immediately, that there is a challenge if one is to locate a flood management facility in between two transport routes that are, themselves, located below ground. But again, that’s not something which needs to be resolved today, it just gives you a little flavour of some of the practical and engineering considerations that would need to be brought to bear, but the principle that we are open to further discussion and negotiation as to the detailed arrangements for the location of that balancing pond, that principle is well established a nd it’s no more than an example of the application of the assurances that we have given to the National Farmers Union about working in collaboration with farmers and landowners, as regards the detailed design of the railway.

96. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: I would imagine, Mr Mould, there is some financial incentive for you to relocate it, because I should imagine the compensation claim for where it is, given that it is land that’s likely to get development, would be substantial.

97. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Indeed so, and that point was very well made by Mr Camero n, QC, just before the luncheon adjournment, who pointed out that common interest, if you will, in both parties, and that I’m sure will be – well, it certainly should be taken into account by those behind me, and I’m sure it will be.

98. Then I think there was a concern about access, slide 12, access for farm vehicles. And again, as was pointed out by Mr Pearce, provision has been made in the Bill, for an access into the area of the Moat farmstead, and the surrounding lands here. As to the detailed arrangements for that, again, that is something that is a matter for further work. This Bill doesn’t deal with the detail of these things, it leaves open the detail for further consideration and again, that is something which I think you were told, has already been discussed and no doubt further discussions can take place with the petitioner, with a view to taking account of his needs, along with the needs of the public using the new bypass, as part of the detailed design of that new road.

99. And then finally, on the question of the hedgerows; certainly, it’s right to say that this Bill doesn’t seek to usurp the function of the local planning authority, insofar as hedgerow removal is concerned, where we move outside the limits of the Bill. There are obviously hedgerows that do need to be removed to enable us to construct and operate the railway, but we don’t seek to extend the powers of this Bill to the removal of hedgerows beyond the Bill limits. And, if it is the case that there is resistance on the part o f loca l planning authorities for reasons other than good reasons, to the re mo va l o f a section of hedgerow, and I say, if it is the case that that is such, and I’m not to be taken as saying that I accept there is, I’m agnostic as to the point, then clearly there are, as I think one of your members averted to, there are statutory rights of appeal, and indeed, I think the petitioner, if I may say so, very prudently said that he would probably allow matters to rest for the time being, and perhaps make a further application when there is a much greater degree of certainty about the coming of the HS2 project.

100. So, it follows from that, that I think that is something which I would suggest is best left in those terms, rather than any specific intervention, particularly where the Bill itself doesn’t seek to usurp those powers, for the reasons I’ve given.

101. CHAIR: Mr Pearce?

102. MR PEARCE: Yes, just for the Committee’s benefit, if I could just introduce

Yazdi, who will articulate clearly where we’ve got to with regard to the costings o f the underpass, because he is more closely involved than me. I defer to him.

103. MR BATKI: We had a meeting with HS2 several weeks ago and last week, we were supplied basic data, essentially a list of what HS2 had priced for, but no quantitative data; there’s no money, no numbers listed. So, at the moment, we are pricing ours to what HS2 have priced for conversion to that – we think they’ve priced for items which they bear no consequence on this construction, but that’s the kind of – we will continue to talk with HS2 directly on that.

104. MR PEARCE: Really, what we’re asking for is a timeline, you know, the Committee asked for it to be enforced and time drifts on and there’s very little progress. Thank you very much.

105. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

106. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, no, I should be prolonging it.

107. CHAIR: Okay, we’ll deliberate at the end of our public session.

108. MR PEARCE: Thank you very much.

109. CHAIR: Thank you very much. We’re now going to move to petition 1443, AP125, AP2136, petition 591, petition 1445, AP124, Marcus Rogers. Mr Mould?

Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group and others

110. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, well what I’ll do if I may, is just try and give an overall introduction to Mr Rogers and those who he represents. First of all, Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, the area of the Parish Council – can we just zoom out a bit – the area of the Parish Council is shown with red line on the plan in front of you, there is Stoke Mandeville itself in the centre of the page. I’ve just noticed that the Pa r is h Council does embrace an area of the south-eastern built up area of Aylesbury, and, there’s also an area just to the south of Lower Road, and in this area here, there is a school, and Mr Rogers is going to be referring to in his presentation.

111. The line of the railway, if you can see, is running along the south side of Stoke Mandeville, and the bypass which the project has included within the Bill, in response to

pressure from the local community, is to run along the grade which is being shown now.

112. If I go onto just show you in a little more detail, the details. We’ll go into P10614, which gives you the permanent position, with regards to Stoke Mandeville. The railway running in a broadly, south-north alignment to the west of the village, you’ll see the line of the bypass being pointed out now, passing to the west of the railway line and then across the railway line and joining up to the A4443 Lower Road, at this point here, by way of a new roundabout.

113. As a result of not only the Bill but also additional provisions, some screening and bunding has been introduced into the bypass scheme, just at this point here. And further screening along the northern side of the bypass as it approaches the junction with Lower Road at this point here. There is a lso fur ther screening and bunding proposed along the eastern side of the HS2 line at this point, which is, intended amongst other things, to provide some additional screening to the property known as Stoke House, which is located just where my arrow is…

114. MR ROGERS: Sorry, Mr Mould that’s not quite right, Stoke House is actually on the other side – can you see the balancing – vaguely kidney shaped balancing pond?

115. MR MOULD QC (DfT): This one here?

116. MR ROGERS: No, on the right hand side, to your right?

117. MR STARR: Where it says, Risborough Road underpass.

118. MR ROGERS: Stoke House is actually to the north of that balancing pond.

119. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m so sorry, I’ve got – it’s my fault, this is the area of bunding that…

120. MR ROGERS: Yes, that’s correct, yes.

121. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Forgive me, that’s been added in, thank you. The bypass itself is proposed – that will be constructed and brought into operation early in the overall construction phase of HS2 for the obvious reason that it would allow then relief to the settlement of Stoke Mandeville. If we can go back to P10613, this is the

construction phase. You can see that there is an HS2 construction route coming through from the Nash Lee Road. I should make clear, the construction traffic that is programmed to use this route is limited to construction traffic associated with the construction of the bypass itself. Mass haul traffic will leave the public roads going northwards and go via a road head onto the trace, to the south of Stoke Mandeville, and you can see, as well as the trace itself, there is also a proposal for a haul road to run along the western side of the bypass trace and take HS2 traffic and construction vehicles up, and thus avoid the need to use the public roads.

122. So, the bypass, not only does it provide permanent relief to the village, but also, it is construction, and it’s construction only that will see the generation o f a ny significant quantity of HS2 vehicles. And we’re talking about very low numbers here, we’re talking about in the low 10s of HGVs associated with the construction of the bypass, being routed onto these local roads.

123. In relation to earlier petitions, I drew attention to the fact that obviously, with the bypass having been bought into operation, the existing Risborough Road will be closed to vehicular traffic at the point at which it passes beneath the HS2 railway. There’ll be a foot underpass through at that point, but traffic will be routed, as you would expect, around the new bypass, and then those who live within Stoke Mandeville itself, will gain access to the village via the roundabout on the Lower Road.

124. Beyond that, as you see, typically with construction phase, we have a series of compounds and stock pile areas along both the trace of the railway, and also along the route of the bypass, and of course, some compounds which will provide service to the works that you know about that we’re doing, to realign the Princes Risborough line, and those are shown on the plan.

125. So, that’s a very short overview of the works here and the permanent position in relation to Stoke Mandeville.

126. CHAIR: Mr Rogers?

127. MR ROGERS: Good afternoon, Chairman, and members of the Select Committee. I’m grateful to Mr Mould for providing that overview. I’m particularly grateful that he highlighted the extent of Stoke Mandeville pa r is h. I’m Marcus Rogers

and acting as Roll B agent for today, for Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group, John Jakobi, the late Vincent and Sheelagh Nolan, David Starr and Paul Walter. One who’s identified, as I am representing John Allen, is reserving his position at present, as discussions continue between Buckinghamshire County Council and the promoter with respect of the bypass. And Ruth and Paul Gaisford will be presenting immediately after I do. So thank you. That slide.

128. MR RO GERS: As you know, I’ve been involved with HS2 since it was first announced in March 2010, initially with Buckinghamshire County Council and more recently, on behalf of councils and individuals across the area.

129. I do feel obliged to declare a particular interest today, as I’m also a Stoke Mandeville Parish Councillor, a governor at Stoke Mandeville Combined School, and a resident within the parish. I will be calling a number of witnesses from across the parish during the presentation to explain their concerns and issues in more detail.

130. As I hope you know, both the Parish Council and the Action Group have worked with the promoter from the earliest possible stage, to get the best mitigation for the community, if the project goes ahead. This, as you’ve heard, has help secure the realignment of the road around the village and through the parish, and agreement to a full and detailed archaeological study at the old church site, and relocation of a significant number of remains from that site.

131. Today gives us the chance to present our remaining and outstanding concerns. As well as calling specific witnesses from across Stoke Mandeville, the Chairman of Parish Council, Jenny Hunt, is also here if you should have any questions you would like to ask her. So I’ll begin by showing you how HS2 will affect the immediate area. Next slide please.

132. As already highlighted by Mr Mould, you can see that actually, Stoke Mandeville par is h stretches for quite some way, so I have had to split this into two slides. So, here is the view south from the proposed line, from the northern edge of the parish, which actually, some people confuse, because it is part of the greater Aylesbury area. The civil parish of Stoke Mandeville includes part of an area in Aylesbury. Immediately to the left, at point one on the slide, are the homes Isis Close and Oat Close and Hawkslade. Some of you will remember, in fact, I hope all of you will remember visiting that

particular area.

133. The closest homes there are just 180 metres from the centre of the railway line, closer than anywhere else across Aylesbury. Points two indicate the approximate location for the two schools in the parish, and their proximity to HS2. The nearest is an approximate location for Booker Park School, a school catering for primary aged children with special educational needs. The second, further way, shows the village school, Stoke Mandeville Combined, which is sited at the junction of Marsh Lane with Lower Road. And point three, as we’ve heard already, shows where the realigned road and the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line, hopefully, to become part of East West Rail sooner rather than later, where that crosses over HS2. Next slide please.

134. This second view is still part of Stoke Mandeville Parish, with the school playing fie ld s at the village primary school, visible underneath points two. Point fo ur illustrates how the line passes on an embankment, west of the village near Moat Farm, and by the, now severed, Marsh Lane. Between point four and point five, you can just about make out the homes and buildings in Old Risborough Road, some of which are being compulsory purchased by the promoter. Those that remain, as you can appreciate, will be very close to HS2.

135. Point five indicates the lo cation of the maintenance loops, a very flat and straight section of the railway, much wider than almost all other places on the line, to accommodate maintenance trains. Stoke House has been referenced, can be found to the left, or east of those particular maintenance loops. Next slide please.

136. So, these are a summary of the requests from Stoke Mandeville. Firstly, we want to get the best possible mitigation for our residents on Hawkslade, living so close to the HS2 line. Some, less than 200 metres away. Secondly, with two schools in the parish, it is absolutely critical that the construction and operation effects of the railway, are minimised, particularly with the individual and unique circumstances at each school.

137. Thirdly, with the expected effects of transport across the area, that other councils, beyond our own, have already emphasised, we are keen to see a railway project make better use of existing rail infrastructure, rather than relying entirely on the road network. Noise is an understandable concern across the area, and we are not convinced the promoter has done everything possible to minimise its effects on key receptors in Stoke

Mandeville.

138. And finally, we are concerned that there are areas across the parish where ho me s and communities have not been offered the best visual mitigation to maintain the ir quality of life and protect precious landscapes. Next slide please.

139. Turning to the first issue for Stoke Mandeville. At the northern edge of the parish, on Hawkslade. I’m calling David Starr, Vice Chairman of the Parish Council, to explain this matter in more detail.

140. MR STARR: Thank you Marcus. Good afternoon gentleman. My name is David Starr, and as Marcus said at the beginning of his remarks, I am petitioner 1490, my petition now being subsumed into these matters on behalf of the parish as a whole. So, good afternoon.

141. My professional background is in finance, I’m a chartered accountant, now retired, and frankly, I have no knowledge whatever of engineering, I confess that, right up front, whether it’s railway or construction engineering. But as Parish Councillor for Hawkslade, I want to do my best for parishioners, and especially for those living closer to the line than almost anyone else in the county.

142. I was pleased to meet some of you when you visited Hawkslade, and Oat Close in particular, in August, and thank you for the time you spent with us. You’ll no doubt re me mb er standing on the field path, with the houses at our back, to view the line of route. This slide, on slide 16085, was taken from the line of route looking back to the houses, and it shows just how exposed Oat C lose properties are to the line, which, at this point, is passing on the surface, or at grade, having emerged from the Aylesbury south cutting.

143. The mos t effected properties in this area are on Oat Close and Isis Close. Across this area, these properties are of mixed tenure, with more than about 75% being owner occupied. Many are starter homes and I’d suggested that most are occupied by what are now called hard working families. We want to maximise mitigation for these people. W ith Pa r is h Council and Ac tio n Group colleagues, we’ve sought, using bilaterals with HS2 Ltd, to secure as much mitigation as possible for Hawkslade.

144. Originally, we were told that the homes were too close to the line to mitigate properly or adequately and that there wasn’t sufficient space to build enough bunds etc. Later on, we’ve had an opportunity to view profile maps of the line, so can I have the next slide please?

145. I’m s ure yo u’re all familiar with the profile maps showing the relationship between ground level and vertical alignment of the route, and in this particular case, I want to talk about the, if you like, the lower half of the map, where the line profile and landfall are particularly illustrated. I’d like to run from south-to-north, so in this case, from right to left across the slide. Here, the line crosses Risborough Road, on an emba nk me nt, approximately four and a half metres high. At that point, it starts to descend across the south of the village – the west of the village, I beg your pardon, and descend into Aylesbury south cutting, as it runs across the village.

146. It’s in the cutting to go under the diverted 4010 road, and the Aylesbury to Risborough railway line that’s being lifted over the line. At this point, it’s around about its deepest point, which is just under seven metres deep. From there, you’ll see the line actually rises, according to this profile map. It’s very difficult to see, because it’s quite tiny, but it’s actually rising to ultimately end up on the Aylesbury embankment.

147. As it comes to grade, the land falls and the line rises; it comes out at grade, directly opposite the nearest point to the line in Hawkslade, and that’s the highlighted point, the circle highlighting the houses, the arrow highlighting the point at which it comes to the surface of the land there.

148. As I mentioned, I’m not an engineer but looking at this, even with a certain amount of logic and nothing else, I believe, and we, as a group believe, it’s possible, by extending the fall of the line, rather than it rising, just taking it a couple of metres deeper, and then, by not allowing the route to rise at all, and as the land falls, staying below the surface of the land, it could remain in a cutting for a longer distance, perhaps as much as an extra kilometre. By this stage, the line has much less impact on the properties located further way, as you can see, the development cuts right back, away from the line, at the top left hand corner of the map, and so making properties further way from the line.

