Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday 24 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 Edward Briggs, Partner, Bidwells Mr Simon Ricketts, King & Wood Mallesons

WITN ESSES

Mr Thomas Jenkinson, the Chiltern Brewery Mr George Jenkinson, the Chiltern Brewery Mr Robert Brown Mr Trevor Lane Ms Monica Bonham Mrs D Williams Mr Richard Stewart-Liberty ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

The Chiltern Brewery (Cont’d) Response from Mr Mould 4 Closing submissions by Mr Thomas Jenkinson 10

Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty and Tatiana Wilde, and others Introduction from Mr Mould 15 Submissions by Mr Briggs 19 Evidence of Mr Brown 21 Response from Mr Mould 28 Further submissions by Mr Briggs 35 Response from Mr Mould 39

Paul Pusey, John Cragg, Roger Pusey and Edward Briggs Introduction from Mr Mould 40 Submissions by Mr Briggs 41 Response from Mr Mould 43 Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 45

Trevor Lane of Lane’s Landscape Contractors Introduction from Mr Mould 47 Evidence of Mr Lane 48 Submissions by Mr Briggs 49 Response from Mr Mould 51

Marsh Hill Farm Ltd Statement by M r Mo uld 52

Monica Bonham and Bridget Gill Introduction from Mr Mould 53 Submissions by Mr Briggs 54 Response from Mr Mould 56

Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh Parish Council Introduction from Mr Mould 57 Submissions by Mr Briggs 57 Response from Mr Mould 59

Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 61

D Williams Introduction from Mr Mould 63 Submissions by Mr Briggs 64 Response from Mr Mould 67 Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 72

Richard Stewart-Libe rty Submissions by Mr Stewart-Liber ty 74 Response from Mr Mould 77

Frederic von Oppenheim, Baroness Marie-Rose von Oppenheim and Kimberley Ltd Introduction from Mr Mould 79 Submissions by Mr Ricketts 80

(At 14.00)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Mr Mould?

The Chilte rn B re wery (Co nt’d)

2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I’ll just respond to each of the requests that have been put forward to you by these petitioners. First of all, tunnel, very quickly; each of the tunnel schemes that has been argued to you by petitioners over recent months, has had, as it’s point at which the railway emerges into the open air, a location of a northern portal just to the north of Wendover. It follows that any of those tunnel schemes would result in no improvement for these petitioners, because they lie on a site which is to the north of Wendover. But in addition to that point, any of the tunnel schemes that you have heard would involve a prolonged and sizeable worksite in the vicinity of their brewery in order to serve the construction of an extended Chiltern tunnel. So, it’s a case, I’m afraid of be careful what you wish for, in so far as that issue is concerned.

3. Turning to the question of a relief road, I understand that this is a brewery which thrives on passing trade, and one of the points that was made during the course of the presentation was that it is advantaged by being well connected on the local and regional road network for its customers. A relief road would not seem to be consistent with those locational advantages.

4. But in any event, I mentioned to you, in opening, this petition, that the traffic that will be added into the existing flow on Nash Lee Road, past this property, as a result of HS2, is minimal in any relative sense. In an e xis ting flow of 7,000 vehicles a day, each way, HS2 will be adding 240 vehicles each way, which, by my calculation, is a something of the order of 3.5%, which, in ordinary traffic management assessment speak, is something that would be regarded as immaterial, or something that is lost in the rounding, or the variation in daily flows.

5. So, that is the context in which the concerns raised by the petitioners needs to be understood. There is no basis, in our submission, in the light of those facts, for contemplating the introduction of a relief road, as proposed by these petitioners, in this railway Bill.

6. The next point, if I can turn please to –

7. MR HENDRICK : Mr Mould, are you making a point that the HGV drivers who may be working on the construction, are actually potential customers for the –

8. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I wasn’t making that point, although I see no reason in principle why, at least some of them, shouldn’t be –

9. CHAIR: Passing trade.

10. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Could be, indeed, sir.

11. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They want to take it home and drink it there, rather than drive with it?

12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Absolutely. Yes. We saw the artist’s impression of the brewery as it presents on the road frontage, I’m sure that that is truly representative of its delights when you see it in the flesh. And it may well be that some of those HGV operatives, whether in heavy vehicles or in cars and vans, may see the brewery and may decide that they would like to go and buy some beer for the weekend, who knows? But my point was really a broader point was that if there is to be a case for road works associated with this railway Bill, surely the basis for any such introduction into this Bill has to be that without those road works, the impact of HS2 construction traffic will be so sizeable as to be unacceptable, and in the flows that I have described to you, which are shown on the evidence which is before you and I’ve described in opening, that case is simply impossible to make.

13. So, if we turn then to A16503, much of the presentation was predicated on the premise that HS2 proposes to close these highways for an appreciable period of time. That premise is false. We do not propose to close these highways for any appreciable period of time, there is no plan to close these highways, in order to construct HS2. And by close, I mean to stop traffic on these roads for more than possibly a short period of less than a day, for example, in order, as the petitioner said, to run the string of the overhead power cable from one side of Nash Lee Road to the other.

14. I mentioned in the course of the presentation, that in order to overcome the point that was fairly made, how do you get traffic from the road head, across Nash Lee Road

onto the haul road to the north, there will clearly need to be some traffic control measures introduced in order to achieve that. I suspect that one obvious thing that may happen is the need to introduce te mpo rar y signals at that point. But that is a different thing from a road closure. That is something that is part and parcel of being a user of the highway network in this country, and it applies to those who live on the highway network, and to those who have businesses and work on the highway network. It is part of the ebb and flow that you take, in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a successful plural economy.

15. And for that reason, no compensation is payable, under the general law and we make no proposal to pay compensation in relation to this Bill for any passing inconvenience that may result from temporary traffic lights, things of that kind.

16. In the event that, totally unplanned, and I hope that I am understood on that, if, for some unforeseeable reason, there is a need for some wholly unplanned closure of the roads to which these petitioners refer, and as that closure is of the order of that which they clearly experience, unfortunately for them, when the works are being carried out, I think by the water company, and that d ire ctly affects their enjoyment of their access, so their customers, they, their operatives, their workers, are unable to get, for an appreciable period of time, in and out of their premises, and their business suffers, then they would be entitled to recover compensation, and they would have a claim under the general law, under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act.

17. It’s not possible to quantify what the compensation would be, it would be the diminution in the value of their property and when their property is essentially – its benefit is as a place of business, it would reflect the loss of turnover that they would have – Mr Clifton-Brown is well aware of these points.

18. But I wish to emphasise, because time and again, one finds that people appear not to be aware of the evidence that we present to the Committee. Speaking on evidence that you’ve heard from Mr Miller, from Mr Smart; we do not plan to close these highways. Under this Bill.

19. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just have further clarification about – you don’t plan to –?

20. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Close these highways.

21. MR BELLINGHAM: So that is absolutely categorical guarantee that…

22. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

23. MR BELLINGHAM: That they will not be closed?

24. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I cannot say that there will not – there is clearly – there has to be a risk, in principle, that there will need to be some unplanned closure but we do not plan to.

25. MR BELLINGHAM: Well, there’s always a risk.

26. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Exactly.

27. MR BELLINGHAM: It could be some extraordinary events happen, but – we can absolutely take away from this Committee and so can the Jenkinsons, but there is no intention to plan…

28. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Absolutely.

29. MR BELLINGHAM: To plan a closure on any of these roads?

30. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s right, that’s right. Absolutely. They are very busy roads, they carry thousands of vehicles two way each day, and it would be in the highest degree, undesirable that HS2 should close these highways. Instead, as you know, we intend, and we are required, under schedule 16 of this Bill, to engage closely with the local highway authority, with a view to managing the introduction of HS2 traffic onto these roads, precisely to avoid, or minimise the degree of disruption that results from that. It’s a large building project and it will generate traffic. And the challenge which the Bill presents to us, is to secure the management of that traffic in a way that minimises, or limits the degree of disruption as far as can reasonably be achieved and I am prepared to say to you today, we do not propose to close these roads; we propose to manage the traffic on these roads, thus enabling them to remain open.

31. Muc h o f what fo llows really flows from that, because much of what follows, the case was predicated on the fact that there would be closures. I’ve covered that. Insofar

as promotion and funding of tourism campaigns, again, I refer the Committee back to the business and community fund which provides opportunities to promote local schemes to offset some of the local effects of the railway, which are not able to be mitigated through more conventional means. I’m not going to go over that again, because you heard a great deal of evidence in relation to that.

32. Number six; for the reasons I’ve given, there is no expectation that the construction of HS2 will give rise to any appreciable loss to the business of the brewery. I don’t plan to take that point any further; I’ve explained the position.

33. In terms of water quality, we do not expect that our works will affect the water that is drawn from the ground by this brewery to produce its beers. In the extremely unlikely and unforeseeable event that HS2’s works did cause contamination to that water, and it could be proven that it was HS2’s works that had done that and not so me other cause, HS2 would have to pay compensation for the losses incurred as a result of any such pollution. That would be something that the general law would require of the promoter. But again, I stress, there is no expectation that our works will give rise to any losses of that kind.

34. In terms of mitigation of blight and noise pollution from our compounds; the closest compound is the Nash Lee Road overbridge satellite compound, we can perhaps put up P11063, just to remind the Committee of where that compound is. It is somewhat distant from the petitioners, I would say, probably of the order of 500 metres, but in any event, as you know, under our Code of Construction practice, we are committed to taking appropriate measures to control and to limit the spread of light and to control and limit the spread of noise and dust and so forth from our construction compounds. And those measures will be applied to this compound, just as they will to others along the route.

35. We can return to A16503. There are no gaps in noise mitigation measures on this s ide of the line and I can just show you a plan which makes that clear; P11071. You’ll see that, as the railway passes to the east of the brewery premises, there is provision for noise mitigation and attenuation measures which, in this location, I think will be earth works rather than fences, which will achieve between three and eight metres in height and as a result of that, as you can see, although part of the brewery premises just lies

within the LOAEL contour, the remainder does not. The reason why the noise contour has this indented shape here, is due to the presence of buildings, which, as you know, in themselves, tend to attenuate the spread of noise, because they provide barriers in their own right, so that is the explanation for the way in which the contour spreads across the landscape in this location.

36. And that is reflected in the numbers which we see at P11072, where you can see, if you look at the bottom line of this slide, you can see the familiar range of information. I won’t read it out, just we are predicting a small degree of change in the ambient noise environment, following coming into operation of the railway, of the order of 1dB, both day and night in this location. And 1dB, as you know, is below a level that will be perceptible.

37. If we go back to A16503, and I’ll just complete the remaining points, paragraph 11, for those reasons, we are not predicting that there will be any significant loss of enjoyment from those who occupy the dwelling on the site, but in the event that that dwelling experiences any loss of value, and the owners and occupiers of that premises experience loss in the value of their property as a result of the coming into operation of the railway, a year after its coming into operation, they will be able to maintain a claim for the amount of that loss of value, under the terms of Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

38. And finally, the notice period for works affecting the road is something that will form part and parcel of the arrangements that we will be negotiating with the local highway authority, and the local authorities, to ensure that the local community, including those who live in the local area and those who work and run businesses in the local area, are given proper due, and advance warning, of the dates when HS2’s works and traffic are likely to start being seen on roads, and we are committed under the terms of the information papers, to entering into community engagement of that kind, and the need for modern and high quality community engagement of that kind will be written into the contracts, to which the nominated undertaker and his contractors will have to comply, or otherwise, they will find themselves with the Secretary of State breathing down their neck. And I’ve no doubt that colleagues of the Committee in this House, if they receive complaints that matters are not being properly notified, will be knocking on the Secretary of State’s door in their numbers and saying, ‘Get on and get these

contractors to do their job properly’.

39. But experience with other projects has shown that these arrangements work well.

40. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think, Mr Chairman? I wasn’t able to hear the petitioners, but the point they were making, as they arrange tours up to six months in advance, what’s the prospect of getting more than two weeks’ notice? They may say it says, ‘Two weeks’ notice’, they are asking for three months. You may not be able to commit to three months, but can it be said that the people arranging works, if there is to be disruption, will give as much notice as possible which could be longer than – should be longer than two weeks, whenever that’s possible.

41. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It will be, wherever possible. And where it is known that a particular business which lies along a construction route, one of the advantages that it enjoys is that it is able to give early notice of events, tours and so forth. I have no doubt that that is the sort of factor that will be borne in mind in the preparation of a well-drawn community engagement and community relations arrangements, under the relevant HS2 contracts.

42. Unless there’s anything else, those are my points in response to this petition.

43. CHAIR: Mr Jenkinson, do you want to come back, briefly?

44. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: Yes, is this my final chance to make a comment?

45. CHAIR: Yes.

46. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: F irstly, thank you for your reply, and again, for your time; we appreciate it. I understand HS2 have got a difficult job; it’s a complicated project and in many ways, it’s being carried out extremely professionally, and I thank Mr Mould for his responses. I’m almost persuaded to think that we haven’t got a case on listening to the reply, but I know that we do.

47. We have no win here, we’ve got to deal with the problems and pick up the pieces, and then deal with lengthy compensation procedures. When, in our correspondence with HS2, prior to this, we were sent an email saying, ‘Click this link, follow the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, you get 30 minutes of free advice’.