149. In addition, we believe that it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to make some

sort of step whereby the properties at the cutting at the edge of Hawkslade, could actually be covered over and a form of green tunnel created. Making it like a green br id ge, much shorter, than, for example, the equivalent structure in CFA10 at Wendover.

150. I appreciate there are extra costs involved, but in this particular case, the money spent will be on protecting people’s quiet enjoyment of their homes, rather than protecting landscapes and views. Thank you gentlemen, can we have the next slide, please?

151. MR RO GERS: Thank you, David, thank you very much. The next issue for Stoke Mandeville are the two schools within the parish, so at this point, please let me introduce Eileen Stewart, who is the head teacher at Stoke Mandeville Combined school.

152. MRS STEWART: Thank you, Marcus. Good afternoon, everyone, very nice to be here, thank you very much, and it was nice to meet some of you when you came out earlier on in your visits to the area. Stoke Mandeville Combined School, which as you can see, on the picture, is on the lower picture, is my school, and the context of my school is that I’m a one form entry primary school in the village, with 210 spaces. The majority of the children in my school actually come from the village and surrounding local area. Booker Park School, which is actually on the top left hand corner of your picture, is in the Stoke Leys ward of the parish, and it’s 180 places for children with specific learning difficulties. And these children are unable to attend mainstream primary sc hoo ls. This school has been significantly invested in and it is the school that some of you from the Committee came and visited on your journey round Buckinghamshire, in order to supply the resources and curriculum which is suited to those children’s needs.

153. An increase in the construction traffic, which is undoubtedly going to happen, will undoubtedly create safety concerns for all of the children arriving and departing both schools. The current environment around Booker Park Special School is peaceful and calm, and the outside learning areas are a vital part of the children’s learning experiences. They need to be able to work both inside and outside, in a quiet and tranquil environment, and any disturbance to them, negatively impacts on the pupils and their ability to remain calm. The next slide please.

154. Stoke Mandeville Combined School is the picture you can see here, this is my school, pictured from the line on the ridge in Marsh Lane. I’m also a unique school in Buckinghamshire, in that I have 10 places for children who have hearing impairments and are unable to work just in a normal primary school, so I have an additional resourced provision in my school and have been set up to support that. The sc hoo l is unique in its siting, it’s been there for 120 years, but the acoustic integrity has to be maintained for the children who have hearing impairments. There are only two schools in Buckinghamshire whic h have places for children with hearing impairments, in the primary age range. I’m one, the other one is down in High Wycombe.

155. The school is very popular, and takes the safety and sustainability of its young people very seriously. Just recently, within the last month, we’ve been awarded the Gold Standard for its travel plan, and not only have we received a Gold Standard for our travel plan, we are also the regional award winner for road safety and improving children’s understanding of road safety.

156. The promoter proposes to use Marsh Lane as one of the routes for construction traffic and the road passes within 10 metres of five of my classrooms. The classes will be very difficult to re-site, due to the space requirements for children, and specifically, it will impact significantly on the year five and year six children in my school.

157. The impact of construction will affect their daily work and probably have a negative impact on the success of this very popular village school. Year five and six in a primary school are very important, as the children move towards secondary and particularly in Buckinghamshire, where we have the secondary transfer test, to maintain grammar schools. And also, obviously, we have standard assessment tests which are completed at the end of year 6.

158. We’re concerned about the acoustic integrity of Stoke Mandeville Combined School, and the requirement to keep a calm environment, and a lso, the need to ensure the environment around Booker Park School. Is that going to be eroded by the construction and operation of the railway? Noise will have the greatest impact, long ter m, on pupil achievement at both schools. As such, we’re keen that the promoter considers and minimises, or at least mitigates, for the continual noise which will affect the learning in both schools. Next slide, please.

159. MR ROGERS: Thank you very much, Eileen, thank you. Chairman and Committee members, I know you have heard much in recent days, and indeed today, about transport impacts on different roads across the area. Arguments and debates about whether construction traffic should use the A413, the A4010, the A418 or the A41 to access and move around Aylesbury.

160. I’m going to add a further, perhaps radical, and more sustainable alternative. Why not use the existing railway to import and export materials? To serve the construction sites west of Aylesbury? Our par is h is one of only two places in Buckinghamshire where HS2 interacts with East West Rail. The other is, as I’m sure the promoter is aware, is at Calvert in Steeple Claydon, where the promoter proposes to introduce the very large infrastructure maintenance depot. As you can see, the red line is the existing Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line, the black line is HS2, the yellow dots are potential construction sites, and the white circles show where these two very clear intersect. Next slide, please.

161. While we talk about HS2, the Parish Council and Action Group wish to reserve their position on the particular interaction between East West Rail and HS2 with the opportunity to appear at a later stage, bearing in mind that the East West Rail and HS2 integration report is due for publication, perhaps in November or early December, so we wish to reserve our position in that. But this particular proposal, I hope, shows that we’re not working entirely on our own across Stoke Mandeville, we’re actually working together across the wider Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury area, or the community forum area that was CFA11.

162. Clearly, we’re disappointed that East West Rail may have moved back in time, in terms of its scheduling and construction, but ironically, this does add weight to this particular petitioning point, for the provision of sidings in this location. As you can see, I’ve just suggested that the black lines marking the HS2 trace, the red line marking the existing Princes Risborough line, but it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to provide a couple of curves off that to provide sidings within the trace, and after all, one train, replaces a significant number of lorr ies. And I’ve spoken to those involved with East West Rail and who know how many train paths there are on the existing line, and there are sufficient train paths, at least at present, and potentially, even when East West Rail exists, in either direction, whether from Calvert or from West London, for freight trains

to use it, one, two, three a week would not be impossible whatsoever. And this option would eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, the number of lorries using any roads across the area. So, perhaps that could be partial solution to the debates we’ve heard in recent days.

163. So, our request is that promoter should review all the options and alternatives for importing and exporting materials, both rail and road, and after all, the solution could be, having done that detailed review, a hybrid solution, which includes both, but minimises impacts across the piece. Next slide please.

164. The next issue for Stoke Mandeville is the wider noise impact across the parish. To elaborate on this matter, I’m joined by Paul Walter, a resident of Old Moat Farm, sited between the railway line and the village school. He’s acting chairman of Stoke Mandeville Action Group.

165. MR WALTER: C hairman and members of the Committee, by now you’ve probably realised that the focus in Stoke Mandeville is to put people first. Our foc us is about getting the best mitigation for our residents. Therefore, we’re asking the promoter to consider mitigating noise impacts in up to three ways.

166. The first way is restricting the limits of deviation to prevent upward changes in the ver tic a l alignment of the track. Second is to adopt consistent barrier heights across Stoke Mandeville, and the third one is to adopt a lowe r maximum speed for the trains across Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville.

167. So, coming to the first one, our first ask is to manage and mitigate noise, is to insist that the promoter sets a limited deviation for the upward vertical alignment of the track at zero across Stoke Mandeville. The current design spec is plus or minus three metres. And any upward movement would have a significant noise problem for our par is h. Any downward movement would obviously be encouraged. Next slide, please.

168. MR ROGERS: Actually could we go to slide 13 and then come back to 12?

169. MR WALTER: Members, the plan you can see, highlights the inconsistencies in sound barriers across Stoke Mandeville. The green ring denotes a five metre high barr ie r. And the sound is being reasonably well mitigated. The yellow ring shows

where a four metre barrier is proposed. The sound is mitigated, but not as well as a five metre barrier. The red ring shows where three metre barriers are planned, and the difference in the noise spread is clear. And the difference means that mor e o f our residents are being directly affected by the change in height and spread of the noise.

170. We have a very simple request which is to have a consistent barrier height o f five metres across the whole of the Stoke Mandeville area and into Aylesbury, to provide the best sound mitigation for our residents, our schools and our other key facilities.

171. MR ROGERS: Could we go to slide 12 now, please?

172. MR WALTER: The third way of mitigating noise, which I understand is an operational issue, is to limit the maximum speed of trains as it passes by Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury, to 300km an hour. The chart shows that above 300km per hour, the greatest contributor to train noise is aerodynamic noise, generated by pantographs on the top of the trains. Limiting the speed to 300km per hour will limit the aerodynamic element of the noise, which is very hard to mitigate. The combination of all three suggestions will help to mitigate and mange noise across Stoke Mandeville and we hope that the promoter can seriously consider these alternatives as ways to improve the life of our residents, once the line is built and is running. Thank you.

173. MR ROGERS: Thank you Paul. Can we go to slide 14, please? Chairman and Committee members, we now move to the last request from Stoke Mandeville. We are keen that the promoter should provide, maintain and enhance good visual screening of the line, to protect views for the residents, schools and other facilities. John Jakobi who joins me now will focus on some specific screening matters.

174. MR JAKOBI: Good afternoon. I’m John Jakobi, resident of Stoke House, shown in this slide, a Grade II listed building, which many of you visited in June. I’ve lived there for most of the 69 years that the house has been in my family, and throughout that time, we have farmed the surrounding 235 acres. The farm is mainly arable, and with a small DIY equestrian livery activity.

175. The promoter recognises the project will have a significant impact on the farm, about 15% o f whic h will be permanently taken by the project and the larger amount is needed during the construction phase. Stoke House is visible too and from the line, and

exposed on the opposite side of a valley. Indeed, the house itself is just 200 metres from the line, with the proposed maintenance loop and turning area, located just in front of the house. Both line and maintenance loop are visible as they are, on an embankment at this point. Can we have a look at P10708?

176. MR RO GERS: Yes. Could we see P10708, please? Sorry, it’s P10708. It’s the cross section, for Stoke House.

177. MR JAKOBI: My original request was for a significant tree belt to mitigate visual impacts. And this appears to have been noted and actioned by the promoter and addressed in Additional Provision 4. According to the cross sec tio n, the tree belt appears to offer limited visual mitigation. I trust that HS2 can offer an assurance that the belt will be sufficiently robust, and where appropriate, wider than the suggested maximum of 30 metres quoted in the AP. I have a number of other specific concerns about the latest plans, including the current proposed site for the balancing pond.

178. MR ROGERS: Can we return to A160815, please?

179. MR JAKOBI: I would suggest that the pond can move slightly to the south, nearer to the line, which is on lower ground and is much wetter in normal conditions and is probably more appropriate. This will leave the left hand side of that field more appropriate fo r the DIY equestrian operation that we have.

180. The other concern that I have is that the S toke Brook leat which feeds into a watermill that we have at the house itself, just behind, is there, goes underneath the railway and is in danger of being blocked up. I hope that appropriate measures can be taken so that that is not removed.

181. I remain concerned about blight and sound impacts; compensation arrangements for Stoke House, and the future visibility of the farm. For the record, and in support of the Parish Council’s resolution, I wish to state that I oppose any changes to the hybrid Bill that would introduce the fully bored tunnel through the entire AONB. According to plans that I have seen, this will take another 25% of my farm for the construction site at the northern portal. Thank you very much for your attention.

182. MR ROGERS: Thank you, John, thank you very much indeed. Next slide please.

Chairman and members of the Select Committee, I’m going to use this chance quickly to summary our key requests. Before I do, let me reiterate that we have worked pragmatically and realistically with the promoter for a number of years. And this has resulted in some significant changes to the scheme. The realignment of the road around the village and ongoing discussions about the old church site and its remains.

183. Our outstanding issues that we look forward to response from the promoter about are : new measures, including a green tunnel or green bridges, combined with a slight lowering of the line to better mitigate impacts of Oak Close and Isis Close homes at Hawkslade. Enhanced landscaping and noise mitigation, and detailed routing agreements for construction traffic to minimise impacts on both schools in the parish. Stoke Mandeville expects to be actively involved in the development of local environmental management plans.

184. W ith the ongoing debate about using different roads as construction routes, we’ve offered a rail option that deserves detailed consideration and comparison with the road based alternatives. We see no technical reason why rail can’t be used to import or export some or all materials. Noise and visual impacts are still matters of concern across Stoke Mandeville, but these can be addressed with sensitive mitigation and enhanced landscaping. For example at the maintenance loops and close to schools, homes and other key receptors. Consistent barrier heights and mature planting would do much to alleviate loca l concerns.

185. Finally, Stoke Mandeville looks forward to ongoing dialogue and engagement with the pro mo ter as the scheme progresses towards detailed design and construction. It would be very disappointing to lose the momentum that we have already established in the last three to four years. Next slide please.

186. So, on behalf of Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group, the schools in Stoke Mandeville, David Starr, Paul Walter, John Jakobi, the late Vincent Nolan and Sheelagh Nolan, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to listen and understand the key concerns and requests of Stoke Mandeville. I’d also actually like to thank the Select Committee staff who’ve ably and skilfully supported this process. We look forward to hearing detailed responses from the promoter about each of our outstanding matters. If you have any questions or need any clarification,

we’ll be happy to respond. Thank you for your time.

187. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

188. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. If we can we just with the question of noise in Hawkslade first; P10615. This is the familiar map series that shows the noise assessment locations. The area with which we’re concerned is this area here, on the south eastern side of the built up area of Aylesbury. If I can just draw your attention to assessment point 332328, which you’ll see is right on the tip of that particular area, which I think is the crux of the concern that was raised by the petitioner in relation to issue of noise. If we then turn to P10616, you’ll see that the very western part of that area lies within the LOAEL contour, the LOAEL contour extends a little way into this part of the built up area, and then the remainder of the area is beyond that. And if we then turn to P108611, I’ll just show you the numbers. The existing environment for 322328, you’ll see on the fifth line, on Deverill Road, Aylesbury, you’ll see that the, for the operational sound assessment, and we have a day time LAeq level of 45, night time of just below 40 and an arithmetical average LAmax of 42.9.

189. If we then turn onto page 106183, we can see, again 332328, Deverill Road, Aylesbury, ‘The proposed scheme only, day time 50, night time 41, max 62-66’ and then the baseline predicted without the railway, 45, 39 and 43, and then the predicted ambient noise with the railway in operation, daytime 51, night time 53. That takes us just into the lower edge of the LOAEL band during the night time, and you can see that the change here is a change of plus six dB and plus four, day and night respectively, which gives rise to a significant effect.

190. The numbers on the first four entries on this table, and for Anton Way and Enborne Close, those are assessment points further into the Aylesbury built up area, and you can see that there, we are not predicting any degree of change that is seen to be significant. So, that’s the predicted position.

191. Now, the railway, we propose, five metre noise barriers along the line, at this lo cation, and you see that at P10617, and you can see that the familiar notation, the blue line along the eastern side of the line here, showing a five metre barr ier whic h is composed of a mixture of earthworks and, as we move southwards, a noise fence barrier, I think. That is built into the predictions and gives rise to the numbers that I showed you

a few moments ago.

192. The suggestion that we should considering lowering the line here is one that was considered and is reported in the Environmental Statement for this area, Community Forum Area report 11, in section 2.6. There’s a fundamental problem and the who le of this area to the south of Aylesbury is flood plain, and if we were to go down, whether in the form of a green tunnel or in terms of lowering the line into real cutting, we wo uld be presented with a permanent challenge of dealing with the risk of flood, with permanent siphons and flood defence measures which the promoter’s judgement, simply – the costs of which, and the provision of which isn’t justified in the light of the noise assessment and the predictions that I’ve shown you a few minutes ago.,

193. The right course here is to remind you of the commitment on reducing noise for properties that fall within the LOAEL contour, as far as is reasonably practicable, under E20, which is a continuing commitment, and that commitment applies in this area, as the detailed design develops, as it does elsewhere, where residential properties lie within the contour. The Committee may actually remember this area, because the Committee has had some – I think went recently to the sound lab.

194. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

195. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And did receive a presentation on the running of the railway at different speeds, I think, on the south side of Aylesbury. It was actually at this point, at that location.

196. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I ask, Mr Mould, before you move on, the petitioner was putting in a request fo r a consistent barrier height along this length. Are you going to address that point?

197. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I’ll d ea l with that now; the barrier heights along the route are those that are judged to be appropriate to secure the requisite degree of mitigation that is required in that location. You’ll recall that the barriers actually consist – the noise attenuation measures consist of a mixture of fence barriers and earthworks, and sometimes a combination of the two. And it’s actually, although it might seem superficially attractive to think well maybe there should be a consistent height, in fact, it’s a contradiction in terms. You design the mitigation to meet – so that it’s fit for the

purpose for which it’s intended.

198. If you start increasing the height of barriers which are sufficient, if they are three metres to five metres, first of all, you achieve no – you don’t achieve any significant improvement, because you’ve already got something that’s acceptable at three metres. Secondly, you run the risk of increasing the adverse visual effect of the railway, by providing a much more prominent structure in the landscape. And thirdly, of course, you increase the cost, and you do so for no particular purpose. So, that’s the answer to that point.

199. And if you just pick up on that a little further, we can do it from this slide actually; I’ve focused on the area of Hawkslade, because that’s the area that the petitioners were particularly worried about, but if you just see how, with the noise barriers at the various heights that you see marked, see what the performance of the railway in operational terms is, you can see that the noise contour actually is drawn away from the main built up area of Stoke Mandeville, so that makes my point. Those barriers are sufficient, at the height that they are proposed, to ensure that the settlement, as a whole, is outside the LOAEL contour. Now, there are some small pockets of settlement, and one or two isolated dwellings, of which, I think Mr Jakobi’s is one, which will lie within the LOAEL contour, but those are best dealt with through the more targeted approach that is set out in E20, which is to consider, through the detailed design, how we can, if there are ways in which we can, at reasonable cost and advantage, improve. S uch as, for example, considering the provision of some sort of secondary glazing and that kind of thing.

200. So, that’s – it is actually, on the face of the impact assessment, it is actually doing the principle job which is to keep the LOAEL contour away from the main settlements and areas of settlement along the route, just as you saw, for example, earlier on in the Colne Valley.

201. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Before you move on – there is quite an inconsistency between – it goes from three to four to four, to four, to three, to three, to three. And even in the LOAEL contour, it’s – the range is 45-50 by day and 55 – sorry, the other way round; 55-60 by day, 45-50 by night, which is still quite intrusive. I would have thought that to give Stoke Mandeville the benefit, I cannot see why you can’t be

consistent with a four metre high barrier right the way through there?

202. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, Stoke Mandeville as a whole, the main settlement, is below 40.

203. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes. But there’s some bit of it uphill and, certainly as you pointed out those pockets, I mean, it’s very marginal as to whether they’re going to be in the yellow area or not. And it seems that you’ve managed to sort of keep them out of it by sort of interspersing a 4 metre high barrier with a 3 metre high barrier. I’d have thought a consistent 4 metre high barrier through there would be fair.

204. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In a sense you’re putting it at an open door because, as I say, there’s further work. The commitment under E20 is to continue to review the noise mitigation measures to address those residential properties that lie within the LOAEL contour. There are residential properties along the route, that area that you’ve just mentioned, that are within the LOAEL contour. And so one of the factors that will need to be considered is whether there is a case for some localised increase in barrier height if that is seen, on assessment, to lead to some of those properties coming out at a sensible cost. And, indeed, you’ve seen that kind of work being undertaken I think. I’m trying to think of an example. Certainly when we looked at Radstone, for example. I think the Committee saw a noise mitigation report where we had reviewed the noise mitigation provision in that part of Northamptonshire and the project tested a few options and three or fo ur o f the m… Option A took a certain number of properties below LOAEL or reduced the level of significance of the impact at a certain cost; other options did more or less at greater or lesser cost. And then a judgement is made as to which is the most cost-beneficial, if any, to pursue.

205. So this is not a done deal. But what I’m resisting is the notion that we should just, as a matter of course, say all the barriers here should be 5 metres. There has got to be some judgement made based on a proper investigation as to what refinements would actually achieve a sufficient benefit to be worth the cost. And that’s certainly not something that we feel has been completed at this stage. So I hope that gives some comfort to the petitioner.

206. The primary school was mentioned which was shown on A1608(7). I think my response to that is, first of all, the Code of Construction Practice, as the Committee is

familiar with, makes a specific series of specific requirements in terms of managing construction traffic in the vicinity of schools and also in terms of regarding schools as sensitive locations for the purposes of constriction noise assessment. But here, for the reasons I’ve given, this school, because of its location within the settlement, one can be I think reasonably confident that it won’t be exposed to any prolonged and significant impact in terms of traffic and noise during the construction. Because construction is taking place somewhat to the south of the school and certainly during operation this school is not one that I think is predicted to be subject to a significantly adverse noise effect. That’s not to say that noise, as you know, from the operation of a railway won’t be decidedly audible; but it lies outside the significance contour.

207. It’s also true to say that the bypass itself, the line of which you see schematically shown on this plan, as I mentioned earlier, is a feature of the Bill that was introduced precisely in response to local community pressure. So it’s right not to lose sight of the benefits that the community sees from that in taking traffic out of the village; and one wo uld hope that the school and schoolchildren would see the benefit of that as well. It comes earlier in the process of constructing HS2 so those benefits should be felt at quite an early stage in that process.

208. In terms of the railhead suggestion – A1608(9) – can I just deal with that in two points? Sorry, rather than go back to that page I should have asked to have gone to P10625. The first is just to set that in the context of the construction traffic needs of the project in this locality. And, in short, to provide a railhead in the location that was proposed would really be of no particular value to the construction of HS2 at all. And the reason for that is quite simple: it’s because HS2 construction traffic is very largely going to be routed along the trace as emerging from the northern portal of the Chilterns Tunnel at its now proposed location at South Heath. Traffic will come down from the haul road. I’m showing you here the route from just north of the Chilterns Tunnel revised northern portal and then through, past Wendover, and then out to Stoke Mandeville to the north. So if you imagine that construction traffic is coming down onto the A413 from the haul road just beyond the map base here, and then it’s routing northwards on the A413. Traffic is coming out of Rocky Lane, as we heard earlier, and also routing northwards on the A413. That traffic is going to remain on the A413 only as far as this point here at Nash Lee Road where there will be a road-head;

and the majority of that traffic will then go back onto the trace at that point.

209. So we’re talking about a distance of, by my reckoning using the key at the bottom of this plan, certainly of no more than around 5 kilometres in length. And the effect of that, as I said earlier on today, is that the residual main construction traffic that will be coming beyond point M and N and into the vicinity of Stoke Mandeville, that will be traffic that is limited to the needs of constructing the bypass itself. Because other traffic will have gone back onto the trace and be routed along the trace or on the haul road that I showed you earlier.

210. So we’re talking about, in terms of HGV generation on our current estimate of daily weekday traffic flows, a figure of about 10 to 12 HGVs each way along past point O and P on the plan here. Of course that is traffic that, after the bypass has been constructed at the end of the… I think it’s programmed to be the second full year of construction – a two-year build, that bypass – that traffic will be routed round the bypass.

211. So, once you understand that, the question then arises: what possible sensible purpose is there in providing a railhead on the Princes Risborough line to accommodate HS2 traffic which in this locality – I’m conscious that this is the parish council for Stoke Mandeville – is as limited in the extent of use of the main road, of the A413, and in the quantity of heavy vehicles coming through Stoke Mandeville itself that I’ve mentioned? It just doesn’t make sense to do it.

212. Added to that, of course, is that it’s no easy thing to create a railhead. You’ve got to build it. That in itself requires construction traffic and you’ve then got to operate it; and that requires further pressure on train paths. And those who manage the use of the railway will be pretty unimpressed, I would suggest, by a bid for train paths in order to obviate the need for lorries to go about 5 kilometres along the strategic road network on the A413.

213. So that’s the answer to that. No doubt one can have the debate but that’s the reason why we don’t think that’s a good idea.

214. The next point. There was some further points made about noise. Mr Bellingham has dealt with one of them, which was a consistent noise barrier. Mr Clifton-Brown

raised some points about that.

215. The limit of deviation. That point is just simply unnecessary, the question of limits of deviation under the Bill, because the effect of the noise commitments under E20 mean that the project is required to design, build, operate and maintain the railway so that it: a) performs in accordance with the predicted noise impact that we have shown; and b) as I say, where we’re predicting the performance of the railway to be above LOAEL for residential receptors, that reasonably practical steps are taken to seek to bring noise down to below the LOAEL threshold. The only qualification to that is that the circumstances in which that commitment applies are all reasonably foreseeable circumstances; so, as you would expect, there’s a proviso in case something wholly unexpected really goes wrong. But, that commitment being in place, there really isn’t a need for any assurance on the deployment of the limits of deviation because any deployment of those limits must, in any event, comply with the terms of that assurance, that commitment, on the design, operation and performance of the railway that I’ve just mentioned.

216. In terms of speed, I think the Committee has heard about this. The evidence from Mr Thornely-Taylor was that if one was to reduce the speed by 30 kph an hour it would result in about a 3 dB reduction in noise. And, again, the noise commitments given to design and operate the railway so as to achieve the performance that is predicted, our position on that is that that obviates the case for any wholesale reduction in speed – whic h would begin to call into question, as you know, the underlying commercial and business case for this Bill, which is to provide a high speed network which can operate at the speeds that are claimed for the railway.

217. And then, finally in relation to visual effects, there were some points made by Mr Jakobi. I’m pleased to hear that he found the strengthening of the provision of a tree belt under AP4 along the eastern side of the railway line, adjacent to his property, that that was an improvement. The detailed design of that, to answer his point about the robustness of it, is a matter for the detailed design of the railway overall. And, as a landowner, he will have a stake in that in terms of discussing the detail.

218. In terms of the balancing –

219. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Sorry, just before we get off the trees, Mr Mould, is

there any thought being given where trees are being used as a mitigation measure – principally for visual, I presume, rather than sounds –

220. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

221. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: – of them being planted as soon as possible after Royal Assent so that they have gained some height before the railway comes through?

222. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. The policy commitment that’s given in the information papers – and will be included, I’m sure, on the register – is to create earthworks and to plant trees as early as reasonably practical within the construction process so that the benefit of that screening can be felt not only following completion of the railway but also to that extent during construction as well. So that is a –

223. MR HENDRICK: How mature would the trees be?

224. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t think we can give a sort of straight answer on that. Where appropriate, I think trees of some maturity will be used. But obviously mature trees are more expensive and they’re more difficult to come by. So I think there isn’t a straight answer.

225. MR HENDRICK: But presumably there’s a trade-up between how quickly you plant them and how mature they are, given how many years you’ve got, before the development’s finished.

226. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, that’s right. And that will be part of the detail. I mean, these are matters that, again, the local authorities have an interest in because they form part of the mitigation measures for the railway.

227. And if we just put up A1608(15). I’ll deal very quickly with the balancing pond point. You were shown the balancing pond that is shown on the plans just between Mr Jakobi’s property and the railway. And he suggested that there might be room for moving that pond closer to the line I think. Again, we made clear that the refining of the location of facilities of that kind is something that we are committed to discussing with landowners. Whether that’s achievable is something that can and should be taken forward as part of that process. I can’t say to what degree there’s flexibility there because it depends on the development of the detailed understanding of the performance

of the railway and of flood protection and other needs that that balancing pond is required to achieve. But as long as everyone is aware that we need to make sure it’s fit for purpose, then there’s room for further discussion about that point.

228. And then, as regards making sure that the leat as it passes beneath the line, that that is kept clear, that’s one of those things that goes without saying. It’s part of the job of those who promote and operate a well-maintained railway to make sure that underpasses, culverts, watercourses and so forth that pass beneath the railway are kept clear so that they perform their functio n.

229. I think I’ve covered the key points, unless there’s anything else I can help you with.

230. CHAIR: Mr Rogers.

231. MR ROGERS: Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Very quickly to come back on that. Could I just see A1608(16), please? I’m just going to go through our asks again, just to pick up on the points Mr Mould has made.

232. In terms of the first, we are clearly after maximising mitigations for Hawkslade. We do locally very clearly understand about floodplain issues. We’ve, as you heard yesterday, across Aylesbury and indeed in Stoke Mandeville, on the Willows, Lower Road and Marsh Lane, understand those floodplain issues all too clearly. The request for Hawkslade was not merely also about noise; it was also about visual mitigation. As members of the Committee will appreciate, having visited the area and seen the photograph, those houses are very close to the proposed line; and it’s about visual mitigation as much as about noise mitigation.

233. And if I could see P10617, please. I think it’s important to make a comparison here, or I would seek to make a comparison. We are seeking the best mitigation for Hawkslade for our residents. Those homes are very close to the line, as you’ve seen – within 180 metres in certain instances. The request for green bridges or a green tunnel; if you then compare Hawkslade with its distance… I’ll just wait for the wheel of death to turn. Maybe I’ll just carry on talking. I just wanted to make the comparison with Wendover. Wendover enjoys the benefits of a green tunnel along large parts of its western side; and the homes in Wendover are some distance away from that line

compared to the distance of the homes from Hawkslade. So that was a comparison I wanted to make because clearly you could see on 10617 – or we’d hoped to – that again there’s a difference between the two.

234. As you can see on the right-hand side of the slide here, where the green tunnel is alongside the side of Wendover, there is another rail line and a road in between HS2 and the homes. Here we have simply the high speed line and the homes very close by. So it was very much about the best mitigation for those residents.

235. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry to interrupt you but it would be just worth remembering that if you assume away the green tunnel for Wendover, the LOAEL contour would wash over a substantial area of the built up area of the town. The LOAEL contour would undoubtedly affect a substantial number of properties within Wendover itself.