48. It gives an indication of what we could potentially be facing with six or seven years of construction. I don’t want to go back blow by blow on every single point; extended tunnel, we’ve discussed, I think our point is, if you end up north of Aylesbury, there wouldn’t be the construction issues in our area, and we wo uld hold to that, there wouldn’t be the need of the volume of HGVs at our bottleneck.

49. The relief road, I didn’t read it out, but in our response, it says we need it well sign posted to the brewery and with good signposting, we would maintain our loyal customers, but also win in gaining traffic. When we added the brown tourist signs to the brewery, the traffic to the shop increased by 30%. We know that the signs work, and that’s how we would deal with the relief road.

50. Our main issue is not the professionalism and the plans that are going ahead, although they are serious, is what happens when things that happen don’t happen as expected, and quite a few times in the response is, ‘We don’t expect, we don’t have plans to’, but the problem is with the best laid plans, there are mistakes, and the problem is, we can’t afford, as a small business, to pick up the pieces and argue it each time. We live on site, we can’t be responsible for dealing with the level and the scale of this project and our appeal to the Select Committee is please, help us with a reasonable response with HS2.

51. MR GEORGE JENKINSON: I think one of the things that – to come back to, which Mr Mould mentioned earlier, is that we are not against change. We understand change, we would have had to come here on a horse and cart if change didn’t exist. What we’re concerned about is how the change is managed and it’s trying to make sure that it’s managed reasonably, and to cover experiences which we have, first hand, in the so called unforeseen. I think that is really trying to encapsulate why we’re here and what we’re trying to discuss. So, that is where we’re looking for sort of comfort and understanding from HS2 via the Select Committee.

52. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: And I think, just to finish off, is, we’re not arguing to increase the size of our business here today, we’re not asking for more outlets or to increase our profitability, or to improve the view from our own house, all we’re asking for is our business to survive unscathed, for months, an upheaval, that is coming our way and the potential for which is the survival of our own business. For a project that is

of no benefit to us or the residents of Buckinghamshire or the Chilterns at all, unless of course the Select Committee hear our plea.

53. We are a small business, with limited resources, as I’ve mentioned, and when I return to the brewery tomorrow, to my desk, I will have spent nearly 40 days with this process, dealing with HS2, which a business of our size can ill afford. And at the end of it all, I’ve found that I’ve spent time not spent on increasing sales, increasing profitability, or looking after our customers, or training our fantastic and loyal staff, but on trying to prevent HS2 or the Government, via HS2, from effectively closing our business; there isn’t a better way, from these plans, of a plan to close our business, than this.

54. We’re not petitioning, or presenting our case, to improve our lot; I wish we were, but all I can do today is to present our case in black and white, and from experience with Thames Water, of what happens with the best laid plans. This is not six weeks, this is six years and we have to live with it, night and day.

55. Therefore, our plea to the Select Committee, is please support a long bore tunnel, at least, if not a relief road, which would allow us to have at least, some benefit and light at the end of the tunnel and allow us, as the C hiltern Brewery, to continue to flourish and to support the local area, and the local economy. So, please, our appeal still goes ahead, on the points we’ve raised, and I’m not convinced they’ve been sufficiently dealt with by Mr Mould

56. MR HENDRICK: A question, Mr Jenkinson. I mean, clearly, you’re either not convinced or very anxious about the possibility of road closures in the vicinity of the brewery. What is to say that even if HS2 wasn’t going ahead, there would still be an extreme possibility that there could be road c lo s ures? You know, that’s not impossible is it?

57. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: With just general life, with works going on. There’s a difference; we’ve dealt with that with 35 years of trading history, so we’ve dea lt with resurfacing of roads, and –

58. MR HENDRICK: That’s what I mean.

59. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: – various other projects, but that’s slightly different to six years of planned, massive scale projects.

60. MR HENDRICK: But the difference to the traffic, Mr Mould made quite clear, was not particularly significant.

61. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: I think that’s statistical. There – it depends again on where you live. If you – in terms o f statistics, if you read the statistics, we’re closer to the noise of HS2 being beneficial to us, than actually being detrimental, if you look at the statistics, because it’s closer to being in the white than it is in the red, or the green, which is beneficial.

62. The 3% that was mentioned is on total traffic. The issues is, yes, total traffic, but in terms of the convenience – the problem for us, is that HGV traffic is doubling, so 3% on total traffic, which is customer traffic, but HGV traffic, which is a problem, is doubling.

63. MR HENDRICK: You mention loyal customers, how – have you done any surveys as to how many of your customers are passing trade, they just happen to be passing and see the brewery there?

64. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: About 50% of our trade, we believe, is passing tourism traffic, that pick up the brown tourist signs and come in. Our regular traffic, our regular customers, come in at known times, at particular times during the week and during the year.

65. MR HENDRICK: How do you know the difference between those that pick up the brown signs and those that just happened to be passing?

66. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: We engage with them, when they come to the shop, so we talk to them, ‘How did you hear about us, where did come from?’ – plus, we know our regulars.

67. MR HENDRICK: And don’t you think a bypass might actually funnel off some of the potential customers you might want?

68. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: In terms of – with good road signage, we have a

shop which is on the other side of the Wendover Road bypass, so our road was split in two. There’s a good successful butchers there, and they have managed, with good signage, to be able to maintain their trade, so it’s – they key is signage. And – yes, there is a potential there might be a small drop, but the fact is, unless you’re a resident on the road, the noise on the road is significant, already. And then we’ve got the noise from, you know, potentially the train, not just the rolling track, but the pantographs as we ll, and I do appreciate the comment that there’s three to eight metre high mitigation or noise buffeting panels, which I wasn’t aware of – or earth mounds, I believe, I wasn’t aware of, so we appreciate that. Our request is, could that be extended.

69. MR HENDRICK: I think you request was that there was no gaps.

70. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: No gaps, exactly. We’re in a shadow and I notice the comment that the building creates a shadow which puts a little plug in our area, which makes the shadow – the area white. My response to that, is buildings don’t move, but trains so. And so, before the train reaches the building and leaves it, there will be so me p ick up of noise and the – I think it’ll be the noise effect will be larger than 1dB. But I don’t want to get stuck on decibels and percentages.

71. CHAIR: Okay.

72. MR GEORGE JENKINSON: Just to add a bit to what my brother has said to answer the question as well. When we applied for our planning permission, we engaged with our local – our customers and took them through the plans and we were then able – we asked them where they lived, and we were able to determine quiet accurately, what sort of distances people travelled from, whether they were local, whether they weren’t. With regards to the traffic and the relief road, there’s a difference between the HGVs and who may well be – le t’s hope that they are potential customers, but the regular road traffic, with a bypass with accurate and good signage, after it’s all be completed, we can cope with – I think what we’re talking about here is what happens with all the changes to the roads as the road system is altered, during the six to seven years’ worth of construction. That’s – it’s the construction rather than the future that we’re trying to grapple with.

73. CHAIR: Is that your evidence?

74. MR GEORGE JENKINSON: Thank you.

75. MR THOMAS JENKINSON: Thank you.

76. CHAIR: Well, thank you for your contribution. I’m going to move on to petition number 323, AP247, Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty and Tatiana Wilde, Edward Briggs. Okay, Mr Mould?

Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty and Tatiana Wilde, and others

77. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Mr Briggs is going to pull together some common themes, and in order to do that, he’s going to present the case on behalf of Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty, and Tatiana Wilde, which is petition 323. The Bertylib Partnership, which is 183, Robert Brown, 1090, and Mrs EC Stewart-Liberty, 1151. I’ll just introduce those petitioners to you in the usual way.

78. On the screen in front of you is P10991 which does the land holding of Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty and Tatiana Wilde, and that is the freehold ownership of Hunts Green Farm, which the Committee will recall just to the north of Leather Lane in the Chilterns. Mr Richard – Mr Robert Brown, I’m sorry to him, is the agricultural tenant farmer of Hunts Green Farm, so he had an agricultural holdings tenancy of that farm holding and I think, although the boundaries may be not entirely the same, I think, fo r mate r ia l p urpo ses, his ho ld ing corresponds to the red land that you see on the screen in front of you.

79. Elizabeth Stewart-Liberty, if we turn to P11039, she is the owner of some woodlands and other open land in the vicinity of the Lee and Hunts Green Farm, and if we turn to 11040, a mo ngs t her holdings are Jones’ Hill Wood, part of which you can see is subject to acquisition under the Bill and so an area of ancient woodland. S he a lso owns this area of land here, which is a portion of the ancient monument which is Grim’s Ditch which you’ve heard about during earlier petitions. And she owns an area of woodland which, as far as I know, isn’t named, though I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong about that, a strip of which is also required for the purposes of the Bill and is being shown on the arrow here. As you can see, her holding generally, is much more extensive and lies beyond the Bill limits to the east of the railway line.

80. MR BELLINGHAM: What’s south of that, Mr Mould?

81. MR MOULD QC (DfT): South of that holding, I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that question – I don’ know if Mr Briggs can help you on that.

82. MR BRIGGS: I’ll see if I can come back to you on that one.

83. MR BELLINGHAM: And it’s a working farm, is it basically?

84. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Bertylib Partnership is shown on P10974. That’s a property to the east of the line, and that property is a freehold property, some 500 metres to the east of the line, no land is proposed to be acquired from that property.

85. Just before Mr Briggs starts, I think it would be helpful, I think, if I just set out very briefly, what is proposed in relation to Hunts Green Farm and Mrs – Elizabeth, it’s Elizabeth Stewart-Libe rty’s lands. Hunts Green Farm – if we can turn to P11002. That’s Mr Brown’s – 11002. This gives you an overview of the construction activities that are proposed under AP4 in relation to Hunts Green Farm, and the principle point is that the area of brown shading that you see shown with the cursor now in front of you, is an area that is proposed for a temporary material stockpile, and you’ll recall from previous petition hearings, in a nutshell, what is proposed here, is that substantial quantities of excavated material are to be brought from the south, along the trace, from the excavation of cuttings to the north of the extended Chiltern’s tunnel, at Potter Row and beyond. Those materials will find their way down onto the A413, to be taken the distance of about six kilometres to the road head at Nash Lee Road where they will rejoin the trace, at Nash Lee Road and then will continue their journey up to the north of Aylesbury where they are to be used for mitigation purposes.

86. Because of the block that is presented by the need for the railway to cross the Wendover valley it is not possible to carry that material all the way along the trace; it has to come off the trace, onto the road, and then come down that distance to Nash Lee Road. In order to regulate the rate of excavation of material from the cuttings to the south and to manage the flow of construction vehicles onto the highway network, to take it up to the north, we need an area where we can hold material and at the moment, our plan, which is a reasonable worst case plan, but it is a prudent way of approaching matters at this stage in the process of developing the scheme, is to have that area which

can accommodate the full quantify of excavated material, some 650,000 cubic meters of material, to have that area, which is the area shown in brown on the plan in front of you. And that area is an area that falls, as you can see, within the holding of Hunts Green Farm. So, there is no doubt, that if that plan were realised, and if that worst case scenario were to eventuate, it would result in a substantial intrusion into the holding of Mr Brown.

87. MR BELLINGHAM: Fair compensation paid for that – would the land be rented on a temporary basis, or would it paid on a per tonnage basis? How, would it work?

88. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Whether or not the la nd is acquired or whether it is taken temporary, and it is only a temporary use, so there’s no reason in principle why that shouldn’t be subject to temporary use under Schedule 15; the compensation payab le to the agricultural tenant, Mr Brown, would be, I suspect, would principally be based on the degree to which his turnover and income, the profitability of this farm, was diminished as the result of the presence of that facility. And that would extend not only to the actual years during which is was in use for that purpose, which, at the mo me nt, I am told could be as much as four years in duration, but would also extend to the tapering period after following restoration, whilst the farm was going back up to pa r ity, on terms of profitability.

89. MR BELLINGHAM: And what about the land owner, would the land owner receive some compensation?

90. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The landowner would receive compensation for the effectively, based on a – I would have thought, on a monthly rental value o f the premises that were being – to replace the rent that he would otherwise obtain from his agricultural tenant.

91. MR BELLINGHAM: So he wouldn’t be receiving – I mean, normally if you dump something on someone’s land, the landowner is paid a payment per tonne.

92. MR MOULD QC (DfT): By the –?

93. MR BELLINGHAM: By the contractor.

94. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, both the freeholder and the agricultural tenant

would receive compensation and here, the arrangements under the general law and the statutory regime for land compensation, are designed to put the – both the freeholder and the agricultural tenant back into the position they would have been, insofar as money can do it, had their land not been taken and occupied for the purposes of this project; the principle of equivalence, as it’s described.

95. So, that is the basis upon which that quite substantial area of land within Mr Brown’s holding and within which the Stewart-Liberty’s freehold ownership is included within AP4, for a temporary use, but a use that will be temporary, that will continue on current plans for a period of some four years. And then of course, restoration thereafter, back to agricultural use. That is, as far as I think I should go in that respect, because Mr Briggs has an alternative to put before you.

96. Insofar as Elizabeth Stewart-Liberty is concerned, her position is – I can explain the position with regards to her on page 11043. I pointed out earlier, Jones’ Hill Wood, Grim’s Ditch, and that area – that slice of woodland, which are the three parcels of land that the project takes from this petitioner. As you can see, in each case, the land is required in order to construct the railway in cutting, as it passes through this loc atio n. And so those are lands that are inescapably required for the permanent construction of the railway. And of course, land compensation will be payable to that petitioner as the freehold owner of those lands in accordance with the Statutory Compensation Code.