236. MR ROGERS: Okay. Well, while we’re then on this particular slide – and thank you for that clarification – I’m pleased to hear that we’re pushing at an open door as far as the height of noise barriers is concerned. That was certainly pleasing to hear because even if we were to achieve a consistent height at 4 metres I think that would be a significant step forward because I think just looking at that and, for example, thinking of John Jakobi at Stoke House where the LOAEL considerably washes over his property and indeed the properties on Risborough Road and Risborough Road itself. So in this location here where the bypass begins and Risborough Road continues you’ve got quite a large area here and, again, further to the north. So I’m glad to hear that we’re pushing at an open door and hope we can achieve that consistent height of 4 metres across the piece.

237. In terms of the impacts upon schools, I’ve heard what’s been said. I just would reinforce the point that both schools have very sensitive acoustic environments: Stoke Mandeville Combined because of the hearing impaired unit and the needs of those pupils; and Booker Park School because of the needs of the pupils and the fact that they enjoy and outdoor environment. Yes, the parish council and locally we did push for the completion of the realignment of the road around the village. I think the point made on that is one of the key reasons for that road was not necessarily the removal of traffic from Stoke Mandeville but actually the removal of two proposed very large concrete

flyovers on Risborough Road and Marsh Lane which were originally proposed. And I think it needs to be put on record that is the context for why we requested the realignment of the road; not necessarily simply to remove traffic from the village.

238. In terms of the railhead, point taken. Understand that. I’m really pleased to hear that it will only be 10 to 12 HGVs through the village and on Risborough Road, and even fewer once the bypass is completed. Delighted to hear that albeit after two years.

239. We are working in this area beyond just Stoke Mandeville. We’re working with our partners in Aylesbury, we’re working with partners elsewhere and therefore the request for the railhead was a request that went beyond our red line shown on this plan. But at least our request is on record.

240. Visual screening; I’m glad there will be ongoing discussion about that and the fact that landscaping will continue to be discussed through to detailed design. I think this is as good a slide as any to highlight that in the area again – in fact where the arrow was – when you actually look at landscaping in that particular location where the line crosses Risborough Road, there is a gap in screening in landscaping terms. You’ve got landscaping now on the Stoke House side, you have landscaping to the north of Risborough Road, but there is almost a gap. So I’m hoping that can be fixed during this ongoing discussion and we can get those trees in as early as possible. Reinforce the point that we wish to continue to engage in this process and work productively and proactively with the promoter.

241. And just to reinforce the point about the fully bored tunnel that Mr Jakobi made; I think it’s fair to recognise – it was said earlier – that if that fully bored tunnel came in the construction portal would be between Wendover and Stoke Mandeville. In actual fact, it would be on Mr Jakobi’s land. It would take a significant proportion of the land and it would therefore be in Stoke Mandeville and would change what we see today. Thank you for your time.

242. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I ask you, Mr Rogers, the assurances that HS2 have given you and the clarification that they have come up with, is that mainly to your satisfaction? Because you had your five asks on the screen which you went through very eloquently but I just need to satisfy myself that you are more happy than you were before you came in.

243. MR ROGERS: I think it would be fair to say that we’re happier than we were before we came in. I think we still have concerns about mitigation for Hawkslade and those homes within the 180 metres of the line at Oak Close and Isis Close. You know, yes, there could be future housing once the line is in place as we know across that side of Aylesbury. Those people moving into new houses there will know that HS2 is there. Those people living in Oak Close and Isis Close already live there and weren’t aware of this for some time; and many of them probably aren’t even aware of it now. So I think it would be fair to say we still have concerns there.

244. I think we look forward to the continued discussion about making sure the noise impacts on the local schools can be properly managed so there aren’t huge impacts. So I think happy with what we’ve heard. The railhead; I think I’ve made the position clear. And I think on the rest of the points, yes, I think we would go away from the Committee today more satisfied than we were. But, on record, the Hawkslade point is a really important one to us.

245. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes. Thank you.

246. CHAIR: Mr Rogers, I was given the impression that you were going to deal with your petitioners in two halves, but am I right in saying that you’ve dealt with them all?

247. MR ROGERS: I have dealt with all of the petitioners in that one presentation, Chair.

248. CHAIR: Well, for the record then, can we say that we’ve also dealt with 1488, 1446, 1490 and 1489. As I mentioned before, we dealt with 591.

249. MR ROGERS: Yes, Chair. We’ve dealt with Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group, 1446, 1489, 1490 and 591. The one I haven’t dealt with in this is 1488, and they will appear after me.

250. CHAIR: Okay. Thanks for your evidence.

Michael, Julia, Paul and Ruth Gaisford

251. CHAIR: Then we’ll deal with 1488: Michael, Julia, Paul and Ruth Gaisford. Mr Mould.

252. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I put up P10718. The Gaisfords live and own property in the location that you can see on the screen in front of you which lies between the Risborough Road and the line of the proposed bypass; and obviously lies to the west of the line of HS2.

253. If we turn to P10720, there’s an aerial photograph which gives you a sense fro m the air at least of the buildings and lands on the site. I should say that my understanding is that Michael and Julia Gaisford own and occupy The Willows and Ruth Gaisford owns and occupies Hatters End. And we are, I’m told, in the process of acquiring Hatters End under the Exceptional Hardship Scheme.

254. The premises comprise, amongst other things, the Goat Centre, which I’m sure the petitioners will tell you about in a moment or two. But I think I’m right in saying that the lands which are used for the Goat Centre are lands on the south and western side of the premises. Sorry that the screen is taking a very long time to load. And so those are lands that would be closest to the line of the proposed bypass as it passes through this area.

255. The properties on the Old Risborough Road, a number of them are predicted to experience a significant change in their noise environment following the coming into operation of the railway and of the new bypass. So I think that’s sufficient to introduce these petitioners.

256. CHAIR: Mrs Gaisford.

257. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We are obviously experiencing difficulties today. If you do have paper copies, they’re in volume 2 and it’s behind tab 37. Certainly in my copy. This is your presentation, isn’t it?

258. MS GAISFORD: Yeah.

259. MR GAISFORD: Good afternoon. I’m Paul Gaisford and I’m one of the partners in the family owned business of the Layby Farm Partnership. My sister, Ruth, who is with me today and our parents are the other family members in the business. Our business, which is seriously close to the proposed HS2 railway, is located at Layby Farm which is 4.23 acres of land first purchased by my father in 1980 which then contained

just two large poultry buildings holding 12,000 laying hens.

260. Since then, with the help of grants from the council and Ministry of Agriculture tree planting, farm diversification, flood protection and foot and mouth, the business has grown and changed to what it is today; which is the Bucks Goat Centre and the Layby Farm Business Park. During this time, we have also erected two family residential properties on the site. Unfortunately for us, and our tenanted businesses, all our land and buildings are within 300 metres of the proposed new rail line.

261. If we could move to the next slide please. This is the area that we’re looking at which shows our proximity to HS2 and the proposed new bypass which sandwiches us in. The next slide, if we move on, shows a more clearer view. The carefully positions arrows show the boundaries of Layby Farm. As you can see, we’ll be surrounded. We’ve got HS2 to the north-east, the new realigned A4010 to the south, and we believe that we’ve got a maintenance road in front running along the Old Risborough Road, though little has been said about the amount of traffic that will use that. And of course we’re also cut off from the rest of the village because the existing A4010 will be closed. Early maps indicate that HS2 propose to compulsory purchase a small amount of our land that is close to the new bypass. This area is actually the walkway around the Goat Centre and is immediately next to the animals.

262. The Bucks Goat Centre first opened in the 80s as a farm visitor attraction and it occupies the southern half of the farm; whilst the Layby Farm Business Park including the on-site car park occupies much of the northern half of the property. The two family homes are adjacent to the car park on the north side. The Goat Centre and Café is currently under a five year tenancy and attracts 10,000 to 20,000 visitors a year. The business park currently houses 15 different tenanted businesses, mainly but not exclusively leisure-orientated. Several are small start-up businesses which grow and move on to larger premises. Since 1980, our land and business units have been occupied by a total of 67 such small businesses.

263. Can we have the next slide, slide 4, please? This is the front entrance. As we maintain in our petition to you, our business is at great risk of being ruined by the arrival of HS2. We spent 35 years’ hard work to build our business into the success it is today. I would like to show in the next few slides a brief flavour of what the local and wider

community enjoy.

264. Next slide, please. Hopefully. Okay, well the next slide is meant to show, for those who can see it, a list of the businesses on the site. The site map.

265. And moving on to slide 6. There’s some pictures of the Goat Centre. So note the open fields, happy animals, picnic area and indoor barn, home to not only goats but a wide selection of different animals. We had some gentlemen from HS2 visit the site recently, clearly enjoying their visit and taking pictures of the animals. As previously mentioned, the Goat Centre has about 20,000 visitors a year with a wide age range from 0 – 90. If you asked anyone brought up in the Vale, they would more often than not say they have visited the site at least once. The site holds days for childminders at reduced costs. Parents bring their small children to see and pet the animals and use the open and safe environment to exercise their little ones. It’s an affordable trip out which benefits some of the deprived areas within the Vale. The farm takes on work experience children from local schools. It’s an educational experience, not just a day out. It also provides voluntary work for many people, many of which have learning difficulties and are unable to engage with paid employment. And we have a café which provides refreshments to all visitors to the site and is the hub of the farm community.

266. I’ll move on to slide 7. So this is some pictures of some of the current tenants. In the top left we have Fabric Warehouse which sells fabrics and other sewing-related items. It runs regular sewing workshops. In the top right is Genies Fancy Dress which has been with us over 15 years and is very well known throughout the Vale. Bottom right is Obsidian Art which has large displays of art, many from local artists, and people travel from far and wide to come and see this. And on the bottom left is a selection of the lovely cakes from the Teacup Ca fé.

267. And moving on to next slide, please, it’s just a list of some of the other businesses that we have. Just Biscuits manufacture quality biscuits, sold across the vale. There’s a busy dog groomer’s; Chiltern Sports; A Bit Chili, which make varieties of chili chutney; a sports masseur, beautician treatments, photographic studio; wood-burning stove supplier; handmade book shops; a shed manufacturer. We will leave our tenants to argue the case for better compensation for themselves, which they’ll be doing in a couple of minutes’ time. We are here today not to only save our own livelihood, but to

do the best we can to support all the businesses that have spent many years renting units on our sites. Any would tell you that they chose the site for its rural, accessible and peaceful location, as well as its friendly, communal atmosphere amongst tenants. And I’m sure you’ll agree that finding happy working environments in this day and age is hard to find.

268. So I just wanted to set the scene. I shall now hand over to my sister, Ruth.

269. MS GAISFORD: Afternoon. So now having outlined to you who we are and where we are, we now turn to the impact that HS2 will have on both our businesses and the residential properties at Layby Farm. Firstly, noise, dust and visual intrusions during and after construction. We believe that at this point, there has not been full consideration for the effects of noise, dust and visual intrusions that will occur during and after construction to Layby Farm Business Park and the Bucks Goat Centre. Noise, vibration and night light will disturb the livestock housed at the site. Dust will play a major factor to businesses, such as the art gallery, café, the manufacture of biscuits and chili chutney. It will also deter visitors, especially those with small children, that will see the site as an unsafe and unhealthy place to visit. The Bucks Goat Centre attraction is set up predominantly, but not exclusively, for children under the age of 11.

270. Further concerns of the impact through the construction stage of HS2 and the new A4010 on the Layby Farm Business Park: we do not feel the impact has been adequately assessed for all the businesses, and particularly the effects on animals. The construction stage will reduce footfall to the Layby Farm Business Park, as severe traffic hold-ups will occur, putting people off coming to the site. We believe that HS2 will need to provide compensation for the Layby Farm partnership for loss of rental from some tenants that may consider to relocate elsewhere, as their businesses will no longer be viable when current tenants are unable to pay rent due to reduced footfall to their businesses.

271. Realignment of the A4010 to miss the Bucks Goat Centre walkway: we believe that by moving the new A4010 further south and missing out property will benefit not only the welfare of the livestock, but have a lesser impact on businesses and the residents of Old Risborough Road. If this is not accepted, then the realignment is still a welfare issue for the livestock, and along with the construction of HS2 that will be built

at the same time, then we seriously believe we need to relocate the Goat Centre. We believe that the Bucks Goat Centre will cease to be viable due to the significant changes from HS2 and the new A4010. The construction stage will generate noise levels; it will upset animals and discourage visitors to a site that is normally tranquil. Our petition also requests a safer access to the site once construction is finished; to reconsider the closure of the existing A4010 in Stoke Mandeville village, and a new, adequate signage directing customers to the Layby Farm Business Park to be put in place.

272. Next slide, please. So you can see the effects on the Bucks Goat Centre and Layby Farm Business Park will be far more severe than suggested in the promoter’s response document. We are simply scheduled to be tightly sandwiched between a new, faster A4010, a high-speed railway running above ground, a noisy maintenance loop, heavy HS2 traffic using the Old Risborough Road at unspecified times and frequencies, and a noisy Northern tunnel portal not far away. Along the HS2 route, we feel we have one of the worst affected locations. It is clearly not a sensible site for a mainly outdoor tourist attraction, the Bucks Goat Centre. No visitors; no income; no Layby Farm Business Park or Goat Centre. HS2 state in their PRD that businesses can apply for relief in business rates. This only confirms that HS2 do expect us to be affected by the construction of a high speed railway. Next slide, please.

273. CHAIR: Order, order. I’m going to suspend the Committee for 15 minutes due to a Division.

Sitting suspended

On resuming—

274. CHAIR: Order, order. I don’t think there’ll be another one for a couple of hours, so please continue.

275. MS GAISFORD: So our next slide relates to animal welfare. Can we go back? Thanks, this one; slide 11. Once work starts, and part of our land is obtained by HS2, it would be cruel to continue to keep the animals in an environment that will be created by the construction of HS2 and the development of the new A4010. Animals have a very different hearing range to humans, and my father, who originally started and developed the Goat Centre, has a lifetime experience of animal husbandry. We are extremely

concerned about the noise, vibration and night light stress that will be imposed on the animals currently on display to the public.

276. The Goat Centre attracts more visitors in the spring months, that come to see newly born kids and lambs. Noise and vibration will have significant health effects on pregnant animals. We and HS2 need to consult with professionals about the effect on the animals at the Goat Centre, turning to local vets and local RSPCA officers for their professional opinions. We have planned to meet such professionals over the next coming weeks. Bucks County Council transport advisor, Sarah Widdows, recently advised us to seek an animal psychologist to carry out such work, though I do not believe that it is entirely our responsibility, but that of HS2, to think about the welfare of the animals. HS2 have gone to great lengths paying for environmental studies, looking for newts, bats and badgers on our site, but have failed to overlook the animals that are already there.