97. Unless there’s anything else that I can help you with before Mr Briggs makes his presentation, that’s all I propose to say by way of introduction.

98. CHAIR: Good, thank you. Mr Briggs? Can you tell me, for clarity, which petitions – are you going to deal with all the petitions between the – that you named as –

99. MR BRIGGS: I think I am, I think you’ve got me for a little while. The only one…

100. CHAIR: Well, the first two petitions took four hours, so I hope you’re going to take –

101. MR BRIGGS: Well, I’ve sat through for most of them, Mr C hairman.

102. CHAIR: I’m counting on you, Mr Briggs.

103. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: Mr Briggs has done about – up to now, he has had a good reputation.

104. CHAIR: I believe so.

105. MR BRIGGS: I hope I don’t destroy that now. Thank you,

106. CHAIR: So, is there no one – so you will deal with all these petitions together?

107. MR BRIGGS: There’s one – Mr Richard Stewart-Liberty, which is petition number 570; he will appear in person after I’ve finished.

108. CHAIR: Okay.

109. MR BRIGGS: If that’s okay.

110. CHAIR: But other than that, you will deal with all the rest?

111. MR BRIGGS: Yes, and will refer to the – in respect of Hunts Green Farm, the Stewart-Liberty family, there are various – the AI Stewart-Liberty Trust and the Bertylib Partnership and the Bertylib LLP I will refer to as the Stewart-Liber ty family, for want of a…

112. CHAIR: Okay.

113. MR BRIGGS: Rather than complicate things. Mr Chairman, to my right is Robert Brown who is the tenant of Hunts Green Farm, and I’m obviously appearing for him, but I’m going to give you a little bit of background about the farm and then Mr Brown is going to read a statement, if that’s okay.

114. Be fore I start, could I just address the point that Mr Bellingham made a second ago about the compensation, as I think Mr Bellingham was referring to a payment on a per tonnage basis by a contractor for depositing material. I think the compensation that Mr Mould was outlining is a very different basis of compensation. I just didn’t want to think that were one and the same.

115. Now, Hunts Green Farm, which you’ve got and Mr Mould has illustrated to you, could I go slide A16421 please? It’s a holding that extends to 240 acres, or thereabouts. Robert Brown is the fourth generation of the Brown family to farm the holding and the

family have been there since the early 1900s. This was a traditional farmstead. If I go to the next slide, please, and farm buildings. The ma in fa r m building is listed, Mr Brown’s elderly parents live in the farmhouse that you’ve just seen on the previous s lide.

116. The farm is mainly and arable and grassland farm. There’s approximately 140 acres of combinable crops, and the remainder being permanent pasture. The ground is capable of producing high yields, and particularly in good years, although in wet years, it can suffer as any other.

117. I think the important issues here is much of the impact on the scheme is going to be on the arable land which tends to be the most profitable area of the farm, but it also, as proposed, extends onto the permanent pasture. The permanent pasture has not been ploughed for many, many years, and is very species rich and is something, if it’s lost, will be very difficult to replace.

118. It’s also in the entry level stewardship scheme. I think if we go to A16423, please, this gives you an extent of the holding, the farmstead is here, and the line of the trace is running through there.

119. MR BELLINGHAM: And just for ease of reference, when we visited the site, the visit that the first Committee paid, we parked – well, we walked down a lane, didn’t we, where did we park? Can you remember – Mr Brown might be able to help us.

120. MR BRIGGS: Apparently you parked in the farmyard, whic h would be here, going down there.

121. MR BELLINGHAM: We walked down this track here, and you had a tractor, I think, with a logo on it.

122. MR BROWN : That’s right, that’s the one. I remember.

123. MR BELLINGHAM: Pardon?

124. MR BROWN : I remember.

125. MR BRIGGS: Could we go to the next slide which shows, I think – which is 16424, that illustrates the impact of the scheme on there. Now, can I ask Mr Brown just

to read out a short statement in respect of the farm and the impact of the scheme and his involvement before we move on?

126. MR BROWN : Good afternoon. As you know, I’m Robert Brown. I started farming at Hunts Green when I was 15. In fact, I was involved in doing things around the farm as an eight year old, because my farmer was a bit of a hard man. I am the fourth generation and the farm is my livelihood. Whilst I do not own it, the farm is my asset and security as a tenant. It is small by current standards, at around 250 acres and the land is not the easiest, but I have learnt how to get the best from it.

127. HS2 is a body blow to me. It will go right the way through the middle and will change everything. The landscape and the farming. I have campaigned for a tunnel and hope that this will be reconsidered, but I have to be realistic, and that is why I am here today.

128. I want to keep farming at Hunts Green as best I can, but I need – sorry, let me start again. I want to keep farming Hunts Green as best I can, but to do so, I need HS2 to take a different view of things.

129. Putting nearly 20 foot of waste on my fields will be disastrous. Whatever the experts say, the land will never be the same again, and it will be out of use for years and I shall be getting older. The soil is heavy, and will be – what’ll happen when you take heavy vehicles all over it; I know what it’s like when we run on it when it’s too wet, and the weight and the waste, it will become an absolute unworkable mess, when it’s given back to me.

130. If the railway is to go through Hunts Green, it will be disruptive enough. What I ask is that the farm is not used as a stockpile, but the activity is confined to route. I can then carry on, as best I can, under the circumstances. I do not want to be interrogated by all you gentlemen, so I have asked Edward Briggs to put my case in the best way possible and to try and get HS2 to look again at the plans and minimise the disturbance to me, my business, and all those surrounding me. Thank you.

131. MR BRIGGS: Thank you, thank you very much. This is illustrative of the slide we have in front of you, but I think it would be he lp ful, and we do have a vid eo, I think, whic h I’ve told if I ask for it, it will suddenly produce by magic, to show you – showing

the escarpment in the context of the property, because it’s worth noting that the area in yellow and the trace is very much on an escarpment, overlooking the valley.

132. MR BELLINGHAM: So let’s have a look, good idea. Can we have a look?

133. MR BRIGGS: It’s also interesting to note, while we’re waiting for that, that reportedly the Brown family was in Roald Dahl’s novel, the Fantastic Mr Fox, one of the farmers, notably Boggis, Bunce and Bean. I’m not quite sure whether he was Boggis, Bunce or Bean.

134. That’s not the right one. I thought there was another one.

135. MR HENDRICK: Is there a reference or a name for the file?

136. MR BRIGGS: It was – I haven’t got a reference; we weren’t given a reference for it, we were told to ask for it, and it would be put on. S hall I carry on while we’re waiting?

137. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well just go through – we’ve got four.

138. MR BRIGGS: Can we put up another slide in the meantime, is that probably the best thing? A41625. It’s been somewhat of a rollercoaster for both the Stewart-Liberty family and Mr Brown in respect of the farm. We’ve had a number of different proposals, starting with the original scheme, which you have in front of you here, which this proposal was to take up to 180 acres of the farm, approximately 50% of it, for what was then termed a sustainable placement. That’s very illustrative. I mean, that’s the equivalent, in real terms, of seven St Paul’s Cathedrals, to put in one million tonnes’ worth of material. It’s 1.8 million tonnes, and one million cubic metres of spoil. And so we had that potential to be there on a permanent basis. And the total area, the permanent area to be lost then was 35.34 hectares. And that was considered to be either major, or going to moderate but I couldn’t really see how it could be considered that the impact would be moderate by any stretch of the imagination.

139. If I then go onto the AP2 and therefore the next slide, which is 16426, this was a reduction in the original proposal and it came down to 800,000 cub ic metres of material which was going to be a on a temporary basis, primarily for approximately four years. The intention was that the temporary storage of material was to be removed and restored

to agricultural use when no longer required.

140. Again, this was considered to be a major to moderate adverse effect, but again, we struggle to see how moderate can be considered. If I then go to the next slide, which is A16427. This was showing the post restoration slide, having – the previous slide we show, we show the extent of the excavated material, and this is going to be the finished product. This showed 46.46 acres to be permanent acquired.

141. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Hectares or acres?

142. MR BRIGGS: Acres or 18.8 hectares. To be precise, which is still quite a large area. And this was proposed to be moderate impact, but again, this was going straight through the centre of the holding, and again, we struggle with the reference – no reference to major.

143. This AP2 is more favourable in the long term, but it takes more land permanently, which is 19% of the farm, and the temporary storage would prevent the farm and affect operating for four years. And the majority of that area would be covered by the temporary stockpile, particularly, if I point to the two areas of pasture up here, the permanent pasture, which – I don’t know whether –

144. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Not picking up…

145. MR BRIGGS: The two top fields here and here, which go in close proximity to the listed building complex. That was permanent pasture that has never been ploughed, for many, many years, and the damage to that, if it is filled or stored on, as envisaged, would be catastrophic. And we anticipate that the farm would be unsuitable thereafter for cereal production, and I think that’s the key to – once we – even if you take off the temporary material, once it’s gone, it’ll be very difficult, if not impossible, to get back what you had before.

146. It also reflects the fact that the bottom half of the farm would be severed from the main homestead, and given the works going on in Leather Lane, getting to that would be incredibly difficult. The only part of the farm that would be accessible, would be the Kings Lane land to the north, which is just off the top of your screen. Ah, we’ve got the video, thank you.

147. This is the homestead in front of you; you’ve got the permanent pasture fields to the left and to the right, and the arable field beyond, you’ll see where the pylon is in the distance, that’s approximately where the trace is looking to run, parallel to there. And in context, you’ve got Grim’s Ditch in the corner here. And you’ve got the main road in the valley down beyond and you’ll see that the fields sit on the top of the escarpment, looking down. Now, this is coming back from the other direction, you’ve come back from the other way, from the north coming down back to the south. Again, you’ve got Grim’s Ditch in front of you; you’ve got the two areas of woodland owned by Mrs Stewart-Liberty, or – to the right hand side and the main arable block straight in front of you, there.

148. The soil proposed to be stored is in this area here, and towards the end, our proposal is to put a soil storage area in this approximate area here. We’ll come onto that. Where’s that coming from, is that –?

149. MR BROWN : That’s going towards Leather Lane.

150. MR BRIGGS: That’s going towards – we’re just coming off to the edge of the holding here. Leather Lane is the boundary.

151. MR BROWN : It’s the trees, is Leather Lane.

152. MR BRIGGS: The area we’re suggesting at the end, to put the soil, is in here, and if you imagine, the line is coming along the trace here.

153. MR BROWN : It’s quite a steep slope.

154. MR BRIGGS: So, hopefully, that gives you some context of what we’re talking about. Thank you. Can we go back to the last slide, please? Can we go now to 16428? We’ve subsequently had AP4 which is in front of you here, and this includes the amendment for the positioning of what’s called the autotransformer station which is this block in here, I believe. Is it that one, or is it that one?

155. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s the transformer station there.

156. MR BRIGGS: Yeah. The permanent effects of this is that 51.89 acres would be acquired permanently, and therefore we’ve lost more land and again, this is classified

from major to moderate, as a permanent effect and major to moderate temporary affect, but I still struggle with the reference to moderate in there at all.

157. AP4 is substantially worse for the farm because it then includes 22% of the holding, part of which is to include the autotransformer station. We have got – could I go to – the next one is A1642(9). This shows the finished article in AP4, which you’ll see the autotransformer station in the bottom right hand corner – just above the trace. And the spoil that has been permanently deposited, which is the green sausage above the line. If I can then go on to the next slide, A1642(10), this illustrates – we’ll come on to some cross-sections and this is simply here to just show you where those cross-sections are taken. You’ve got 1A and 1B. And therefore can I go on to the next slide, which is the cross-sections. You’ll see that the green – probably the top one is the most illustrative. The brown area is illustrated to be the final deposit on 1A above and you’ll see similarly on 2A to 2B below. And the depth of that is, I think – my eyesight is just fa iling me here – it’s about five metres, isn’t it? Four metres.

158. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Closer to the line, yes.

159. MR BRIGGS: Yes. So that’s what we’ll be left with in profile. The line will be a cutting there, but it takes out the majority of our arable land and the temporary works damage the permanent pasture which, as I said before, will be very difficult to replace. We also have no indication of how long that material is going to be left there for. Once it’s there, what control do we have over it? How long is it going to be left there for?

160. Now, we have included a report from David Neil Smith. This is an attachment. I don’t propose to go through it now because it is attached for the Committee if you wish to read it in due course. If Mr Mould wants to ask Mr Neil Smith questions about it we’re more than welcome to do that, but it’s a question of whether you want me to do that or you’re happy to read the witness statement which is in our pack, or is in our slides at A1643(1), if that’s what you prefer to do. I’m conscious of time and I’m quite happy with that, if Mr Mould is happy with that.

161. CHAIR: I think we’d prefer to do that.

162. MR BRIGGS: Okay. Thank you. But in effect what that is saying is that whilst Mr Brown has a viable farming business here now, this proposal would be catastrophic

on his farming business.

163. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Both during the works and afterwards.

164. MR BRIGGS: Yes. Yes. So really, it’s what Mr Brown’s survival plan is. And also, this is very much supported by the Stewart-Liberty family, who have had a very lo ng-term relationship with Mr Brown and are very much, we think, on like minds. The area of land that was permanently acquired under AP2 – and I’m going back to my European language – of 18.8 hectares, if we stuck to that area Mr Brown could cope with that permanent area of acquisition. The problem we have is the temporary acquisition and the damage that that is going to do to the land and the reality is that it will not be able to be properly reinstated.

165. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you want to point that out on the next slide?