277. So what are our options in relation to animal welfare? Do we remove all animals from the site and close the Goat Centre? This is not an option. Why should we, the local and wider community, lose out? Temporarily relocate the animals and Goat Centre for three years while the construction phase is complete? This is not a realistic option. Maybe the promoters feel we should build an ark to house our animals until construction is finished. We could permanently move the Goat Centre to a new, safer location within the village, or move the new A4010 further away from the site, and hope construction from HS2 will have a lesser impact than we currently think. Relocating would, of course, have a considerable knock-on effect to the other businesses on site. As the site works well as one business, it generates footfall for the others. We have thought long and hard about how we will be able to help our tenants and keep the Goat Centre viable, along with keeping our own business afloat.

278. Next slide, please. Here are our proposed solutions to the arrival of HS2, the new A4010, and maintenance access road. We would like the Committee to listen to our solutions. We feel they would benefit our business, our tenants, our animals, and the residents of Old Risborough Road. Firstly, permission for adequate signage from the A4010, promoting all businesses at the Layby Farm business park. Speaking with Bucks County Council transport team and HS2, we have been told this will be done as a given. The proposed junction of the A4010, we feel, should be a roundabout and not a

T-junction. The junction will be used by visitors to Layby Farm Business Park, staff at Layby Farm Business Park, deliveries to 15 businesses on site, local traffic to Old Risborough Road, and heavy lorries using it to access and maintain HS2 line in Old Risborough Road – about which we cannot get any clarification on numbers – along with postmen, newspaper deliveries, and milkmen. I wonder how much research has been done into counting traffic numbers accessing the Old Risborough Road.

279. This is potentially an accident waiting to happen. We need something to slow the traffic; so, a roundabout. People turning left onto the old A4010 would have to turn sharply, and those turning right will have to wait for oncoming traffic. I refer to my letter, exhibit 1622, from Martin Tett, council leader. ‘Bucks County Council highways would consider this option, subject to meeting highway design standards and specifications’ – so, they have not ruled it out. Freemantle, owners of the care home on the other side of the new A4010, are also in agreement in slowing down the traffic. This option was discussed with HS2 when they visited last week, when we talked about moving the access to the satellite compound, represented on the map by the orange box. Can we go back to slide 12, please? So you can see that that is the satellite compound and the access, and if we move it a little bit further to the right, they could also come off the roundabout. Thus, no need for a separate access off the A4010 for the satellite compound.

280. The next option is to move the A4010 further south, so it does not impinge on any of our property, and particularly the main walkway around the main Goat Centre. This would have the added advantage of increasing the distance of noisy traffic from businesses, livestock and residential properties in the Old Risborough Road. Again, this is supported by Bucks County Council transport team, referring to our letter from Martin Tett. HS2 were not in agreement, explaining the road had already been agreed with Bucks Highway Authority. Moving the road further away from our livestock would still not guarantee the welfare of the animals, as noise and dust will still be an issue, dependent on the distance the road was moved.

281. After research into the welfare of the animals, and if deemed necessary, we recommend that HS2 finance the relocation of the Bucks Goat Centre to a new greenfield site. Unlike the Goat Centre business, we believe that some of our other businesses may have a chance of surviving the HS2 development, if and only if suitable

access options are considered and compensation throughout the construction stage is provided. We as landlords feel we are unable to increase rents in line with inflation while the HS2 construction proposed plans are implemented. Some of our tenants will financially suffer, and be unable to pay rent.

282. Next slide, please. Unlike nearby Wendover Cricket Club, which you have recently heard is having problems finding a suitable new site, we have researched the area and been out talking to local landowners, and have been lucky enough to find a new possible location within the village: a site available along the A413 Wendover Road in Stoke Mandeville, Chiltern View Nursery, where there are empty fields and good access away from heavy construction works. We have not yet arrived at any precise cost estimates for the move, or finalised any financial agreement. Before taking it any further, we need the green light from HS2 that they will support and finance the move.

283. After talks with HS2 about relocation, they explained it was unlikely to meet the criteria for relocation, so I ask: what are the criteria for relocation? Again, our recommendation is supported by Martin Tett in his letter, stating we have Bucks County Council’s support to relocate the Goat Centre, so that it remains viable and an enjoyable experience for all our visitors. The Select Committee and HS2 need to think which option to take, taking into consideration the welfare of the livestock at the centre. Move the road, or relocate the Goat Centre?

284. Next slide, please. From a resident’s view, we further maintain that the closure of the Risborough Road to all vehicle traffic is unnecessary. Current HS2 proposals are to totally close the current road from Princes Risborough into Stoke Mandeville Village and to replace it with a pedestrian-only underpass where HS2 crosses. If a pedestrian underpass can be built, so can a service road for light local traffic, at very little extra cost. This proposed closure, contrary to what HS2 suggests, will have a significant effect on residents in Old Risborough Road, Whitethorn Close, the new Freemantle Care Home, and all other properties on the Risborough Road south of the proposed road blockage. Newspaper, milk and postal deliveries will all be seriously affected, as will vehicles visiting the schools, post office, church and pubs in Stoke Mandeville village. It will be a three-mile round trip to get into the village; a village we were once part of, and are soon to be isolated from.

285. Under the present proposals, the many Stoke Mandeville village visitors who currently come to the Goat Centre and Layby Farm Business Park would also be put off visiting us, by foot or by car. This proposal to close the road is unacceptable; not only to us, but to other residents, which are addressed in petition numbers 1054 and 1607. Next slide, please. To summarise, our main request today is to consider solutions to the effect of noise, dust and visual intrusions during construction; provide compensation to Layby Farm partnerships for loss of rental income; relocate the Bucks Goat Centre tourist attraction, or realign the new A4010 to miss the Goat Centre walkway and address the welfare of animals on site; provide a roundabout on the A4010 for safer access; and upgrade the pedestrian underpass for a service road for local traffic.

286. Next slide, please. My brother, myself, and parents wish to thank you for listening to us today, and we hope that now you can see not only the extent of the Layby Farm Business Park and Bucks Goat Centre we have developed over the past 35 years, but the potential damage not only HS2, but the new A4010 and maintenance road, will have upon it. We look forward to your thoughts and proposals to help us, our tenants, and our animals.

287. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

288. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. If we could go back to the previous slide, I’m conscious of the point made by the petitioner a few moments ago, that Layby Farm is a facility, if I can call it that, that comprises a number of different small businesses that benefit from the fact that they are located with each other; they thrive off the fact that they interact with each other in terms of customers and so forth. In other words, it’s a facility for which there must be a clear imperative on the part of both the owners and occupiers and of the promoters to see if arrangements can be made to allow it to continue to remain at its current location, both during construction and during operation. So the first of the bullets that is set out, I would suggest, is certainly the right place to start: this is to consider solutions to the effects of noise, dust and visual intrusions during construction.

289. The Code of Construction Practice provides the basis for that exercise, and arrangements to do the best that we reasonably can to limit disturbance, both in terms of effect on access, noise, dust and other matters, are matters that are an essential part of

preparing the detail for the construction of the railway, here as elsewhere along the route. Those are not matters that have been resolved now, because we’re not at that stage in the development of the scheme, but they are matters that will need to be resolved under the aegis of the Code of Construction Practice as the scheme is developed towards procurement and the actual construction of the railway.

290. The works here, closest to Layby Farm, are essentially the construction of a bypass road, and bypass roads – road constructions of that kind – are not a novelty. They are things that have been done in this country in many places and over many years, and those who carry out construction works of that kind are very familiar with the challenge of accommodating those works so that they do not cause neighbouring businesses and commercial interests – however sensitive they may be – to have to close down or to relocate, but rather, determine what steps are needed in order to enable them to continue to function throughout construction. The construction phase here is going to be in the order of two years, and I would suggest that there is no reason now to conclude that the construction of this bypass is incapable of being carried out without allowing this facility to remain.

291. At the moment, the owners of this land have land taken from them for the purposes of constructing the bypass. You saw that there was a small area of land to the south-eastern corner of the land holding. Assuming that that remains the position – that land is taken for the purposes of the scheme – then the owners of the land will be entitled to claim land compensation; not only the value of the land that is taken, but they will also be entitled to recover compensation for losses that they suffer in relation to the ownership and occupation of the land that they retain, and that is the balance of the fa r m.

292. To take an example to illustrate that, if, as a result of construction in the scenario where land is taken for the road, on the land that is retained tenants that would otherwise have remained decide to terminate their tenancy because of the presence of the HS2 works, then in principle, the landowner would be able to bring into account a claim for losses that result from the loss of that tenancy. O f course, the question would arise as to whether there is another tenant who would come in and take the place of that tenant, but I just make the point in order to illustrate that as things stand with part of this freehold land being within the compulsory purchase powers of the scheme, if those powers are

exercised, then there will be a claim for compensation.

293. Touching on the question of animals and noise, this was a point that was raised a few weeks ago. I explained then that there is relatively little detailed study or information about the impact of rail and road construction and noise on animals, but we have in the methodology assumptions an assessment appendix – in volume 5 of the environmental statement – which relates to sound, noise, and vibration. For those who want the reference, it’s SV-001-000. In annex F to that document, there is an explanation of the effects of high speed rail noise on animals, and an explanation of the approach that the project has taken to designing the railway in the light of the available evidence, so as to seek to avoid or limit any potentially adverse effects on animals.

294. The way that is done, as is set out in section 1.3 of that document, is to rely upon a standard that is derived from the US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration. And that standard essentially sets a contour of 100 d(BA), the sound exposure level. And the practical effect of that is that provided that that contour is – that animals are not living, or grazing or whatever it may be, within that contour, that so far as that US authority is concerned, then the environment is one that is acceptable. And in this case, the SEL100 d(BA) contour lies at a distance of about 25 metres from the track.

295. And if we turn to P10722, the location of the farm is shown with the red line, the trace, the railway is shown passing to the east and the actual fields, I think, which are used for the goat centre and for the animals, are on the western side of the holding. And you can see that that distance is very considerably exceeded. How could it not be, because of course there are residences, which lie closer to the railway and will certainly not be habitable if the noise level were –

296. MR HENDRICK : If you remember the discussion from a few weeks ago and I asked the question of whether or not the RSPCA, or whether there’d been any other research submitted that was respected in terms of the effects of noise on animals. The fact that there are residences there, there was discussion around double glazing. Obviously, animals are not going to have the benefit of double-glazing as a mitigation effect.

297. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, that’s why the –

298. MR HENDRICK: The evidence that you put forward has been from an American transport authority, hardly, I think, that would be relevant in the sense that 25 metres might be what an animal might be able to withstand and still be standing afterwards, but it’s not necessarily a level of comfort that you or I, on a lesser frequency range, might find acceptable. Now, can I ask the petitioner, has she any knowledge of work produced by the RSPCA?

299. MS GAISFORD: Not at this point, no.

300. MR HENDRICK: Or any respected authorities?

301. MS GAISFORD: No, not at this point, no.

302. MR HENDRICK: No other information. You’ve given the broad ranges o f the frequency spectrum that animals can detect, many of which outside of the human spectrum. But there are profiles within those frequencies, which show a level of sensitivity at different frequencies. And if we know the spectrum makeup of the noise from a train then you can see the relative sensitivities at various points on that spectrum to an animal, in the same way that you can to a human, and work out that effect. Now, that may have been done by a university, it might be obscure research, but may have been done by a respected university with animal welfare in mind, rather than a transportation authority in America, which I’m sure will be concerned with sending a railway or a road through a piece of land, irrespective of the effect on humans.

303. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I don’t think that, with respect, that is not my understanding of the approach. Can I just read out one or two paragraphs from this, I think that makes it clearer what the –. Paragraph 1.2.8 a study by Hanson, in – that’s not Hanson the – but a C E Hanson, in 2007, entitled ‘High speed train noise effects on wildlife and domestic livestock’ suggested that; ‘The sound exposure level, ‘SEL’ which counts for both sound pressure level and the duration of event, is the most useful predictor of responses in both wildlife and domestic animals. That can be described as the sum of the sound energy during the duration of a noise event normalised to a one second reference period. Some of the research studies indicate that some animals habituate to noise after several repetitions of exposure. Previous exposure to noise levels below 100 dB serve to eliminate panic amongst turkeys, and swine showed additional alarm followed by indifference to aircraft noise creating 100 d(BA).’

304. It then goes on to deal with the effects on horses. ‘Based on the preliminary indications identified in these studies regarding the most appropriate descriptor fresh levels for disturbance and habituation characteristics of a small number of species, the US Department of Transportation Federal Railway Administration has identified interim criteria for identifying the potential impact of high speed rail noise on animals in wilderness and farming areas. Those criteria have been defined as follows: noise metric, A. weighted sound pressure level’ which is the same as humans, ‘Noise descriptor SEL threshold 100 d(BA) habituation, no general criteria, insufficient information on species specific responses. It should be noted that these criteria are based on responses observed in birds and mammals only. Criteria are not yet fully developed to the point where dose response relationship can be fully described for different animal species.’

305. So, this is – there is a degree of caution about this, as is evident from the passage I’ve just read out and I mentioned that to you when we last discussed it. But what is absolutely clear from that is that this threshold, such as it is, is based upon an evidence based approach.

306. MR HENDRICK: No doubt, you’re not going to take the testimony of animals in order to verify that.

307. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, how can you?

308. MR HENDRICK: You can’t, exactly, so my point is this, you can habituate to battery farming, animals can get used to all sorts of conditions, is it the right way to do things, I think in the 21st century you say no.

309. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But you have to observe, surely.

310. MR HENDRICK: Well, observed effects, okay.

311. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And that’s what this is about.

312. MR HENDRICK : Yes true, but an animal showing pain and an animal putting up with something that’s uncomfortable you know, may be the difference between the two.

313. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, we do know in the case of road noise and certainly the animals on this farm are more likely, as you see from the plan, to be exposed directly

to the noise of traffic using the bypass than they are to the noise of the train on the line.

314. MR HENDRICK: Well, let me put this to you Mr Mould, because you’re obviously making great play of this report from the United States. If the figure is 25 metres, and our spectral range is 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, and some of the animals are twice that range that they can detect and pick up, would you be happy standing 25 metres from a line for long periods of time?

315. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No.

316. MR HENDRICK: No you wouldn’t, and so why should an animal be happy with that?

317. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, with respect I don’t see that that is a fair analogy. First of all the threshold is 25 metres from the line, that’s the product of applying a threshold in this case. These animals are a great deal further from the line than 25 metres.

318. MR HENDRICK: Accepted.

319. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And no one is suggesting that a human being should be exposed to that level of noise.

320. MR HENDRICK: Well, not 25 metres, 100 metres or 200, but what you show here on the farm is something within those sorts of figures that I’ve just mentioned.

321. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, animals up and down the country apparently live and graze and you know, in relative state of capitulation next to busy roads, next to busy railway lines.