166. MR BRIGGS: Can we go to the next slide please? What our proposal is, is to, in effect, curtail the permanent to the AP2 design, which is the trace with the small green sausage above you, which is highlighted here, if you can see there. We also are suggesting that –

167. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: So you keep that land built up as close as you can to the line.

168. MR BRIGGS: Yes. Yes. And clearly there is material there that can be deposited per ma nently there and we can live with it. We’re suggesting that the dark area immediately to the – no, it’s not to the south; it’s probably to the…

169. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: West.

170. MR BRIGGS: Yes, it’s to the West, which extends to approximately five hectares. This will be severed by the scheme. It’s on a steep slope and we believe that it will be possible for HS2 to use the site as a permanent deposit to deal with the material during the scheme. It may not be enough for them to put all of their material there, but it’s certainly an option which can be looked at with other options. The benefit of that, it would preserve the main part of Hunts Green Farm to the north and, most importantly, it would enable Mr Brown to carry on farming.

171. This is not just a question of compensation. This is something about the socioeconomic fabric of this village. The Browns have been there for 100 years or so and by proposing the scheme as it is, it basically brings farming to an end. And I just do not think from a socioeconomic point of view and the Stewart-Liberty family, who have had a very long association with The Lee, strongly believe that we must try and preserve this to be a viable farm as much as possible. So we have put this proposal to relocate the autotransformer station to the west, to sacrifice the area, the five hectares, again for putting material there, and that may end up as tree planting or landscaping or something in the future. You know, we’re realistic enough but that area will be written off once it’s used. This will still enable the permanent pasture to be farmed without being damaged and produce the high-quality hay that Mr Brown has produced, being meadow grass from unimproved pasture land, for many years.

172. If we can go to the next slide, this is in profile of what we’re proposing. In effect, we have lifted the material from here and we’ve put a higher amount of material here. We recognise that that may not be sufficient for all of the land, but what is important to note is that if we’re not stripping the topsoil back off the main block, we think that we are saving approximately 200,000-250,000 cubic metres of material. The soil has to be stripped off and stockpiled, which is the topsoil, whilst the works go on. So there is a significant saving there. We also think there are some other places where some material could go to. The compound area at Rocky Lane, for example, is another site that is not too far away, has a close access to the public road, and we think that by looking at that more creatively and coming up with solutions rather than just putting a big blob on a working farm – which to us, to be frank, is a luxurious way of dealing with it. I’m sure if this was in a much more built-up area we would be looking at far more comprehensive and compact solutions.

173. So that, in effect, is Mr Brown’s case and the Stewart-Liberty family’s case in respect of Hunts Green Farm. If we allow this to carry on as it is, the farm will be destroyed. Whether it’s on a temporary basis or a long-term basis, we cannot see how it can be viable. Mr Neil Smith has provided a witness statement to that effect and we do need to come up with a workable solution.

174. I think in the final slide, which is I think 14, I give you a summary table of the relevant points: the land taken for construction, the temporary land, the permanent land.

The reason one doesn’t add up with the other is some of the material placement area is permanently acquired. That’s why there’s a differential. We believe that we can store 200,000 cubic metres in the five hectare stockpile compared with much larger volumes, but we don’t think we need all of those much larger volumes because we’re not stripping back topsoil. We also think with clever working, utilisation of other sites and more particularly taking material away at a quicker basis, drip-feeding it out when it comes through rather than just building it up and building it up, we think this is a workable solution. I come back to the point that if this had been a tighter area and we did n’t have the land to play with, I’m sure HS2 would have come up with a solution like that. So that’s, in a nutshell, in respect of Hunts Green. Should we deal with that and then I’ll come back to Mrs Stewart-Lib erty’s specific points? Is that probably the best way to deal with it?

175. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m fine with that, yes. It’s helpful to have this slide in front of you because you can see that on the top line, the land taken during construction, the figure is a consistent figure all the way across the variations since the bill scheme. And that reflects the inescapable truth that I mentioned to you in opening, which is this: at this stage in planning the project, we need to have an area which can accommodate 650,000 cubic metres of excavated material. And that area, the alternative site that has been put forward as you can see, is very far below that which would accommodate that.

176. Once you accept that for planning purposes now, then the permanent solution in a sense becomes of less significance. If you assume that you need to deposit the material across that area on a temporary basis, necessarily you’re having to restore that area permanently. And the restoration of it then becomes a matter which is much more open to discussion with the farmer and the freeholder, and then consideration of whether there are opportunities to bring in other areas of land which are within the holding can obviously be considered.

177. Putting it that way sounds very stark, but it needn’t necessarily be so. I have to put it that way now because we have to be cautious and prudent in our approach. But Mr Briggs is correct to say that there is clearly going to be much more detailed planning about opportunities to balance the rate of excavation and the rate of removal of material on to the road network so as to seek to reduce the area that is actually required from that area of 48 hectares. I can’t make any commitment about achieving that today, precisely

because of the position, the stage at which we’ve reached, but we can certainly indicate that that is a factor that will continue to be given very close consideration.

178. It’s of course inextricably bound up with the arrangements that we’re able to secure with the county council in relation to the management of traffic on the A413, because the more readily we can get the lorries out, the more opportunities there will be to reduce the overall take that is required throughout the process of four years or so that this land is earmarked for temporary occupation. And the farmer and the landowner are going to be integral to those discussions because it’s their land and their business that is being affected by that proposal.

179. The promoter is acutely aware of the objective of seeking to avoid – doing all reasonable steps that we can, subject to that consideration, that essential construction rationale – of seeking to enable Mr Brown in particular to continue to operate his holding – recognising that, in saying that, inevitably on the basis of this strategy for construction his farm will be very significantly affected by the construction of the railway. But it is relevant to go back to the question of compensation, for this reason… Put it this way. The earlier that Mr Briggs has service of notice or the temporary occupation or permanent acquisition – the sooner that Mr Briggs gets his client’s claim for advance compensation in, the sooner that the project can start to make payments of advance compensation to cover – not, in Mr Brown’s case, the loss to his tenancy, that’s not the issue, but the loss to his business. And there’s no reason in principle why payments of advance compensation can’t be made during the construction phase to cover the losses he is able to show he is suffering as a result of the loss of this land. That’s a thought as to how the compensation regime may be able to be deployed in this case so as to seek to enable him to continue.

180. And yes, it will take time for the land to restore to full agricultural and arable use after initial restoration. And of course it will be challenging to restore that land fully to the productivity that it enjoys now, but there is a body of learning about stockpiling soil. There is a body of learning about effective restoration of agricultural land that has been affected over a period of time by a works of this kind. This is the sort of thing that has happened in relation to, for example, HS1 and the record is one of relative success in restoring agricultural land to a productive state.

181. So I don’t seek to belittle the impacts. I recognise them, but I suggest that at this stage it would be imprudent to accede to the suggestion that the area that has been shown to you for temporary storage purposes, to require the promoter to cut down that area given the vital role that it plays in the essential construction rationale for the railway in this part of the project. And the alternative that has been put forward simply won’t do as a replacement for that, nor indeed – if it were possible to deploy a whole range of different sites along the route for that purpose, then the project would have done it. A great deal of consideration has gone into this, as is reflected in the fact that this has been the subject not simply the original scheme, but also the APs. The one constant has been the need for this land for temporary purposes in order to regulate the flow of material out of the excavations and on to road and up to the trace beyond Wendover.

182. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I wonder, Mr Mould, whether there is a halfway house compromise here, which is this: that you take the land that the petitioner would prefer you to take, to the south, which on that slide is 0.2 million cubic metres, and then you undertake to take as little as possible of the land to the north by judicious… Getting rid of the surplus as quickly as possible. It does seem that the original proposals were quite generous to HS2 Ltd and I wonder, as the petitioner’s agent has said, if this was an urban environment you would be taking less land. And I wonder whether it’s possible to give consideration to taking less land here.

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, it’s certainly possible to give consideration to it. I mean, it’s fair to say that the suggestion that this alternative area of land to the west of the trace might be used at least in part in substitution for the area has only come relatively recently to us. I don’t make a complaint about that; it’s perfectly understandable. I have been told that there are concerns about whether that land would do. It’s on the wrong side of the trace. What I mean by that is the works are going to be going on on the eastern side anyway, so we’d need to think about how we can get large trace-like vehicles and so forth working with that land. It’s fairly sloping, so that presents a challenge. It also lies beneath an overhead power line, as you see, which also presents a challenge. So it’s not by any means without constraints.

184. But that said, you know, certainly it would be possible to review whether there are opportunities to combine the two. But what I wouldn’t want to do is to indicate that that

is likely to… The message I’m getting is one of considerable caution about the degree to which that will actually provide the opportunity at this stage to undertake to reduce the area that is required for temporary purposes. More likely to result in a reduction is as the project develops its construction thinking and we have a much clearer and more reliable understanding of the opportunities to move material off quickly from the excavations and thus to reduce the area that is required. And that of course is something which perforce, I’m afraid, has to take place hereafter, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to formulate some sort of memorandum of understanding to reflect that point, which can give the farmer at least some comfort.

185. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I think one way or another, certainly I personally – I don’t know about the rest of the Committee – would like to see every effort made to reduce the land taken from the petitioner.

186. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, of course.

187. MR HENDRICK: You said, Mr Mould, that this land they’re suggesting you move to is too small. Does that presume that the total amount of material, I think it was 60,000 –

188. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 650,000 cubic metres.

189. MR HENDRICK: 650,000 cubic metres is the total amount that would be needed for the work there. I think what Mr Clifton-Brown suggested is maybe rather than all the stuff being there to start with, that maybe it was brought in phases such that you could do it gradually rather than taking so much land at once.

190. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and I was seeking to answer on that basis but the challenge is that the excavated material is being excavated at the rate at which it is excavated. My understanding from the engineers and those charged with delivery of the project is that it would be extremely undesirable to plan the delivery of this railway on the basis that you somehow impose an artificial regulation on the rate at which material is being excavated. You want to be able to excavate at the optimum rate. The point is that ideally you would be able to take it away on lorries at the optimum rate, but at the moment we can’t assume by any means that that is the position. So we have to assume it’s coming from south at the rate at which it comes out. We have made that assumption

and as I say, the robust, reasonable, worst-case assumption here is that you have to be able to store all of it for a period of time before you send it out on the lorries. Now, that may well turn out to be an unnecessarily pessimistic assumption, but we can’t say that now. That’s the point.

191. MR HENDRICK: Yes, but if it was treated as a sort of buffer arrangement whereby you could guarantee there would always be more than enough for the ongoing work stored there, rather than just do it on a hand-to-mo uth ba s is.

192. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Well, I take your point. And as I say, it would be wrong, given the impact, for me to say we won’t look at whether there are opportunities to use this area in conjunction, but I wouldn’t want the petitioner to think that – because I have asked the project about this. I recognise the impact that the bill scheme has upon his business.

193. MR HENDRICK: How small is that land compared to the land area that you require?

194. MR MOULD QC (DfT): His own expert says it has a capacity of about 200,000 cubic metres.

195. MR HENDRICK: So it’s only a third.

196. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : It’s five hectares.

197. MR HENDRICK: So it’s only a third of what’s required.

198. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

199. MR BELLINGHAM: Mr Mould, could I just ask you this question? It does strike me that it’s not strictly necessary for this material stockpile to take place on this farm, is it? It could, in theory, go somewhere else.

200. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, in theory, but we haven’t been able to identify anywhere that is a more suitable location and no-one has suggested a more suitable location.

201. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I put it to you that there are quite a few large estates in

the Chilterns that probably would quite like an extra income stream, estates that are not affected or farms that are not affected by HS2? It seems to me that what’s unfortunate about this case is that not only are Mr Brown and the Stewart-Liberties going to have a farm cut in half, but they’ve got the added worry and an added challenge of the material stockpile.

202. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I want to be absolutely clear. This is not a permanent deposition.

203. MR BELLINGHAM: No, I realise that.

204. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is also a location which has the obvious advantage and particular advantage of being located directly adjacent to the work, to the trace.

205. MR BELLINGHAM: No, I understand that, absolutely.

206. MR MOULD QC (DfT): All I can say to you, Mr Bellingham, is that the project has looked very hard at locations because we, as much as anyone else, recognise that anybody who has to receive this material is going to find it an extremely undesirable thing to have to do. It is a clear and obvious imposition, but we have not found another location.

207. MR HENDRICK : But by your own admissions, it’s not just for the period that the construction work is going on that it’s going to be affected by this. There’s the problem of reinstatement afterwards, which could take a considerable amount of time for his land to come up to scratch to be of a reasonable agricultural nature in the future.

208. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Of course. And the project is committed to undertaking that process as effectively as it can and in as timely a way as it can, but it will take up to a year to restore. I freely acknowledge that. And even then the land will take further time to recover to the level of productivity, if it does at all, that he has at the moment. None of those matters is anything that I in any way seek to shrink from. As I say, I accept the point in theory that you make, Mr Bellingham, but the practical reality is that the project has been in gestation already for many years and there is no site that either we have identified or has been drawn to our attention that performs as well as this site. There are people along this route who will suffer disadvantage which is remediable

effectively only in money terms in order to construct this railway. We have done the best we reasonably can and we have taken a lead from things that the Committee have to ld us to try and improve further, but there are some instances where a private interest is disadvantaged in order to enable the scheme to be delivered, and this is an example of that.

209. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes. Well, my only plea is that you go the extra distance to try and make sure that the tenant and landowner are given really good compensation.

210. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

211. MR BELLINGHAM: And not be curmudgeonly about the amounts.

212. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You may take it that the project, the promoter, will not be curmudgeonly in relation to this and that if he is, he will find himself not only facing a claim in the relevant tribunal but he will find himself having to pay the costs of that claim as well. So I think –

213. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: One other reassurance that would help Mr Brown is if you could pay him a rate per tonne, for ever hectare you occupy, because after all it’s going to be pretty valuable to you, to HS2. The rate per tonne will compensate him more than the profit he would make out of that land for ordinary agricultural activities.

214. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I have to be a little bit careful about that, as you know, because the law requires the principle of equivalence to be provided. Again, I don’t say that the promoter won’t give some consideration to that. You make the point and those behind me will take it away and think about it, but I do also have to be careful about the implications of that.

215. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: If I was the agent acting for the tenant in this case, in the absence of the HS2 Bill, I’d be negotiating a fairly high price for you to deposit that so il.

216. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, well. But again, as you know, one of the purposes of the compulsory purchase regime for public works is to mitigate the risk that would otherwise arise through consensual negotiations of people holding public works to a price that they shouldn’t be paying. So there’s a balance to be struck there as well, but

what I’m very clear about is that the principle of equivalence here will lead to a certain result. I’ve explained that to you and I have certainly indicated, consistent with points that have been made in debates earlier in these Committee proceedings in the context of the NFU and so forth, that we should be looking in cases such as this to do what we can to ensure that compensation is paid at a proper rate and it’s paid in a timely way so that it actually is practically advantageous to those who are affected.

217. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think what we’ve been hearing, Mr Chairman, is that Mr Robert Brown wants to be able to have a viable farm during and after the works, if that’s at all possible. The second thing he has put forward are two suggestions, one of which is relatively new, I think, to the promoters, which is whether at least a part of that te mporary material stockpile can be, in effect, on the wrong side of the trace. I think this Committee could properly expect discussions to take place and consideration to be given to see whether that might be a help.

218. The second thing we’ve heard from Mr Brown is he would like the embankment by the line to be tucked up as close as possible rather than spreading out over half his fields on that side. It may be that the promoters should anticipate that the Chairman now or next week might say we would like to not conclude on this particular petition straightaway but have more discussions between the promoters and the petitioners. That would give the promoters also more time to see how much more they can reduce the possible impact. We realise what Mr Mould has said, that there’s some uncertainty as to how fast the material can be brought away from this temporary storage and that’s an uncertainty which is going to remain until the project actually starts, but I think from the discussion we have been having in this Committee, helped by Mr Briggs and Mr Brown, I think there should be an understanding that this is an issue where I think that going the extra mile/kilometre to save as many acres and hectares as possible would be appreciated and valuable and proper.

219. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Would you just allow me a minute? I just want to check where we are. Thank you very much for that. I’m very happy to leave the matter in that, yes.

220. CHAIR: Mr Briggs?

221. MR BRIGGS : Thank you, Mr C hairman. Just a couple of points. I perhaps

did n’t make it clear that there would be an element of volume in the green sausage on the new AP2 design. Although I have said 200,000 cubic metres, it’s –

222. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: An approximation.

223. MR BRIGGS: Yes. And my intention was feeding in the hopper and taking out the bottom. It’s the rate which we’ve never really been clearly given to understand, the rate of that. This permanent pasture, Mr Brown has confirmed, has never been ploughed in living memory. And to stick a million cubic metres of soil on it doesn’t seem the best use of that in times where our ecological habitat is under pressure. The other point I make is that by doing this we are saving having to strip the topsoil and the engineering topsoil off the area to the northeast of the trace. That will be a significant amount of material because it’s not only the 300 mil of topsoil; it would be the engineering topsoil and there would have to be an element of subsoil underneath it. By saving that, there is a significant volume to save.

224. We would welcome further discussions with HS2 on this, because you saw from the video it’s an incredibly sensitive area. It’s more than just compensation; this is a socioeconomic issue. We’ve got to try and preserve these farms as much as we can. They’re going to be neighbours to HS2 in the future and we want that relationship to go well. I have a lot of experience in compulsory acquisition and with restoration of land, and it’s actually very difficult to restore land to the condition it was. Despite the engineers telling you it’s all possible, the reality is it’s extremely difficult and it never quite gets back to where you should be. I think that’s everything on that particular part, but could I just turn to Mrs Stewart-Liberty now?

225. MR BROWN : Okay, thank you.

226. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you, Mr Brown?.

227. MR BROWN: Well, I’m happy with what’s gone on. I’m good with what I’ve heard so far.

228. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may not work, but it’s –

229. MR BROWN: It makes me feel a little happier anyway.

230. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : We’ll try and help you.

231. MR BROWN: It makes me feel a bit happier.

232. MR BRIGGS: With Mrs Stewart-Liberty, clearly Mrs Stewart-Liberty would echo very much what we’ve discussed today. But could I go to – we’ve got it now, thank you. As Mr Mould pointed out, this is a slightly more detailed plan of Mrs Stewart-Lib erty’s holding. And you’ll see that the woodland that is going to be directly affected by the trace, which is the two areas here with the nice black arrows, and Grim’s Ditch, which is not actually marked but it’s this area here. Mrs Stewart-Liberty’s other main concern is outlined in a kind of purple colour there, which is a bird reserve. The bird reserve was planted 25 years ago in memory of her late husband and has now developed into a fantastic nature reserve for the birds and the local community. Mrs Stewart-Liberty has preserved this land against all modern methods of farming and is very concerned to make sure that the scheme does not impact on it.

233. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the one that shows up on 16456, I think, at the back.

234. MR BRIGGS: I was going to go to the next slide, which I think would be 16456 and this is the bird reserve here. You’ll see it’s been planted and it is planted regularly with various species of feed-rich plants, primarily to feed bats.

235. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It works very well.

236. MR BRIGGS: It does work very well and as a consequence the population of wild birds around that area has blossomed and benefitted. We’ve heard in previous petitions the concerns about the proximity of the line to wildlife and the damage and we are very concerned about the impact of the works as proposed – i.e. the soil dump at Hunts Green Farm and the trace itself – on the bird population here and we would like some assurances from HS2 as to how that will be treated and how that impact will be prevented. Clearly, if we can move the soil away from that area back down to where we’ve been talking about, the further it is away from the bird reserve, the better that must be. But this is of great concern to Mrs Stewart-Liberty over and above the issues we’ve talked about – the woodland areas, which you know she was very concerned about losing. This is her prime concern.

237. MR BROWN : My two grass fields on top where they were going to put the spoil are sheeped now – they’re grazing the sheep on there. We don’t fertilise; we don’t spray; we do it all naturally – natural hay just as it comes – and we cut very late because the seasons are changing now. We cut late and Mrs Liberty’s wildlife – we get masses in those 40 acres across there and if I’d cut early like a lot of people would with fertiliser and everything you’d be killing our wildlife –

238. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’d be a massacre.

239. MR BROWN : There’d be massacre but we don’t and we cut later and it suits the whole situation.

240. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I hope you cut from the middle towards the headlands rather than from the headlands towards the middle.

241. MR BROWN : I have a thing on the tractor that runs in front of the mower and it scares everything up before the mower gets to it. It’s a homemade piece of machinery, but 50 years old.

242. MR BRIGGS: If I went to A16452 this would give you an indication of the context of the bird reserve against the trace. The trace is clearly marked in red over the blue land and the bird reserve – can you see where I’m marking – is there. The soil areas proposed, which we’ve been talking around, are in these areas here so, although the trace is some distance away, the actual soil as proposed would be coming very close and working, and we think it’s entirely inappropriate to move – push, in effect, wha t is a building site so close to that reserve. It could do a huge long-term damage and which has taken 25 years to establish. And that’s Mrs Stewart-Libe rty’s additional concern over and above the points we’ve raised.

243. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Mould?

244. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, we’re aware of this bird reserve. There are a range of measures set out in the Code of Construction Practice which provide for the management of potential risks to ecology during the construction of the railway, including the control of dust and other matters because dust is a potential hazard not only to human beings, but also to flora and fauna. The key thing is to be aware and to

factor that into the plans for the construction of the railway and the use of these lands that I’ve explained to you, and no doubt in the discussions that the Committee has indicated has found helpful that’s a matter that can be brought into account as well.

245. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, just to look ahead, whatever land is going to be needed for scraping off the topsoil and putting the temporary replacement, it might be possible to say to contractors, ‘By the way, you don’t do that by taking the land closest to the bird reserve; you do it by taking the lands closest to the trace first’ and then working in that way rather than working from the outside.

246. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I would’ve thought – no doubt I’ll be passed notes if I ge t this wrong, but one would’ve thought that that would be consistent with the construction logic as well, that you’d want to keep the deposit. If there were opportunities to reduce the are –

247. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: As close as you can.

248. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As close as you can to the trace, because one of the claimed advantages of this is that it is so proximate to the trace. It would be rather odd if one were to say in the same breath, ‘But we’d like to start working away from the trace’ – I think I might be right. Yes, they’re nodding fervently on that.

249. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In your rear view mirror.

250. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Of course, I always make sure I ask these questions before I answer them.

251. MR CLIFTON-BROWN : Don’t ask a question before you know the answer.

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Quite.

253. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Briggs?

254. MR BRIGGS: Well, hopefully I’ve made the point on that point on that. There’s no point belabouring it. We just need some comfort that on the bird reserve HS2 will do everything they can to ensure that the integrity of that reserve is protected.

255. I think that brings the Stewart-Liberty/Hunts Green Farm issues to an end, so

thank you, Robert.

Paul Pusey, John Cragg, Roger Pusey and Edward Briggs

256. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think Mr Briggs would like now to turn to petitions 1157 and 1166, Pa ul P usey and the trustees of the P usey Discretionary Trust. So I’d like to introduce you to those. We now move a little to the south and to Middle Grove Farm. If we put up P10966, M idd le Gro ve Farm and its attendant la nd holdings lie to the south of South Heath and you can see the area here.

257. Prior to the promotion of the extension of the Chiltern Tunnel in response to the Committee’s interim decisions in July, this was an area that was subject to much greater effect from the construction of the railway but if we can go to – I think we published one of the petitioner’s slides – A16479 –what now remains effectively under the AP4 scheme is the need for a vent shaft to be located among the C hesham Road and the location that is shown here and the petitioner has shown that the works, including the screening works that are applied for that purpose – and this is the C hesham Road here – and you’ve already been given evidence about the construction arrangements for this vent shaft, the duration, the traffic and so forth. Within the holding of the farm, o f whic h M r P usey, I think, is the tenant and the Trust is the freehold owner, there is a bungalow here which is Meadow Lane bungalow – and I can confirm because I think this was a point that was raised, that the project no longer seeks powers to acquire that bungalow in the light of the changes to the scheme that have been proposed under AP4.

258. Another point that I can confirm which I know was a source of concern to these petitioners is that where land is shown shaded in orange on plans associated with AP4 and is identified as land removed from the Hybrid Bill limits as a result of the AP, that land, assuming that AP4 is rolled into the Bill – that is our intention, as you know – assuming that that is approved by the House, then that land will no longer be subject to powers of acquisition and use under the terms of the amended bill. It will cease to be subject to purchase, powers of use or to any works associated with this railway build in those circumstances.

259. So what we’re left with then, insofar as direct effects on this holding is we’re left with the need to create this vent shaft and that involves construction and that also involves the works that you see on the plan on the screen in front of you.

260. CHAIR: Mr Briggs?

261. MR BRIGGS : Thank you. I’m grateful for Mr Mould confirming the issues of the landscaping. As he said that does deal with one of our principal concerns.

262. Can I go to A1647? I think the areas in blue in my plan are the ones we’ve just been talking about and the areas shaded in pink. Our concern really comes back to Meadow Lane bungalow and the proximity of that bungalow – and I think that’ll be 16475 – that this plan shows the working area and Meadow Lane bungalow is just here. This area appears to be acquired for a period of time. We’re still struggling to have the information as to the detail of what this actually means in the context of the occupation of Meadow Lane bungalow and indeed whether it will remain habitable during the scheme or afterwards. The context of this is if you look at the agricultural holding, this was envisaged to be a second homestead, for want of a better word.

263. I probably should introduce that I’m a trustee as well as the agent for the CJ Pusey Discretionary Trust and sadly Paul Pusey died in May of this year, and there is a third generation of children in respect to the farming enterprises, and it was our intention and one of the things we should look at was the possibility of creating a second holding, particularly one for the children. Now, we did have a planning permission for a farm building approximately here which we didn’t build because of the proximity of what’s happened with HS2. Now, it seems to me that the scheme as such, although we welcome the tunnel extension of AP4 because it has a significant benefit to the farm, the ques tio n is how do we deal with Meadow Lane bungalow and its proximity to the vent? We’re struggling to have the information as to the impact and whether it will be habitable afterwards and indeed whether we could run a holding. The farm is currently mixed arable and livestock holding – whether we could keep our livestock in a building so close to a vent – we know very little about the noise impact and that is our prime concern. And if it is necessary for us to move the bungalow to another part of the farm, which we’re prepared to consider doing, would HS2 be supportive of the planning app lica tio n to do so to take it away from that proximity so we can create that second posting which was the intention in the longer term.

264. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Do you have a photograph of the bungalow?