322. MR HENDRICK: So do humans, but this is a high speed railway, with its own characteristics, its own levels of noise, the likes of which this country’s not seen before.

323. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So what is your suggestion?

324. MR HENDRICK: My suggestion is that we need more authoritative information about the effects of the types of noise that these animals are going to encounter in terms of you assessing what sort of harm it will do to animals. The other question which I

wanted you to answer, which you’ve not answered, if can move a cricket club, why can’t you move this facility?

325. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Because they haven’t, at the moment, reached the view that it’s necessary to do so. If the petitioner wishes to move and they’ve indicated that they had identified a site, then of course, there is nothing to stop the petitioner moving. But we haven’t been persuaded, from the evidence that we’ve heard, that the effect on this facility is such as to require, as to necessitate moving the facility. Amongst other things because we have applied a threshold which is an evidence based, observed evidence based threshold, from a – admittedly it’s from a US rather than a UK authority.

326. MR HENDRICK: Well, the US is known for its animal welfare standards, isn’t it?

327. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, you surely don’t want me to engage in that kind of –

328. MR HENDRICK: Well, Europe has a very different kind of record.

329. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is a standard that is – that is the only standard that we are aware of. I have not heard it suggested that there is any – within the acoustics profession, or in any other relevant profession, that that standard is regarded as unreliable. I have indicated that the document that I’m reading from, the environmental statement, acknowledges that the evidence base is limited. But, such as it is, otherwise we simply stick a finger in the wind. And that’s not a sensible way, I would suggest, of approaching these matters.

330. MR HENDRICK: It’s not sticking a finger in the wind, it’s alright, maybe not 25 metres, but would a human find it tolerable 100 metres away, or 150; you’re already accepting that for a human to accept it, the double glazing and all sorts of mitigation effects. What is to say that there wouldn’t be a similar effect on an animal?

331. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But you yourself, with respect, have put to me that you can’t draw a correlation between impact on humans and impact on animals, that cuts both ways.

332. MR HENDRICK: No, no it doesn’t because an animal, from the spectral

information that was given, has got a much wider range of sensitivity than a human has, a human one is quite narrow. An animal’s was much wider. If you look at the figures, have you got the number of the slide to show? Animals, in many cases, are far more sensitive.

333. MS GAISFORD: 1620(11).

334. CHAIR: 1620(11).

335. MR HENDRICK: Yes, so Mr Mould, if you look there, the only animals that don’t have a bigger spectrum range are the chickens, every other animal does.

336. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I don’t doubt, I haven’t checked, but I don’t doubt that this is broadly accurate. That’s not my point, my point is that if there were a particular and observable impact on animals because of the spectral range that they have, and which exposes them to particular discomfort, or inability to habituate to modern transportation facilities like roads and railway lines and so forth, you would expect that to be reflected in the learning.

337. MR HENDRICK: This would –

338. MR MOULD QC (DfT): All you would expect –

339. MR HENDRICK: This would –

340. CHAIR: Mr Hendrick.

341. MR HENDRICK: Sorry Chair.

342. CHAIR: Mr Hendricks, let’s not turn this into a to and fro argument. Allow Mr Mould to, you know, finish some sentences, I’m sure he’ll allow you to finish yours.

343. MR HENDRICK: Fair enough.

344. CHAIR: Mr Mould.

345. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am grateful and so indeed I want to bring it to a close, because I think I understand the point that’s being made. But, if there were evidence that animals, having regard to their greater spectral range and hearing, that they were

susceptible to discomfort or signs of strange behaviour or whatever, when exposed to rail or road noise, one would expect to see that reflected in the learning. And Mr Thornely-Taylor, who you know is a very experienced expert in his field, has already given evidence to the Committee that there is no such learning. I think the way I would leave it, if I may, because I am conscious of the fact that whilst you and I are having an interesting debate, others may be less interested.

346. MR HENDRICK: Think it’s a very important point.

347. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The – I shall ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to help you further with this when he next appears in the Committee, which he shall.

348. MR HENDRICK: Well, one final point, the consistent use of the word ‘habituate’ as I say, animals, like humans, can get used to a lot of things, and battery farming was considered acceptable for many, many years. We saw people felt that even they were not habituated to it, it wasn’t the right way to treat animals.

349. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I seem to remember that battery farming, one of the reasons why battery farming has fallen into disfavour is precisely because of the considerable amount of observed evidence that animals that are battery farmed do experience strange behaviours and so forth.

350. MR HENDRICK: Yes, proper research.

351. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well I think I’ve probably covered my –

352. MR HENDRICK: Yes, we haven’t got the research.

353. CHAIR: I don’t know what battery farming’s got to do with HS2 so can we –

354. MR HENDRICK: It’s about habituating Chair.

355. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In relation to the other matters, can we go back to the slide, the last slide in the presentation? The suggestion that the road should be realigned, the bypass should be realigned further to the west creates difficulties, firstly with the need to carry out demolitions of properties. Secondly, it would involve a greater land take and would take the road further from Stoke Mandeville itself, which would obviously increase journey time, but would also increase the land that was then

caught between the bypass and the existing town. And it’s a general principle of bypass design that one seeks not to be too land greedy in the routing of the bypass. And alternative routes for the bypass were considered, and they are reported in the environmental statement and this was the route that was highlighted upon as the best fit in the promoter’s judgement.

356. In terms of the provision of a roundabout, the road that is before the Committee in the Bill, is one that is – it meets design and geometric standards and is suitable for the traffic that is expected to travel along it. It is, of course, subject to further detailed design in accordance with the terms of the Bill.

357. And finally, in terms about going with a pedestrian underpass to a service road for local traffic, that would rather A. that would rather defeat the purpose of creating the bypass, and B. the judgement has been made, which is, as I understand it, the county council’s highway authority does not disagree. So the appropriate solution to – the appropriate treatment of the existing road is to downgrade the passage underneath the railway line to a pedestrian route only.

358. But finally, this is – it’s clearly sensible, the right way forward here is for the promoter to continue to engage with the owners and occupiers of Layby Farm. I understand that they have instructed, they are going to see land agents and that may well provide the way forward in trying to work out a more detailed solution along the lines of the first bullet point on the slide in front of you.

359. CHAIR: Ms Gaisford, any further questions?

360. MS GAISFORD: Well, yes, a few points I want to make; although we talked a little bit about the animal welfare, and I think we need to address that now, rather than wait until the train lines there. And it’s not just the construction of the train line, it’s the bypass and the two years of construction, that will have significant effects on the animals. And we talked about hearing ranges, but it’s also vibration and other factors. You talked about compensation; that’s – we’re not really hear to talk about compensation today, we don’t really want to move. We would like to stay where we are. So again –

361. MR GAISFORD: It is the welfare of the animals is paramount really, we seek to

understand you know, what the impact on them is going to be, work together on that and then decide what the best thing to do is. But we don’t want to move.

362. MS GAISFORD: Now, we don’t want to move, but if we have to move, and clearly you’re talking about not being able to move the road up and I understand that, but at the end of the day if we have to move the goat centre for the welfare of them, and have found somewhere suitable for them to go I think that might be our only option; as well as looking out other tenant which, you know, they are going to do their own presentation later. But the site does work well together, yes.

363. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t think there’s very much between us in that respect, because as I think I indicated, I think we should continue to talk and the objectives should be tried to try and find ways in which you can remain.

364. CHAIR: Good, thank you for your evidence, I think we’ve had enough for our consideration later. I want to move to petition number 1374, Amania Clark, Mr Mould?

Amania Clark

365. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes thank you, if we put up P10674 if we have it, the petitioner lives in Risborough Close and –

366. MS CLARK: Risborough Road.

367. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Risborough Road – I do apologise, and if we go to next slide, we can see her property, which has been outlined in red, in the usual way. And you can see she is one of those home owners who lies between railway the line to the west, to the east and to the line of the new bypass to the west. She is I the rural support zone, which if you recall means that she is able to, if she wishes to do so, she is able to ask the Secretary of State to acquire her property at its un-blighted market value under the voluntary purchase scheme that she does not ordinarily, under that policy qualify for moving costs, stamp duty and so forth. That’s a point you’ve heard made by petitioners in relation to that scheme.

368. CHAIR: Mrs C la rk?

369. MS CLARK: Alright, well firstly thank you for the introduction there, if you are

happy to leave that slide up that’s useful for what I’m going to say. Just a little bit of background for everybody. I live in the old Risborough Road, which, as we’ve just highlighted by the last petitioner, it’s where the Bucks Goat Centre is situated, we are slightly further along that same road.

370. I am married, I’ve got three children, Lucy, William and George. Lucy is 14, Willian 13 and George is eight. We moved to our property, Emsleigh, in August 2005 and my middle son William was nearly three then. And it soon became apparent that he was struggling with a breathing condition and he was diagnosed as being a severe asthmatic. Various hospital admissions followed. It can be triggered by a virus, it can also be triggered by being in a dusty atmosphere and also by mould and fungal spores. Various times over the following few years we ended up in Stoke Mandeville hospital, fortunately we live close to the hospital so it’s been easy to access that.

371. I do appreciate that some projects, such as HS2, need to be built and would be prepared to support such projects, but in the case of HS2 I feel that our particular circumstances, we are being unfairly treated. Our property, as you rightly suggested, falls within the rural support zone, so we have the option of applying to the Government to purchase our property at its full market value under the voluntary purchase scheme.

372. However, as a family we do not wish to move. We have spent a lot of time and effort, and a lot of money in making our property suitable for our middle son. We’ve eliminated damp, we’ve literally rebuilt the property, spent two and a half years living in a converted garage, to enable us to make the property suitable for our son. Touch wood, since we’ve moved back in from the garage into our home, we haven’t had a serious hospital admission. But those of you that may have a child, or knows somebody that is asthmatic, and has serious attacks, you will realise what a wonderful thing it is not to have spent time in hospital, and what a difference it’s made to his life.

373. BELLINGHAM: Can I just ask you, we’ve got 10676, which is the aerial photograph, we don’t have a photograph of the house do we, a close up?

374. MS CLARK: Not a close up shot.

375. MR BELLINGHAM: So basically, you’re on the old Risborough Road, you’ve got a frontage and these houses have a very long garden, is that right?

376. MS CLARK: They do indeed.

377. MR BELLINGHAM: It’s more like a smallholding, you know, some fields.

378. MS CLARK : We’ve got about three quarters of an acre, that plot’s about three quarters of an acre. Also you can see the area grey below is where they are proposing to put the new A4010 the road, which although, in effect, we become islanded between the proposed rail line and the new 4010 road, we did support that proposal because we felt that the majority of the village, it is of benefit to them. So although personally it’s a negative impact to us, I think the majority of the village will have some benefit in the HS2 re-routing that 4010. That brings me onto the next point that we were saying –

379. MR BELLINGHAM: And again just to – sorry to interrupt you Ms Clark, just for a point of clarification Mr Mould, how many other petitioners have we heard from Risborough Road, just out of interest?

380. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You’ve heard on one so far, the previous petitioner.

381. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes, but apart from that, have we had any people with houses? That’s what I’m getting at.

382. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, though the Gaisfords, as I said, they own the neighbouring property on that road and I think Ms Clark is actually the neighbour of one of the m.

383. MS CLARK: No, neighbour but one to the parents, and then two but one, yes, so okay.

384. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you.

385. MS CLARK: As I say, we have had a meeting with Ben Nicholl and other HS2 representatives and we were made aware of the Equalities Act and protected characteristics. And after research, I do believe that my son’s asthmatic condition should be covered by this. As I’ve said, all the measures we’ve put in place in our current property, such as the solid floors. We have no carpets throughout; we have minimum soft furnishings and we’ve put underfloor heating in, which has taken a lot of time and as I say a lot of cost, estimated in the region of about £60,000, putting all those

measures in place. They haven’t just benefitted him. It’s the whole family that have benefited but the primary reason for putting those in place was my son’s condition.

386. So, we feel that if we are forced to move, if it comes untenable for us to remain in our current property, we’re going to struggle to find an equivalent property that will be suitable for William to live in. He is highly sensitive to the house dust mite, so that means we can’t move to carpeted properties. We also have the constraint of needing to stay within a reasonable commuting distance of the nearest hospital. We are concerned during the construction phase, although we have been assured that measures are put in place to keep access to the hospital, that that main route, it won’t be as quick as what we’ve got now. If he is having a severe asthma attack, we do not have time to be stuck behind construction traffic or whatever other measures are put in place. You get one removals lorry along the main road at the moment and the whole village snarls up, right back towards Wycombe. That’s of serious concern to us.

387. We heard from the head of Stoke Mandeville Village School earlier. All my three children went through the school. My youngest is still there at the moment. My older two are now at the Wendover School and they cycle there. Very much, our life revolves around this village. We do not want to move but at the same time we feel we’re being put in a position that because of the dust created not only by the railway construction but also potential bypass, that it won’t be feasible for us to remain in our property as it stands.

388. So, what we’re looking to is something from HS2, an undertaking that not only will our property be considered under the voluntary purchase scheme but also that the costs for us involved in finding a similar suitable property will be met, although we’ll be treated as if we were in the safeguarded zone and they would cover the cost of us moving because we feel that although we come under that rural support zone, our particular case is such we don’t wish to move, we feel we’re being forced to move because of this HS2 scheme and that we need to make sure that we feel able to find a similar suitable property for my son. And that’s all I’ve got to say.

389. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

390. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As the petitioner indicated the fact that her property is within the rural support zone means that she has a choice. She can remain in the

property and we’re aware of her needs and the Code of Construction Practice will need to be applied with those needs in mind. Should she decide that her interests and those of her family are best served by moving then she’s able to require the Secretary of State to purchase her property under the voluntary purchase scheme.

391. In this case, it may be that she will wish to consider whether because of her particular special needs of her child, yes, middle son, that she would wish to ask the Secretary of State to consider whether he should make an exception to the general principle that the voluntary purchase scheme is limited to the open market value of the property. The Secretary of State has obligations, as you know, under the Equalities Act, and those relate, amongst other things, to specific health needs which give rise to an obligation to consider reasonable adjustments, to use the statutory language. I simply draw that to the Committee’s attention. As always, I make no promises about what the outcome of any such application might be. But, certainly, I think, it’s reasonable for me to mention that. And that’s something which I think it would be best for her to pursue outside of the Committee process. And she can get in touch with the promoter on that point, if it’s a point she wishes to have considered.

392. CHAI R: M s C lark?

393. MS CLARK : Yes. I’m happy with what he suggested now. If they’re happy to pursue that with us. It would just be helpful we feel very much like we’re slightly in the dark. There’s reams of information to read through. It’s not that easy for the lay member of the public sometimes to access all that information. It would be nice to have a contact number or a member of HS2 team that we can actually specifically direct our queries to, so that we could bring these to somebody’s attention rather than just be, we have these numerous emails or letters in the past and we seem to get standardised responses back. So, it sometimes feels like you’re being brushed aside. It would be nice to know that our specific circumstances weren’t being brushed aside and that will be acted upon.

394. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think we have met with you, haven’t we?

395. MS CLARK : Yes.

396. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And raised this possibility. So, I think if you would like

to pursue this, I think that would be the way forward.

397. CHAIR: Okay? Thank you for your evidence. We want to move to petition 304. John Vince. Mr Mould?

John Vince

398. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If we could turn to P1061(3)? I think I’m right in saying, Mr Vince will correct me if I have it wrong, but his principle interest today is to draw your attention to the site of the church of S t Mary’s in Stoke Mandeville.

399. MR VINCE: And the medieval village.

400. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. And P1061(3). The site of the Church of S t M ary is being shown now in the cursor and I understand there may be remains of a medieval village associated with that. But, the information we have shown that is a former burial ground which was in use from the Middle Ages until the beginning of the last century. I think we think the last interment was in 1908, and estimated population in comparative sites suggested between 3,000 and 5,000 burials may have taken place during the period of its use from I think I’m told possibly as early as the 12th century through to the very beginning of the 20th century. And that’s a broad estimate. There may be more. Insofar as the treatment of the church is concerned, it’s one of the affected burial grounds that is identified in paragraph 4.4 of our Information Paper E12 which deals with burial grounds, which refers to the statutory arrangements for the sensitive handling of remains affected by the bill under Schedule 19 to the bill and sets out the framework for controls of impacts, investigation and other matters that relate to burial grounds that are or may be affected by the construction of the railway.

401. CHAIR: Mr Vince?

402. MR VINCE: The village appears in Domesday Books, sir. 1086. And so, our counsel is inaccurate by two or three centuries. And I would like to draw your attention, if I may, to a letter I received only yesterday from HS2 which relates to the former site of St Mary’s Church. Now, there’s no reference on this letter but all I can tell you that it came from a Benjamin Nicol, the area petitions analyst and my copy is dated 16 November. In that letter he indicates that based on a comparative site the

estimated population and size of the church and known churchyard a figure of up to 4,000 articulated burials could survive within the cemetery. He then goes on to say that: ‘Due to our lack of knowledge on the extent of the site, we are not able to provide a specific assurance regarding their relocation’. My question to counsel is: why?

403. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Because we haven’t yet reached that stage in the development of the bill. But, that doesn’t mean that we won’t be dealing with these remains as and when they are encountered in a way that is sensitive to them. And as I say, that is our approach, which is set out in Information Paper E12 which is in part rooted in Schedule 19 to the bill which provides a statutory regime and in part rooted in our commitment to dealing with burial remains, ancient burial remains and other archaeological finds in way that is suitable, sensitive to their quality and to the religious and other sensitivities that apply.

404. MR VINCE: Might I, Mr C hairman, make observations on the letter that I’ve just quoted?

405. CHAIR: Yes, Mr Vince. Carry on.

406. MR VINCE: There are six points I would wish to make. O ne the site of the re- burials should be identified as a first step. This will be difficult as the space needed is considerable and so are the logistical issues. Two, the footprint of the old church needs to be revealed without mechanical aids before the archaeologists can begin their task. Three, an accurate map needs to be made of the extant features, the memorials etc. , so that given graves can be matched with the original memorial stones. Four, it is noted that a HS2 posits the presence of a considerable unknown number of articulated remains which will require individual reburial. Five, no protocol has been established to assure the public that any responsible authorities will be able to determine public access and be provided with adequate funding to make any re-burial site perpetually viab le. I’m aware that your colleagues will meet up at another vulnerable site that shares many o f the characteristics of the site in my petition.

407. It seems to me, sir, that HS2 is putting the cart before the horse. It is no good saying, well, we don’t know how many articulated remains will be there. You cannot know that until you’ve done the actual archaeological work. But, I think HS2 misunderstands the process that needs to be followed. If you end up with an articulated

remains then the archaeologists have to take that carefully, put it aside, take it away to be cleaned and then it’s got to be put in a casket and reburied. Now, unless you know before you begin that operation, and counsel has conceded they have no idea how many articulated remains are there, although the letter I had yesterday said it could be as many as 4,000, the space that an archaeological company would need to store carefully those articulated remains is quite enormous. They’d have to hire a hanger, probably, but you need to know before you begin that process where you’re going to put them.

408. Now, within Stoke Mandeville parish, it is difficult to see where that room can be found because they have to be re-interred in ground that has been consecrated. So, we don’t know and we don’t know and we think we can do this and perhaps we will do that, but, the letter that I quoted indicates that they may not be able to provide a specific assurance. My question again to counsel is why?

409. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

410. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I know it’s frustrating for petitioners to be met with the answer: ‘We haven’t yet got the full details of how we’re going to address particular issues,’ but I’m afraid that is because we have not yet reached the stage in the process where those details are available. You’re absolutely right. We have not yet got a clear and precise understanding of the extent of burial at this burial ground and we can only discover that once we have carried out investigations. And those investigations are yet to be done. They will be done.

411. MR VINCE: So, can that be summarised as saying: You are making it up as you go along?

412. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No. We’re not doing that. Just allow me to carry on and I’ll try and explain where we have got to. What I can say, I’m not going to repeat what I said about the arrangements under the bill and also the arrangements as set out in our published Information Paper. But, within HS2 our specialists who have experience, for example, of handling the burial grounds which were affected by the construction of the St Pancras works for HS1 set out policy. And they have been in discussion with the Stoke Mandeville Parish Council with a view to finding a suitable location for re- interment of these remains. O ne possibility is that land which is being bought under

blight basis’s may provide land fo r this purpose.

413. Of course, it would have to be consecrated and that is a matter that would need to be worked into the process. The Parish Council themselves are also looking for sites and raised the question of gravestones. The size, storage, and reuse of gravestones is also a matter that is under discussion with the Parish Council. But I hope the Committee at least will accept that whilst I’m not able to give precise arrangements at this stage for the reasons I’ve given, that doesn’t fairly equate to the charge that we are ‘making it up as we go along.’ We have thought forward to the need to deal with these matters. We’ve set out a policy. Legislation is to be made under the Bill to govern the handling of these issues, and we are in discussions with the Parish Council with a view to making arrangements for the investigation and the suitable relocation of these remains and the gravestones as and when the railway begins to be constructed and the investigations tell us much more clearly what it is that we are having to address.

414. MR VINCE: Can counsel assure us, Mr Chairman, that the site of the medieval village and the site of the church will in fact be coned and set aside from the other engineering works which are part of this scheme so that no damage can be caused there before in fact the archaeological and the other matters that you’ve mentioned have been addressed?

415. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Archaeological investigations will take place at the beginning of the construction process. That is clearly necessary in order to ensure that any valuable archaeological remains are discovered and understood as far as possible before works that might disturb them and destroy them before they’ve been investigated, maps and so forth, have been undertaken.

416. MR HENDRICK : Can you show us where on the map this site is?

417. MR VINCE: I submitted a map of the site, sir, from the Ordnance Survey.

418. MR HENDRICK: So the line goes straight through the middle of it.

419. MR VINCE: Yes, it goes bang through the middle.

420. CHAIR: Okay. Have you any other points to raise, Mr Vince?

421. MR VINCE: Well, I was going to ask you, sir, if I could perhaps just read the conclusions of my submission which your Committee has already received. To conclude, I would simply like to commend to your Select Committee the words of St Paul in Philippians 4. ‘Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovable, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things.’ I pray, sir, that the honourable members of the Select Committee will also be able to think on these things.

422. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: May I add a separate sentence to the Promoters? I hope that they’ve noticed the points on page A1623(6) about the way to deal with gravestones. So the technical point you put forward I hope will not be overlooked. The contractors should pay attention. Don’t read it now, but I think if those involved can see that you can’t treat gravestones in the way you’d treat any old York slab.

423. MR VINCE: No. Thank you, Chair.

424. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think you can take it, Sir Peter, that that is very well understood.

425. MR VINCE: We’ll need a lot of two-by-two.

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

427. CHAIR: Thank you for your evidence. You raise a very important matter. I now want to move to AP18, John and Christine Cooper. Mr Mould.

John and Christine Cooper

428. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Mr and Mrs Cooper live at Hall End Farm, Lower Road, Stoke Mandeville, some 500 metres from the centre line of the railway. The location of their property is shown on the ordnance plan in front of you. If you turn to P10690 you can see that their property lies to the east of the high-speed railway line and to the south of the route line of the proposed Stoke Mandeville bypass. They lie outside any of the designated compensation zones. No land is required from the m fo r the purposes of the scheme. They have applied under the Exceptional Hardship Scheme for the Secretary of State to purchase their property and have been rejected on two

occasions, and they have applied twice under the Need to Sell S cheme and their applications have been rejected under that scheme. That’s the position in relation to these Petitioners. Thank you.

429. CHAIR: Mr Cooper.

430. MR COOPER: Thank you. Can I have slide 2, A1582(2) please? That tells you who we are. We moved to our house about 16 years ago when I relocated for work purposes from the north-west of the route. This shows a blown-up version of the map that you’ve just looked at before. You can see our home highlighted in green and the land boundaries highlighted in yellow, with our access lane highlighted in blue just moving north from the yellow up to where it joins Lower Road, the B4443, just where actually the additional provision was seeking to take power to acquire part of our land interest at the end of our access lane. You can see from this map that we’re affected effectively on three sides by the impacts of HS2, with the proposal to acquire part of our access lane really adding insult to injury. So we’re virtually encircled, but it’s the road that’s doing most of the damage rather than HS2 by itself.

431. If we move on to the next slide you get a feel for where we sit today. You can see the B4443 numbering and our access lane runs from that to the house, which is a quarter of a mile down that lane. It’s well-screened by trees and the road is downwind from us, so there’s very little noise that comes along. We’re a quarter of a mile roughly from anything else, including the relatively low-use railway that goes between Risborough and Aylesbury currently. It is not yet the more significant rail line that is proposed in due course with the East-West Link.

432. In the next slide you can get a better appreciation of the house, which is a 17th-century listed property, grade II, and is set in a couple of acres of formal garden with about 12 acres around it. We don’t farm it; it’s residential. You can see that a lot of the value of the property comes from its setting.

433. If we move on to the next slide.

434. MR BELLINGHAM: When you say ‘residential’ does this mean all you have is grass? Did yo u graze it with sheep sometimes or let it out for ponies?

435. MR COOPER: We’ve had sheep. Our predecessors 16 years ago bred horses there, and Anthony Pearce, who you’ve heard from earlier, currently grazes some sheep on it just to keep it under control.

436. MR BELLINGHAM: But it’s not intensely farmed.

437. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: The issue here is that they have not yet accepted an application from you under Need to Sell having refused two Exceptional Hardship Grants.

438. MRS COOPER: And two Need to Sell.

439. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You were rejected twice under Need to Sell and you weren’t accepted twice for Exceptional Hardship.

440. MR COOPER: Yes.

441. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The Exceptional Hardship, an outside observer might say may or may not have been fair. You were quite close to the margin but not close enough because you’re retirement hadn’t taken place. Now it has. I don’t think we need to have you rehearse in detail the information you’ve provided to us because of unnecessary intrusion into privacy. What I think is absolutely plain is you’re living in a house which pensioners would not live in unless they were very well off. You still have a mortgage to pay off. Your mortgage costs you up to 22% of your income, but within three years it’s got to be repaid completely. The question is whether you can put in an application which would be accepted on the grounds that to make you wait until it actually has to be repaid would be ludicrous in these circumstances. Is that a summary of the situation?

442. MR COOPER: That’s a summary but there are a couple of little extra bits I’d like to overlay that. One is that I have given in my submission the extra personal information that I thought you might find useful for the review that I know you’re proposing to do. Very specifically, just to add on to that, we probably feel that it ought to be, if you’ll excuse the expression, a slam-dunk to apply for NTS next month because we’re within three years of having to pay £440,000 back. So the case becomes fairly overwhelming at that point. However, we do really worry, having gone through this

experience, about how hard it is for people to actually navigate through the Need to Sell Scheme, which to us hasn’t felt much different to the Exceptional Hardship Scheme.

443. MRS COOPER: That’s true.

444. MR COOPER: If I go on a little bit beyond that, when you see that really the approach is one of trying to look for reasons to reject rather than looking at the underlying –

445. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Whether it’s reasonable to accept.

446. MR COOPER: There seems to be a lack of duty of care being applied.

447. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That we can understand, and we may make recommendations on the way the scheme is operating. I think the key point is that you’re getting closer and closer to the time when you have to repay this with money you haven’t got, as we understand it.

448. MRS COOPER: No.

449. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not, as I said earlier, necessarily a home for a retired person unless they’ve got stacks of money, and in the circumstances it would seem to most people to be reasonable for you to meet the criteria. If the reason it’s not accepted is some particular bit of information, I think that if you make a fifth application we would be displeased to hear it was rejected rather than people coming to you to say, ‘If you put it this way...’, or ‘Can we ask you a question or two and then see if we can accept it.’

450. MR COOPER: Yes, and in that context we have engaged in dialogue with the HS2 people before the things go to panel but each time they get rejected and the reason doesn’t match up to anything we’ve been asked to provide before it gets to panel, so it seems a bit of a –

451. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That may demonstrate the independence of the panel but it doesn’t necessarily suggest that you’ve been treated fairly all around.

452. MR COOPER: But if we are successful we still will worry that the valuation process –

453. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We understand that but there are ways of appealing valuations and we aren’t going to get involved in that. That’s beyond us.

454. MR COOPER: I put in the statement a couple of things –

455. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve read that.

456. MR COOPER: I can give you the supporting evidence if you want.

457. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You don’t need to. I think if that sums up your case then we’ll hear what Mr Mould has to say, having heard you and heard me.

458. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m going to adopt the approach that I usually take to these matters, which is to say that first of all I don’t believe that it would be appropriate for me to go into the detailed reasons why the applications seem to have been unsuccessful. I think that would be invidious for the petitioners and I don’t see that it’s of great advantage to do that today. They’ve indicated to you in the course of your exchanges just now that they intend to make a further application and they intend to do it quite soon, as I understand it. That is the course open to them. What I was going to say was simply this: they have applied under the scheme and the result is that they’ve not been accepted, and the scheme allows for a further application to be made and they intend to do it.

459. The general context for this, as is my understanding from the most recent statistics that I’ve seen, is that of applications received something over 60% have been successful so far. So the scheme generally is performing at that rate of success, which certainly from the perspective of whether it is providing a remedy which is working in practice suggests that it’s working a great deal more effectively than did the Exceptional Hardship Scheme. From the point of view of the Secretary of State, he would put it, I think, this way: that it reflects the fact that the Need to Sell Scheme has been drawn on a broader set of criteria; it does not require the demonstration of an urgent need to sell; and as you will recall when I’ve explained the thinking behind the Need to Sell Scheme in comparison to the former Exceptional Hardship Scheme, the Secretary of State’s view was that he should draw the scheme somewhat more widely because that seemed appropriate both in light of his own investigation and also the responses he received to public consultation when he was asking people what they thought the balance should be

in relation to this and the other components of the discretionary scheme. None of that is of much comfort I’ve not doubt to Mr and Mrs Cooper, but it is perhaps important that I should just remind the Committee of something of the broader context. I don’t, unless you would wish me to, propose to say any more than that.

460. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think that’s understandable. I think if I can say, at least speaking for myself, that I hope the Promoters will draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the exchanges we’ve had in relation to the Coopers’ case, that a fifth application is coming forward, and that if the panel can’t find their way to accept what appears to be a perfectly reasonable case that that should go to the Secretary of State before it goes to the Coopers so the Secretary of State can review what that panel are doing. It doesn’t take away their independence, but from my point of view the stress and strain which the Coopers are experiencing goes beyond what is reasonable and they have a perfectly reasonable application for Need to Sell well-evidenced now and in the past.

461. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ll certainly make sure that those thoughts are relayed back. Certainly.

462. MRS COOPER: Can we come back if it doesn’t get through?

463. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I expect we’ll be told one way or another, but remember Robert the Bruce.

464. MR COOPER: Thank you.

465. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A nice house.

466. CHAIR: That brings us to Petition 281, the tenants of Layby Farm Business Park. Mr Mould.

Tenants of Layby Farm B usiness Park

467. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You will recall from not long ago that we heard from Mr and Miss (I think it was) Gaisford, who are the owners of Layby Farm. The Petitioners before you now are tenants of units within the farm, so the location is as before. If we just turn to P10640. They’ll tell me if I’ve got this wrong, but I think in broad terms the

tenants occupy the buildings in the north-eastern part of the site, and the animals and the Goat Centre occupy the south-western part of the site. I think the tenants are somewhat further from the bypass and somewhat closer to the railway line. It’s vice-versa for the animals and the Goat Centre. But I don’t propose to go through the works that are close by because you’ve already heard me on that a few minutes ago.

468. CHAIR: O ver to you.

469. MRS WOODCOCK: Good evening. My name is Tricia Woodcock. I am one of the tenants at the Layby Farm Business Park. I own and run an art gallery there which has an indoor and an outdoor site, and my colleague today, Maureen Dent, runs Genies, the fancy-dress shop. I’m not going to take you in great detail through the businesses again because we’ve obviously heard quite a bit about the businesses. I will just tell you that we’re here today because we’re concerned about the ongoing viability of our businesses at the site, and particularly, as we’ve heard, because we work together mutually to provide a leisure destination for visitors, and we have complementary businesses on the site that work together to help us enjoy our mutual site. I should just say, the picture that you’ve got there just shows the site. I believe you’ve visited twice already.

470. If I could have the second slide. Just very briefly again to say there are 15 businesses on the site, predominantly retail businesses, but we do benefit from having complementary businesses on the site.

471. If I could go on to the third slide. Just to emphasise that it’s a local rural economy. The site employs approximately 40 people, and in total across the year about 30,000 visitors enjoy the site. Again, we work collaboratively on marketing initiatives for the site to try and make sure that visitors see it as a destination so that we can share customers across the site.

472. If I could go on to the next slide. Just, again, to say in terms of our businesses that we support each other but we also support other businesses, both locally and nationally. For example, my own gallery takes work by more than 250 artists and makers from across the country; the biscuit shop supplies over 30 farm shops and rural cafés throughout the Thames Valley. One of the other more recent additions to the site, Fabric HQ, moved from another site on the Wendover High S treet just over a year ago,

and since they’ve been on our site they’ve actually seen their business treble, again due to the fact that we work together and we share visitors.

473. I will actually skip the next slide. It just gives another bit of flavour about the site. For us, the site we chose for our businesses because it’s a central location in Bucks; it has a tranquil and rural setting but particularly the access is very good for our visitors. The photograph at the top right shows how you can actually see the site at the moment from the main A4010. It’s very well signed. You can actually see straight from the road the whole farm. We also have extremely good parking on the site which is very important to our visitors, who include lots of young mothers and elderly visitors.

474. Next slide please. I just wanted to emphasise, and we’ve seen this map, how we’re located in between that very heavy area of construction, and that we’re just 200 metres away from the HS2 route and just 100 metres away from the A4010 diversion. Our own personal concern is the length of construction and how that will impact the site. For us it’s going to be even longer because of the diversion of the A4010. We’ll have the construction work of that as well as the construction of HS2.

475. Next slide. We’re particularly concerned about traffic disruption in our area and dust implications for the businesses. As we mentioned, we’ve got a gallery, we’ve got a fancy-dress shop, we’ve got a fabric shop, and we are concerned about implications for that on our businesses. Also, noise destroying the current ambience and the tranquillity that our visitors enjoy.

476. Next slide. As we’ve said, we currently have very good access directly from the A4010. The vast majority of our visitors come by car, as do deliveries to the businesses. The current plans show that the diverted A410, we will no longer have direct access from that A-road, so that obviously is a great concern to us. Next slide, thank you.

477. In terms of the impact on access, our major concern is that customers will be easily deterred from visiting due to the length of the construction phase and the high density of the construction work in our area. We feel that customers will be deterred from visiting due to road closures and delays caused by temporary traffic lights. For us, as small businesses, this potentially may lead to rapid loss of income if the footfall drops at the site. And as small businesses, we will be unable to sustain reduced income for long periods without serious implications. Next slide.

478. In terms of the operation, again we are concerned about the noise and the vibration that the trains will cause to our side and how close we are to the HS2 line. Again, to just reiterate that we have indoor and outdoor leisure facilities. We also run workshops and demonstrations. The fabric shop run demonstrations and workshops as does the gallery. The gallery also has an outdoor area which relies on having the tranquillity. Thank you, next slide. This again, just reiterating our concerns about the noise and how close we are to the track. And also that the track will be raised in our area and that will, I understand, potentially cause an increase in noise for us at our location. Thank you, next slide.

479. Yes, just further information on how this site is critical for some of our businesses. There’s a sports shop on the side and again it relies on being easily accessible and having a central location. And for the leisure building site, we make sheds and showrooms, they have a separate workshop which will actually be cut off by HS2, so there access to their manufacturing site will be cut off. Thank you, next slide.

480. So, what we’re ideally looking for because of our concern about the ongoing viability of the businesses is a no-cost relocation so that we can continue to benefit from that mutuality. We’ve heard earlier about the possibility of moving the goats, but, we believe whole site works ideally together, more strongly. Thank you, next slide.

481. We’ve identified five critical items that we believe we need to seek to ensure the viability, ongoing viability, of the businesses. Firstly, the maximum mitigation from the effects of construction. Secondly, assurance of access and signage directly from the re- routed A4010. And assurance that we will have representation at discussions during the design for the revised access. Financial support for ‘Still in Business’ publicity campaign, so, more than just signing, but, to ensure that the public are aware that the site is still open and still running. And increased and maximum mitigation for the effects of the operational noise. Thank you. And final slide?

482. So, just wanted to stress again our site and where we sit and how heavily affected we are going to be and that it does provide a rural leisure facility for visitors. As I say, about 30,000 visitors a year. Plus, it’s our livelihoods. We have set up these small businesses that we run. We’ve all invested a great amount of our lives, our time and our own money into setting up and building these businesses and they are now under threat

by HS2. And as tenant businesses, we also understand at the moment that we have very little grounds for any claims ourselves if our businesses are no longer able to function.

483. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Model presentation, didn’t take too long, talked about the remedies and I hope others will notice.

484. MRS WOODCOCK: Thank you.

485. CHAIR: Thank you. M r Mo uld ?

486. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. If we put up P10641? During the construction of the bypass, which is as I said will be towards the start of the HS2 construction process, and take about two years, the existing road, A140, Risborough Road through Stoke Mandeville will of course remain open to traffic using the village and also to through traffic. And it follows from that, that access to these businesses and Layby Farm will remain as existing. If we go to the next slide, P10642? Following completion of the construction of the new bypass, then the new bypass will be tied in and traffic will be re-routed around the bypass and, as you know, the existing route through will be stopped up at the point at which it passes across the railway line. That will become a pedestrian route. But, access to and fro m La yb y Far m will r e ma in via that portion of the existing road that will continue to exist and will continue to be accessible to the public. Of course, the public, customers, will benefit from the new bypass, which will give access from north and south without having to pass through Stoke Mandeville itself. I heard the petitioner say that a lot of her customers come from Thames Valley and would hope that some benefit would be derived from the customers who are able to use the new bypass road to visit the farm.

487. There was mention of whether there would be an opportunity for signage and notification about when works are going to be undertaken, that forms part and parcel of the detailed arrangements for community relations. We’ve sa id in our information papers to the Committee that in advance of works, we will be notifying local communities, local businesses of the stages of works which works have reached, when we’re going to start particular components of the construction phase.

488. And as to whether it will be appropriate to put up directional signs to direct customers around the revised road network to this facility, that I think is probably a

matter which will have to be discussed with the Highway Authority because they will have a stake in signage. But, in principle, I see no reason why that shouldn’t form the basis of engagement through the Parish Council, for example, through the local authority and the community, through the community regime that will be established when the project is being delivered.

489. In short, there is no reason why customers, visitors to the centre, employees, those who work and operate businesses, there is no reason why they should be disadvantaged to any material degree during the construction of the bypass or following its construction. The most, I think, that one would say, is that whereas it now happens that the Risborough Road passes straight passed the entrance to the Centre, once the bypass is in operation, with all the benefits that brings to Stoke Mandeville then those who work, vis it, have custom at the centre will need to just turn in to the Old Risborough Road and make that short journey that you can see on the plan there in order to get to the Centre. That is the consequence of providing bypasses, which one sees, and has seen, in many instances over many years.

490. In so far as noise is concerned, if you just want to turn up P1064(6)? Just to show that there are two assessment points within Layby Farm that have been used for noise assessment purposes. 711018 and 81001. The former being toward the eastern end, as you can see and the latter being towards the western side of the Layby Farm premises. And if one turns on to P1064(7), you can see that Layby Farm itself is within the LaL contour and if you turn on to P1064(8), you can see that we’re predicting an ambient noise level daytime of around 55 to 60 and at night time, 45 to 50, bearing in mind that these are commercial units. And then the actual figures are shown on P1064(92). And you can see that for the assessment point that was for the eastern side of the holding, 711018, the degree of change from the position without the scheme to the position with the railway operating is relatively small, 2 and 1. And the reason for that, I think, is because the eastern side of the holding is already, of course, adjacent to the road through Stoke Mandeville, so it will be subject to traffic noise and other noise associated with that location. Whereas you can see that on the Western side where that part of the holding that is further from existing transport and other noise sources and faces currently on to the countryside, there the degree of change is more marked. And we’re showing an increase of 10 and 7 in those levels there as a result. And that

principally comes from the introduction of the bypass, as you will recall, because that location point was close up against the route of the bypass once it’s being constructed and come into operation. So, that reflects predominantly traffic noise rather than railway noise. So, that’s the noise picture. As you move towards the west of the holding, actually closer to where I think the games centre and the animals are, you’ll see a more marked increase over the existing, reflecting the incidental traffic noise. But, as one’s towards the eastern side where the commercial units are, the noise environment is going to be much less changed because of the existing ambient and traffic related aspects there.

491. All in all then, whilst clearly the overall environment, both in terms of detailed arrangements for access, noise environment, will alter to a degree and whilst there will be the construction of the railway, but, more particularly, the bypass over that period of two years, I would suggest that there’s no reason, in the light of the points I’ve put forward, to doubt that this successful, obviously thriving, commercial facility shouldn’t be able, with careful management and proper engagement, community relations, notifications, etc. , shouldn’t be able to continue to thrive both during and after the construction and operation of HS2.

492. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, to get these things to happen, I think it would be helpful to know how HS2 operators will engage with this group of businesses, as far as HS2 is able to help, and they should also be advised to contact their local councils, both the enterprise side and the transport side, to make sure that their needs are built in rather than try and bolt it on afterwards.

493. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Well, we will continue, we’ve been talking to, as you heard earlier, been talking to the owners of Layby Farm. I think we’ve spoken to the tenants. Yes, we have. That process will continue. And that will involve both representatives of the project, but, also, as you say, we will be engaging with the Parish Council and with their local authorities and I think particularly the Highway Authority in relation to their concerns about whether it’s possible to have signs and so forth to direct people to the centre during and after construction.

494. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And there’s still detailed design which could help deal with the point they make about getting maximum mitigation against noise during

construction.

495. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. O ne of the changes that’s been made to the bill scheme under the additional provisions is to introduce further noise bunding to the north and west of this holding.

496. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The bypass.

497. MR MOULD QC (DfT): O n the bypass, yes. So, that reflects the pass by, but, the ambient, which is 70, so far as the noise from the road is concerned. The ambient is the absolutely tried and trusted measure of change in traffic noise, as I pointed out. You can see the numbers there. And the road, and really the change here is to do with traffic noise rather than rail noise.

498. MR HENDRICK: Yes.

499. CHAIR: Any further questions?

500. MRS WOODCOCK: Can I just make two further points? One on the noise. As you say, some of the site is going to be more affected. My own unit has an outdoor sculpture garden which people enjoy because it’s quiet and that sits on the s ide where the noise is going to be highest.

501. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The red zone?

502. MRS WOODCOCK: And the second point was in terms of compensation, if, I hope you’re right, I hope businesses can continue to thrive, but, should the worst happen and should level that businesses continue to thrive, but, should the worst happen and should the visitor numbers drop to a level that the businesses no longer become viable and we’re unable to pay our rent as our landlord has mentioned, some of us might not be able to do, is there any compensation for tenant businesses available?

503. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It depends on the length of the lease. Sorry. I haven’t got the, send you through that. I can find out the answer to that.

504. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: Would it be sensible for the promoter to engage with the representatives of the tenants so they actually know what the situation is?

505. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I will. I’m sorry. I ought to know the answer.

506. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There’s our factual issues that don’t require us to make a decision.

507. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. If there were, I can say this, the only source of compensation that might in principle be available would be under Part 1 of the 1973 Act. And I just need to remind myself of the arrangements that exist for qualifying for commercial premises in relation to that Act. But, I will make sure that we let the petitioners know the answer to that question. Apologies for the fact I can’t answer straight off.

508. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The only other thought that might go through your mind is whether it’s possible to have an agreed measurement of the amount of traffic coming into this site, which can be a base line in case things go wrong afterwards. So, you may want to talk to relevant people about that.

509. MRS WOODCOCK: Yes, thank you.

510. CHAIR: Thank you for your evidence. Well, that concludes the public part of the business today. Order, order.