265. MR BRIGGS: I think we did. It was in number 8. The bungalow is here and it’s

a three-bedroom bungalow and it was occupied by Mr Charles Pusey up to time of his death several years ago and it was built as a farm bungalow and we’ve superimposed this into this area but it is very intrusive.

266. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: It looks from photograph eminently moveable.

267. MR BRIGGS: This was our point, but clearly this is an AONB and there will be planning issues to consider and without support from HS2 in respect of that I think it would be difficult, but I’m very unclear as to the impact of the scheme on the bungalow other than it’s right next door. I don’t quite know what this vent means. I look at the working area on the slide you’ve just shown before, but what we’re looking for from HS2 is a full support if have to do that to do so, so we can relocate it.

268. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be that the HS2 people can point to a similar vent in agricultural land – I’m not sure whether there was one on HS1, but it seems one way or another there’s a proper interest in being able to live without disturbance and their livestock not to be disturbed either, and so not now but perhaps at some stage HS2 may be able to explain to you what they understand the noise impacts might be or the main ones – the visual ones can be easy to understand.

269. MR BRIGGS: Can I go on to the next bit; I’ve got one other point in respect of the farm. It principally involves connection of trust to the family ownership. I appeared in front of this Committee in May or June of this year and one of the issues I raised was taxation and the problems that has caused and I’ve read this Committee’s first report and the reference to the issues of taxation that are affecting other people along the line. We have an issue here in the context of we have a discretionary trust which has a 10-year tax charge and we’re at the moment in a state of limbo because of HS2 and it causes us some difficulty, and may create additional tax liability because we can’t distribute assets in a way we normally would’ve done because of the presence of the scheme and I’m no t sure whether this Committee has had any guidance back from HMRC or in respect of how we deal with that, but it’s a real problem for us and it’s a problem that’s looming in two or three years’ time.

270. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It might be a suggestion that the trustees consider writing to HMRC explaining what the questions and dilemmas are, and asking if they’re prepared to be rather more specific than the vague assurance that we’ve had so far.

They might want a copy of the reply to the C hairman or the clerk.

271. MR BRIGGS: I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee following the last one, for which I never got a reply, and I’m more than happy to do that but what I’m just worried about is as we get closer and closer to the tax date and we don’t seem to have any resolution o f how we’re going to deal with the issue and ultimately the Trust, in this instance, will suffer financially because of that and I don’t want a big row with HS2 in respect of compensation. I’d like clear lines of guidance and I would like to get some time scales out of it, really, if I can.

272. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, a thought – wr ite to HM RC , explain what the issues are and say that you are doing this at the suggestion of the Committee and could they please copy their response to the Committee and you send a copy of that as well to the Chairman. It’s not guaranteed to work, but it sometimes does.

273. MR BRIGGS: They are I think, principally, the points I’ve got in respect of the Pusey family.

274. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

275. MR MOULD QC (DfT): From the promoter’s part, I think it’s important just to re me mb er that under the AP4 scheme no land is actually acquired from this holding or from this freeholder, and so I think if there is going to be correspondence with HMRC on the tax implications of course they will take account of the fact that the questions that have been posed hitherto have been posed in the context of the land compensation regime and, by definition, land compensation issues only arise where the land compensation is payable for compulsory acquisition and in this case, due to the changes in the scheme that we’ve proposed, that wouldn’t apply. So I just thought that point ought to be made.

276. Insofar as the impacts on this bungalow are concerned, the permanent position is that the bungalow and the occupiers of the bungalow will live alongside a piece of industrial plant and, as Mr Thornely-Taylor has explained to you, the project is committed to designing that plant so that it performs to the standard under the British Standard 4142 which requires, in simple terms, that it should operate so that the noise emitted from that plant will be no more than 5dB below the existing background level,

and that is the established technique and design objective which seeks to ensure that noise from new stationary industrial plant and machinery does not give rise to nuisance and disturbance to people who live alongside the location of that plant. So that is the technique that will be deployed here. We are committed to that under Information Paper E22.

277. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: To put that in simple terms, people shouldn’t be able to hear?

278. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It will form no more than part of the background noise, effectively, yeah. The reason why the standard is 5 dB below the prevailing background is that accounts for any rating character in the noise that might otherwise be rather more intrusive than the prevailing background.

279. So far as construction is concerned, clearly there will be a construction site here whilst the vent shaft is being constructed. I think you heard before that there will be an intensive period of about four months during which the material is excavated and taken away from the site. Then the shaft will be formed through concreting and then, although completion of the works won’t take place until towards the end of the overall construction of the railway – excavation will take place towards the end of the construction period – outside of that intensive period the actual impact of construction should be relatively limited, but, as appropriate and as necessary, the ordinary regime of the Code of Construction Practice will apply in this location as it will in other locations, and so matters such as control of noise, working hours, any dust or other air emissions of that kind, will all be subject to controls in accordance with the Code.

280. As I understand it, the Trust wishes retain ownership of this bungalow; it doesn’t wish to apply under any of the schemes. I only mention that because of course the Need to Sell scheme, although the focus of arguments on that has been in relation to residential applications, it also applies to owner-occupied agricultural holdings, so that is relevant in principle to at least some agricultural owner-occupiers, but that probably doesn’t apply in this case.

281. I think that covers the key points. As to whether the project would support an application for planning permission to relocate, the project doesn’t directly affect, in the sense of taking any land, this holding and, therefore, the arrangements that we’ve

indicated in the assurances to the NFU that we would lend support to applications for planning permissions to relocate buildings that are actually displaced by the scheme, that doesn’t apply here and I suspect that the mo st that the project would be able to do would be to provide information as to the factual nature of the works that are going to be carried out at this location. That would be the limit to which we would be able to do and I’m conscious of the fact that an application to relocate this building would have to face up to the fact that it lies within the AONB and so that obviously is quite a challenging point. But that’s a matter for the owners.

282. I think those cover the points of response on these petitioners.

283. MR BRIGGS: If I could come back on A16475, please. I think Mr Mould was splitting hairs when he said it doesn’t actually – land acquired from the same holding. In fact, following Mr Paul Pusey’s death, the Trust land and his land all have the same beneficial owners. Therefore, it will be one composite holding and, just because the area of land initially was owned by the late Mr Pusey and the working area is separate from the Trust land, which is Meadow Lane bungalow, in fact they will all become one beneficial owner. Therefore, I think it is wholly inappropriate to say there’s no land acquired from one holding to another.

284. In fact, they are in effect one single holding, and the point I’m trying to make is that in the no-scheme world, we would be putting farm buildings where the orange land is now on that plan and, by doing what HS2 are doing, they are stopping us from doing that. We have a planning permission for a building there and just to say, ‘Well, they’re separate ownerships, separate holdings. No land is being acquired by Meadow Lane’ is actually inappropriate in these circumstances. Actually it’s an issue for the Committee here because if HS2 are going to approach matters in that way, dealing with holdings that are structured for various understandable reasons to try and split them apart, fo r whatever reason, to the petitioners then that is not a good way to set up good, sound future negotiations and what we’re trying to do is come to a practical solution to this. We’re not trying to hide behind particular pieces of legislation.

285. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, if I’ve misunderstood the factual position and in fact there is an opportunity here to invoke our existing commitments to the NFU, then clearly we can have that conversation outside. I simply set out my understanding of

what the position was, but, as I say, if I’ve got it wrong then I’m sure we can get together and get it right.

286. But I do think it’s important that if we are going to formulate carefully a series of assurances to represent to bodies such as the NFU, that we try and work in accordance with those commitments and if there’s a case for changing them then that case can be made, but somewhere down the line one has to have some sort of rooted approach in principle. But, as I say, we can talk further if necessary about what the true facts are.

287. MR BRIGGS: That’s fine. I would just appreciate some guidance to HS2 fro m this Committee because I’ve had quite a lot of experience o f HS2 now in terms of communication and feedback and I would like to know when we are going to sit down and talk about it, and how we’re going to take this forward, really.

288. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If a building on this holding is displaced as a result of HS2 then we have given a commitment that we will take steps to seek to support – whether that word is used – effectively support by providing information about the impact of the works on that building. But my understanding was that this bungalow wasn’t displaced by HS2. Whether or not it’s in holding A or B if the bungalow is not physically affected directly by our proposals it will remain as you saw on the plans. So question is not, ‘Is it within holding A or holding B’, the question is: ‘Wherever it may lie within the ownership of the Trust, will it remain physically unchanged as a result of our works?’ As I understand it, it will.

289. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we understand two things. One is that a death in the family has made a difference and the second is that there’s a proposal that having separate farm holdings meant separate farm buildings. Thirdly, we understand that the present proposals don’t require part of the land and the cottage to be taken, but it does take land, part of the agricultural holdings, which the cottage is part and will be part.

290. I think it’s obviously open to the Committee not to give a direction, but at least make some comment both in dealing with the tax position, which we’ve talked about and whether there should be helpful words to encourage the planning authority to agree, were the petitioners to ask to have the cottage replaced somewhere else, that that would be seen as no net loss to the AONB and would be dealing with a problem caused by the HS2 proposal. So I think that we could probably leave it to have – and discussions will

obviously continue between Mr Briggs, both as an agent and as a trustee in this particular case, and the promoters, and we don’t have to write our report straight away.

291. MR BRIGGS: Thank you.

Trevor Lane of Lane’s Landscape Contractors

292. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The next petitioner is 320, Trevor Lane of Lane’s Landscape Contractors, and he is located in Stoke Mandeville. You can see the location on the sheet P10917, and if we turn to P10919, you can see his location on the aerial photograph and the line of the route running to the west of his land. He runs a family-run landscaping business at 35 Station Road, Stoke Mandeville and his concern, I think, can be revealed by P10920. We see his land outlined in red. You can see the line of the existing Risborough Road running through the village of Stoke Mandeville, and you’ll recall that the Bill provides a bypass to Stoke Mandeville and, as a consequence of that, the vehicular route through the village at the moment is stopped up and we’re left simply with a footpath running an underpass beneath the HS2 railway. As I understand it, Mr Lane has concerns about where that will leave him in managing and manoeuvring his heavy vehicles that use his land as a part of his business. No doubt Mr Briggs will explain that further now and I’ll hand over to him.

293. MR BRIGGS: Thank you, Mr Mould and thank you, Mr Chairman. I have Mr Lane with me to my right and he would like to make a short statement before we start.

294. MR LANE: Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. Edward is going to put our case forward in a few moments, but I would just like to give you a brief résumé of the business because it’s quite relevant. The business, as you’ve seen there, is actually based in Old Risborough Road, Stoke Mandeville. That’s where we operate from and it’s immediately adjacent to the proposed railway, so there’s several fronts on which it affects us. The address that Mr Mould gave there, 35 Station Road, is actually the office address, which is about half mile away. That’s the yard on that slide there.

295. So, the business started in 1958 when my father Alan, who was at the age of 32 then. He was born in Te rr ick, just up the road, and he’d worked all of his life from the

age of 14 on the local farm and then later on worked for a local turf company. So at the age of 32, as I say, in 1958, he decided to go out on his own, which was quite a brave step in those days. I became involved in the family business in 1983 at the age of 25 and I’ve been involved in the business ever since, so I’m now 32 years involved in the business. We’re a small family business currently with four employees. My wife is my business partner now and she works as the office administrator, so the business is now in its 57th year of trading.

296. Over the years, my father rented various parcels of land in the area, from small sheds and buildings, from which he operated the business. These ranged from a disused poultry shed, which is just up the road from our premises now.

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

Sitting suspended On resuming—

298. CHAIR: Order, order. We’re going to reconvene, because we’ve got a quorum, and Mr Bellingham said he said he might be late. So, sorry about that interruption. Please continue.

299. MR LANE: Okay. I’ll continue, thank you. Yes, I was just going over the past years when my father – probably 20, 30 years ago, he rented various parcels of land and buildings through Terrick and Butlers Cross, and a disused poultry shed at one stage on the former BOCN site, which is about half a mile from where we are now. In 1984, after being moved around from different rental properties, he was offered a small parcel of land in Old Risborough Road, the paddock, and that is where we are currently situated. The land owners at the time were in financial difficulty and were looking to sell, so my father managed to raise enough money to purchase this land that you see on the slide there, which for was, for him, something at long last after many years he could call his own.

300. Obviously, it means security for him and somewhere as a good base for the landscape industry to grow. It also meant an end to the uncertainty of renting premises. The business today, as you see, we are situated in the paddock in Old Risborough Road.

That road is the former Risborough Road, and it is now a lay-by, but it is quite a busy lay-by. There are other properties further round and businesses, and it’s quite well used by vehicles both day and night, so it gives us a certain amount of security down there. The business has continued to grow year on year since 1984, and during those years has employed many local people including my two sons. These premises have been our starting point every working day for the last 31 years.

301. Sadly, my father died earlier this year, but when the plans were announced for HS2 in March 2010, he was in good health. Understandably, at that time he was very concerned that our premises would be severely affected or indeed lost to the new railway. Since his passing, myself and Edward have met with HS2 and I’ve been assured by HS2 that we will be able to continue to operate from these premises in Old Risborough Road, subject to the re-siting of some of our storage buildings in one part of the yard, and I think at that point, it’s probably a good time to handover to Edward.

302. MR BRIGGS : Thank you, Trevor. Thank you, Mr Chairman. As Mr Lane says, we really want to come away today with some assurances in respect of the impact on the business, and we have had an indication of – this slide in front of you is an overhead picture of the yard, which you’ll see is this area here. The reason I’ve got this picture is, you’ll see to the right-hand side there is a pumping station here. If I go to the next slide, this shows the land acquisition. If I’ve got my bearings right, the ownership is this block, it’s the square coming down here. It comes down, so, this bit, where the arrow is going around is the only bit not in the pink area.

303. Now, we are told by HS2 that pink area is primarily required for service connection to the pumping station. We’re also told that, at this stage, they don’t know the extent of those service requirements, hence the rather large proportion of the yard being taken. Now, if that’s the case, if there is the possibility of that area being reduced, that’s great, but we do find it rather surprising, year five into this scheme, or four in the scheme and planning, we still don’t have that type of detail. We’re coming forward to this petitioning stage and we still lack what I would consider to be fairly basic information.

304. The impact of that is that, if HS2 is good to their word, the yard is still capable of being operated during the construction phase, then we’re happy with that, provided that

HS2 will commit to reconfiguring the structure of our buildings and our cabinets, and we’ve got some various lorry containers and a polytunnel yard area, so that we can function, functioning as a secure storage of material, secure storage of machinery and everything you would ordinarily expect with a landscaping business of this type. The difficulty at this stage, Mr Chairman, is we just don’t know because we don’t have information. HS2 will probably tell you they don’t know the detail either and they’re being prudent by their taking more than half of the yard.

305. This is our problem, particularly with Mr Lane, a relatively small business, how does he plan over the next three or four or five years without that information? Going on from that, assuming that we can function, assuming HS2 will reconfigure the yard for us and they will give us uninterrupted access, which is what they’ve said they will do, we then have the problem that our HGV vehicles that would normally come and go around the Risborough Street, as you can see, it is in a kind of horseshoe shape. I don’t know whether you can see it coming through the trace here and down – no, wrong way, go back up again. Coming straight down through the trace. Down through.

306. At the moment, vehicles are coming in and can turn round and go out. HGVs, there weren’t be enough room for the larger HGVs to turn, and we’ve asked HS2 to come up with a hammerhead design to give us a turning area where we can put the vehicles in and reverse back over. We have yet to see that. If that’s forthcoming as they’ve indicated, that’s fine, but we have yet to see that information. The final point is that we are worried that the dead end here will then create an area for fly-tipping and everything that goes with it, and we would like, once the road is stopped up, some security gates put up to make sure that this yard is secure. Mr Lane can tell you better than I the problems he’s had with security. He spent a lot of money putting security fencing around the yard.

307. We are asking HS2 to make sure that that security integrity is retained. We have security fencing on the areas where they go through the yard itself and they put security gates on the road so we are not playing with fly-tipping and other people coming in. I think that’s probably the nub of our issues.

308. MR LAN E: The security is a big issue, because the Risborough Road, the A4010, is going to be stopped off, so effectively, the systems that we’ve got in place, we’ve got

an alarm system, CCTV cameras, whether that will be enough when this is all closed off and there is no traffic now passing through there.

309. MR BRIGGS: I think the final point on that is that Mr Lane doesn’t live on site. He has a key holder who lives on the other side of the trace, and once it is built, his key holder won’t be able to get to it, so that’s an added complication and reemphasises why we need proper security. Over to Mr Mould.

310. CHAIR: Mr Mould.

311. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I know it’s frustrating for those who are affected by the works that the level of detail that will ultimately be required in order to enable the project to be delivered is not available. I’m afraid that is the inescapable consequence of the Hybrid Bill procedure, and the way in which these projects which are developed under this procedure are taken forward. What I can say is that my instructions that are it will be possible for this petitioner to continue to access his property during the works that are proposed here. Those works are limited to utilities works, which, it’s been described by Mr Briggs, they relate to an underground sewerage service connection, as I understand it.

312. The approach will be to seek to plan for and undertake those works without the need to affect directly his buildings on site, but insofar as it is necessary to affect those buildings by taking down buildings, clearly it will fall to the Promoter to make arrangements to accommodate him through the provision of temporary buildings or alternative structures, insofar as that’s possible within the site, so as to enable him to continue to operate his business. So far as the process of moving towards the detail, we’ve given an assurance to Country Landowners and to the NFU that we will engage with those whose lands are directly affected by works, to ensure that they are aware of the detail of the works that are proposed on their land, and I see no reason why I shouldn’t give that assurance to this petitioner as well.

313. We carry out works, albeit temporary works, on his land. It seems to me that it’s reasonable the project should say that we will engage with him as the detail of those works becomes better known, and that will help him to plan well before the need to actually physically come onto his land and start doing things which might otherwise affect his business. So far as the hammerhead is concerned, really the same point

applies. I’m told that we are investigating ways of providing him with an appropriate turning head for his vehicles. My instructions are that the engineers believe that it will be possible to provide such a facility for him, and we will continue to investigate that and we will engage with him in relation to that so that, hopefully, we can provide a facility which is suitable for his needs.

314. As regards security, if the project’s effect is to compromise the security of his yard, then clearly it behoves us to take steps to seek to accommodate that issue as well.

315. CHAIR: Mr Briggs.

316. MR BRIGGS : Thank you. That’s basically, in a nutshell, what we’ve been asking for.

Marsh Hill Farm Ltd

317. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The next petitioner is Petitioner 1149, Marsh Hill Farm Ltd. If we can put up P10922. Marsh Hill Farm Limited is, I believe I’m right in saying, the tenant of Yew Tree Farm, which is affected by works for the railway and for the bypass. As you can see from the plan in front of you, Stoke Mandeville is being pointed out on the screen. If we go to the next page, P10923, we can see the lands associated with this holding and the line of the railway is being pointed out now, and the bypass for Stoke Mandeville is coming in on this angle here.

318. If we go to 10925, you can see the part of the holding which is affected by the construction of the railway and the bypass, and there’s clearly a severance effect here. If we go to the completed scheme at 10926, you can see that, amongst the works proposed under the Bill, is an accommodation overbridge to carry a footpath, SMA/9, and I think one of the concerns of the Petitioner was as regards to the proposal that that should be a vehicle bridge, which he was unhappy about for security reasons. We provided him with a letter of assurance, which is 10937, and you can see that he raised particular concerns, second paragraph, about fly-tippers and motorcyclists being able to use the footpath, and he wanted security measures put in place to prevent them from doing so.

319. Assurance was offered on 21 September, which is set out in the indented

paragraphs. Mr Mason being the owner of the company, and the assurance was to carry out appropriate accommodation works to allow for reasonably secure access to the farm. Since that time, there have been meetings, and on 13 November the project, I think, emailed Mr Briggs. He’ll tell me if I’ve got this wrong, to say that – oh, sorry. Yes, on 19 November, the project emailed Mr Briggs to confirm that that would be acceptable and that there would be no concern about that accommodation access being limited to a footpath only on the part of the freeholder.

320. The other issue raised related to access to a field, and I wonder if we can go back to 10926. See whether we can pick this up. It’s not entirely clear from this, but I’ll guess. Just between the bypass and the railway, there is a narrow strip of land as you can see, and the southernmost part of that land, which is sandwiched between the bypass and the railway, is a field that is tenanted by this petitioner. I’m able to confirm that the Promoter will provide access to that field. At this point on the bypass, there will be an access eastwards off the bypass at this point, to give access to that field, which I think was the other concern that Mr Mason had. I think I’ve covered the points.

321. MR BRIGGS: That’s exactly right. Provided we have those assurances, we are content, Mr Chairman.

322. CHAIR: Okay.

Monica Bonham and B ridget Gill

323. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The next petitioner is Petitioner 1153, Monica Bonham and Bridget Gill. P10936. These are known as Dodds Farm, North Lee, Terrick, which is a small commercial agricultural holding. Their premises are located on the plan as you can see here, with the line of the Princes Risborough Railway running sort of a north-easterly alignment with their holding on either side. If we go to P10939, we can see that, in order to undertake the works to raise the Princes Risborough Line, to take it over the HS2 railway, about which the Committee has already heard in some detail in previous weeks, we do need to locate satellite compounds on the west side of the Princes Risborough Line, which is on land owned by these petitioners.

324. I think I’ve said this before actually, but just to remind the Committee that that is a satellite compound that is associated only with the works to raise the Princes

Risborough Line, and it is expected that it will be operational for about nine months, beginning in 2018, and it will be focussed on systems installation works in relation to the Princes Risborough Line, and it will support about 20 workers throughout its period of operation, with an increase to a maximum of about 25 workers a day during the peak period, but the overall operation life of that compound is about nine months from 2018. So unless there’s nothing else?

325. MR BRIGGS: No. Thank you. Mr Chairman, I have Miss Bonham next to me, and she will be available to answer questions if you have any. Dodds Farm is a small holding. It’s 52 acres in size and Miss Bonham has lived there all her life, and if you go to the next slide, brackets two, you will see what is the small holding is significantly affected by the scheme, here. We have really a couple of main concerns in respect of the scheme. Principally, if I go to the next slide, you will see that the main access to the farm is currently over a level crossing, and these photographs illustrate that. If I go back A16461, you will see where the route comes in from the public highway and goes across the crossing there.

326. Now, East West Rail currently have a project in which they wish to close these crossings, and if I go to the next slide – no, sorry it’s brackets four. The intention is that the existing access will be closed, which is this area here?

327. MS BONHAM: Yes.

328. MR BRIGGS: Yeah, and East West Rail are proposing to put in a new access to Dodds Farm, where the thick green line is in the centre of the page, coming from the public road here, and Dodds Farm is here on that plan. You’ll just see the faint outline of the buildings. Now, if I go to the next slide, that is in direct contradiction to HS2’s plan to put in a balancing pond in that side. If you take the East West Rail plans, they will be coming off the public highway at a slightly different point, because they’re going to put a bridge over the railway there, but they want to put the main drive to the house almost running parallel with the access to the balancing pond, straight through the balancing pond and into Dodds farm.

329. Now, the point I wish to make on this is that, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme that will deal with both issues. We recognise that East West Rail have a health and safety issue and they need to close the crossings, but also Dodds Farm

needs to have an access, and it seems crazy to have a scheme which HS2 devised and two years later you have East West Rail come in and do something that’s completely different. It’s just crazy and we would like to try and get to a position where we have an assurance that there will be a single scheme designed to cover all bases. That may not be possible in the relationship of HS2 and East West Rail, but in respect of M iss Bonham living there, I request that it’s a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do.

330. There is a follow on from that, because if I go back to the previous slide, the overbridge East West Rail are proposing, which is this kind of curve, goes straight through the middle of a compound area that Mr Mould referred to in his introduction, whic h is where HS2 wish to put their people in to raise the line, and so we have a further contradiction there. You have East West Rail wanting to do one thing, and at the same time HS2 saying, ‘no, we’re putting a construction compound there’. So again, we would ask this committee to see if we can ask HS2 or point them in the direction of coming up with a single scheme that will cover all bases.

331. We have a flooding issue as well, but I think probably the best way I will deal with the flooding issue is, I’ve got two other petitioners to deal with, one for the Parish Council and one for Old Mill Farm, which is a property close by, and I think I will leave the flooding issue to deal with as part of that. Have you got anything else?

332. MS BONHAM: Well, the only thing – getting the water to the pond, where it is sited now, it’s going to have go uphill, because the level crossing is the actual lowest point of the area there. So I don’t know whether you’ve got a lot of people pushing it up hill.

333. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The y’re capable of all sorts of things.

334. MS BONHAM: Or how it’s going to be achieved. I’m quite happy to have the pond put in another location. I’d be happy to have it put in where you’ve got the compound, even if it meant having a bigger pond. I don’t know whether I’m asking too much, but...

335. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

336. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The answer to the question is, no, it isn’t beyond the wit of man to make sure that we combine the needs for both these schemes. The position is that, under the Bill, HS2 Railway was planned before knowledge of emerging proposals for East Way Rail were sufficiently far advanced to be taken into the Bill proposals. Our scheme is clearly still ahead of East West Rail, but I very much take the point, that from the perspective of the Petitioner, her interest in having coordination between the two schemes so that the needs of both railways and her needs can be accommodated and she’s very reasonably indicated that she’s happy to talk about where things can be located so as to fulfil that shared objective.

337. There is a coordination exercise going on between HS2 Ltd and Network Rail at the moment, which is with a view to reporting on coordinating these two projects. My understanding is that report is due to be completed before the end of this year, but more specifically, clearly, those who instruct me and Network Rail need to get together, work out how we can get a balancing pond construction site and combination works to allow this farm to continue to be accessed in the event that the East West Rail scheme goes forward. Get all those matters dealt with in a way that is complementary rather than complex, and to make sure that we involve the Petitioner in those discussions, so that she is able to plan for her needs as well. That’s what we will do.

338. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it can be open to us, I will say we understand from the Promoters that East West Rail’s needs will be taken into account as far as possible using Monica Bonham as an example, or that we would ask that does happen if we haven’t heard by the end of the year, so when we’re drafting our report.

339. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and in the meantime, what I’ve said will need to be auctioned, because I’ve said it.

340. CHAIR: Mr Briggs?

341. MR BRIGGS: Yes, thank you.

Great and Little Kimble cum Mars h Parish Council

342. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we now go onto Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh Parish Council? This is Little Kimble, I think.

343. CHAIR: This is P10948.

344. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. This parish council, its area is situated to the southwest of Aylesbury on the western side of the trace, and the area of the Parish Council is shown on the plan in front of you. If we turn to P10949, you will see that the works which are proposed to be carried out within the administrative area of this parish are limited to works to the Princes Risborough Line to enable its path to be taken over the HS2 Railway just at this point here, and then the trace of the railway is obviously running further to the east, with Wendover to the south and passing northwards, to pass along the western side of the Aylesbury urban area.

345. If we turn to the next page, P10950, you will see that, again, the position is that a portion of those works now completed to raise the Princes Risborough line, starting from a point at the south of the trace, to give the necessary gradient, those take place just within the area of the Parish Council. I may just show you now, because I know Mr Briggs is raising a concern about the noise, just show you the noise contour map, which is at P10955. Just so you have the current position on the Bill which then Mr Briggs can speak to. You will see that the lower contour just creeps into that part of the area of the Parish Council, and an area which I think I’m right in saying is open land.

346. I haven’t been able to see any dwellings on it, but I’ll be corrected if I have that’s wrong. So that’s the position so far as our predicted noise impact on the area that this Council is concerned.

347. CHAIR: Mr Briggs.

348. MR BRIGGS : Thank you. The Parish Council have five main concerns in respect of the scheme which they’ve asked me to address to you. One relates to hydrology and flooding, and I briefly mentioned that in respect of Miss Bonham previously, and I’m going to come onto Mr and Mrs Williams of Old Mill Farm and probably it will be better to focus on Old Mill Farm, because that is probably the property that’s mos t vulnerable to flooding, but nevertheless, the Parish Council have a concern that there a number of properties in their constituency that are exposed to flooding, and they are very worried that these works will exacerbate that exposure, by creating the additional work on the East West line, plus the main route itself.

349. The second point the Parish Council would like me to address is that, generally, they would like the ability for those residents who may be affected by the scheme to request some off-site planting to be undertaken by HS2 at an early stage, so that those trees have a chance to establish before the line gets up and running. It’s all very well doing planting once you’ve completed the works, but then you have a much longer period of time for the shrubbery to develop. The noise issue, if we go to slide A16493, which is the slide that Mr Mould referred to, I was here last week when Stoke Mandeville Parish Council presented to the Committee, and they highlighted the inconsistencies in the heights along the route of the noise barriers between five metres, three metres and four metres and going back to five metres.

350. The Parish Council have a concern that those in their constituency will be exposed to noise created from the railway line on the basis that they are not in the existing urban environment that Aylesbury, the southern part of the Parish of Stoke Mandeville is being part of Aylesbury, and the Stoke Mandeville is generally. Their house are more sporadic and in a much quieter rural environment, and therefore the impact of the noise from the line will be far greater because they have a far lower starting point. Their request is that we have some standardised noise barriers along this route and I think there was a reference previously, and I know Mr Mould had a further comment to whether this noise barrier should be a consistent height of say four metres.

351. What we are particularly concerned about is the noise barriers created on the Stoke Mandeville side may then create the noise to be pushed back onto the Kimble Parish Council side and the Marsh Parish Council side, and so we are very concerned for the residents. The noise impact on these rural properties in more isolated positions, which they currently have very little noise, it’s a very rural area to that side. We have a similar comment about lighting. Lighting on the gantries of the railway line itself when finished and we are unclear as to what the strategy is for the new Stoke Mandeville bypass, but clearly light intrusion and light pollution is something – again, because they are in an area that’s far more rural without artificial street lighting – they have a significant concern about.

352. Their final issue is, in terms of the network of small roads that come through the constituency, what traffic restriction measures HS2 will be putting, particularly on their employees going to work in the mornings on the compound site. We know that the

traffic moving, the materials, will be directed in certain ways. That’s not our particular concern. Our particular concern is we have rat runs being used on these very narrow back roads where employees working for the contractors or working for people working on the scheme, are using those to go early morning and at night, principally to avoid the heavy traffic that HS2 larger vehicles are creating on the main routes. They are very concerned about that and they would like some comfort on that.

353. I will come back to the water and the flooding if I may in the next petition, insofar as it relates to both, but they are the specific parish council concerns.

354. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould.

355. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve already, I think, told the Committee on a number of occasions that where the opportunity arises to establish mitigation planting early in the construction of the railway, that is a policy that we are committed to adopting. The degree to which we can do that in any given location obviously depends on the nature of the works and those locations, but that’s the general approach, to get the planting in as early as we reasonably can. So far as noise is concerned, I think it’s important, whilst there were two points I made in relation to this issue about consistency of barrier heights.

356. The first was that the barrier heights that you see on the plan reflect the height of barrier or earthwork that is judged to be necessary to achieve the requisite degree of noise attenuation that is necessary to produce an acceptable noise environment. What I said was that therefore it would be wrong in principle to look for a consistency. If one said that the barrier heights have to be at a certain height throughout a particular area, the effect will be that one would be likely to do two things: firstly, to spend money on increasing the height of barriers, which is literally unnecessary because we don’t get any benefit from that in terms of further noise attenuation, and the second is that it runs the risk that you might have other unintended consequences such as increasing the adverse visual impacts of structures and so forth.

357. I also said, I think in response to Mr Clifton Brown’s question, that the detail of noise measures and barriers and so forth is not a done deal. The detail design process includes reconsideration of the barriers and the earthworks that are required for noise mitigation purposes along the route, and this area is no exception. As there are, as you

pointed out to me, some residential properties within Stoke Mandeville, that are within the lower contour, and as our design commitment is to take reasonably practical measures to seek to bring living conditions down to the lower contour, that our design commitment necessarily entailed reviewing the performance of the noise mitigation measures, the physical barriers through this area.

358. So it may be that heights will change. It may be that a greater degree of what might seem to be apparent consistency will emerge, but I think it’s fair to say that the emphasis should be upon the noise performance of the barriers and the earthworks, rather than to seek some apparent consistency in height. So there’s a number of matters in there, but I wouldn’t wish to give a freestanding commitment about consistency if I – there’s an overarching point here as well, that, as Mr Briggs has I think alluded to, the physical barriers and earthworks that are shown through this part of the route, are focussed upon the eastern side of the railway, because that is where the settlements are.

359. That is where the main centre of population is, Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville, and that small area of the Parish that he represents now, which lies closest to the railway, is not an area that has any significant population or residential problems in it. It’s not free from properties, but they are few and far between, and the low contour is shown as being drawn in before one gets to those properties. So there isn’t on the face of it, applying our design objectives, there isn’t on the face of it a case here for providing significant additional barriers, because it wouldn’t be justified in order to achieve the required noise attenuation.

360. We are, as you know, not seeking to produce an inaudible railway. We are seeking to produce a railway where the design objective is to secure that as few as people as possible are exposed to levels of noise that, on the basis of the evidence base, World Health Organisation and so forth, as few people as possible who are exposed to operation noise that exceeds the lowest observed adverse effect, and that is achieved in this area on the western side of the line. So that’s a rather technical response, but that is the response that follows from Mr Thornely-Taylor’s evidence and the noise impact assessment which you’ve heard mentioned in evidence.

361. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: As I understand, Mr Briggs, put me right if I’m wrong, you were asserting that the presence of those noise barriers on the northeast side of the

railway were somehow going to increase the noise on the southwest side, your parish side. As I understand it, the noise barriers are there to absorb sound not to reflect it. So it shouldn’t have that effect.

362. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. It shouldn’t have that effect, and you’ve heard that, not from me, who doesn’t know the answer to that question, but from Mr Thornely-Taylor, who does. There is an underlying policy issue that Mr Briggs alludes to which was also raised by the HS2 Action Alliance when they gave their presentation on noise; and that is that there is a concern among some petitioners, that the railway is not introducing specific noise policies for quiet areas. But I have explained the thinking behind that. We – our approach, consistent with national noise policy, is to set an appropriate lowest observed adverse effect level. And that does entail, in quiet areas, a degree of change. Provided that the resulting noise environment is one that is on the basis of the evidence of the international guidance, is one that is acceptable, then that is an approach, a project certainly that the promotor suggests is appropriate

363. Lighting, there is no lighting proposed along the operational railway, there will be low level lighting at that maintenance loops, but the maintenance loops are located, I think, further north, further south than the immediate environment facility of this parish council. So, that should not be a problem in practice. The ordinary line, if I can put it that way, is not going to be lit.

364. As to whether the bypass will be lit, I don’t believe we have a decision on that. That will probably be a matter for the county council, I think, which would take over responsibility for that highway. And in so far as traffic management is concerned, one of the factors that the local highway authority will want to take into account in exercising its schedule 16 powers. And also in broader discussions with the promotor on traffic management plans for the area, will be seeking to manage displaced traffic and the risk of that as a result of additional heavy goods traffic on the construction roads. And indeed, they have raised that point with us in discussion, and I think reviewed in their presentation. So that is already on the radar of the county council’s highway authority in this area.

365. CHAIR: Mr Briggs.

366. MR BRIGGS : Thank you, just a couple of points in respect of the unknown in

respect of the bypass, that doesn’t help my client’s constituents. We have a very rural area; this is very dark here at the moment. Just to pass the buck and say well it’s nothing to do with us inevitably it is an inextricable part of the scheme, the Stoke Mandeville bypass is part of the scheme and therefore I would expect some sensible answers. To say that ‘we don’t know’ I don’t think is a satisfactory answer and I would like some – it is important for the parish council to understand that.

367. We seem to be in a position ‘well, if it’s quiet and if it’s dark at night, that’s okay, we can pollute it’, and that’s the message I’m getting from Mr Mould in respect of HS2’s policies, which doesn’t seem to be the right approach to it. If there are issues of noise, they will affect quieter areas more acutely than areas that already have a significant area of background noise. And that is the point we are trying to make; again we come back to modelling and that the plan that we have on screen is a model, but it doesn’t actually sometimes reflect the reality, which I will come onto in the next petitioner, in respect of flooding. But we do have some concerns about this. I am very pleased that Mr Mould has acknowledged about the off-site planting, but again it’s dialogue with us, and I would like to understand where he believes we should be going in terms of dialogue. In terms of respect of the lighting issues and the noise issues and with HS2, are they going to pass the buck completely to Bucks County Council, or are they going to facilitate some understanding of what is going to happen?

368. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, one man’s buck-passing is another man’s recognition of the statutory responsibility that lies with the Highway Authority. It is – the Highway Authority would regard it as usurping their function if we strayed into decisions that are really for them to make. But what I can say is that the expectation I think reasonably is, that the county council would want to see roundabouts, because that’s generally the approach that’s taken these days, for safety reasons. And the question of whether or not the bypass, the link between the roundabouts will be lit will be a matter that I suspect will primarily be taken on safety grounds as well. But if this council wish to have their say in whether or not the bypass wholly or partly should be lit or not, I should have thought the sensible thing is to speak to the county council about it and make their points.

369. As regards the issue of noise and other matters, there is the local environmental management plan regime, which is designed to involve the local community in local

decisions about environmental management planning for the construction of the railway. And I think I’ve said before that parish councils’ may wish to see if they can take part in that process. The details of that are still being developed as part of the delivery regime for the railway, but there is a reference to the local environmental management plans in the information papers and the role that they play in local planning of the construction phase. I am not going to say more about the operational position; the policy of the railway in terms of noise impacts is now well known to the committee and has been debated on a number of occasions.

370. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Briggs.

371. Mr BRIGGS: I don’t think I’ve got – I think I’ve made the point on our concerns, Mr Chairman, in particular the lighting and noise. I just feel that we will get dragged – the parish council will get dragged into meetings in respect of trying to find someone in the county council who is dealing with the lighting issues, and actually it will be within the possibility of HS2 to facilitate this meeting, given this is ultimately is part of the HS2 scheme.

D Williams

372. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P10928, this is petitioner AP – this is 1150, and AP132, Mr D Williams. Mr Williams is the freehold owner and occupier of Old Mill Farm, which is a former watermill in Marsh, the location shown on the plan, if we go onto the next slide, a slightly larger scale you can see the location. That strip of land that is shown –

373. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve seen it on the video.

374. MR BRIGGS: I think it might be.

375. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You can see that there is a – this is the outline of the balancing pond that I am showing you now, if you can get the cursor in there, which is the balancing pond I indicated needed to be brought into the coordinating discussions with Network Rail. The proposal is that that balancing pond should itself then discharge into the existing drainage system via a drainage course along this route. And part of that course would run just into land that falls within the ownership of Mr Williams as the

owner and occupier of this former water mill at Old Mill Farm. So that is the nature of the works that are proposed.

376. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: And you can remind us that balancing ponds and the like, are designed to stop new flooding but don’t solve old flooding.

377. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They are, and that’s consistent with the underlying policy of the project, which is that it should not make existing matters worse; where the opportunity arises to make existing – to relieve existing problems then, within reason, the project will take that opportunity. But the ‘no harm’ principle is the one that applies and I should perhaps just have shown you the letter at P10957, because that is also part of the background. That is a letter from the Environment Agency from 9 November, the gist of which is, without reading it all out to you at this time in the afternoon. The gist of which is that they were satisfied with the arrangements for flood risk assessment and control at this location, and referred to their powers under the protected provisions of the Bill, to supervise the more detailed arrangements as the scheme is developed.

378. MR BRIGGS: Thank you. I have Mrs Williams with me; unfortunately, Mr Williams can’t be here today. Could we go to – it’s the slide Mr Mould showed before, which actually mine, A16441. And this shows the extent of the holding and as Mr Mould has alluded, we have an issue in terms of our concern about water coming off the east/west rail line, through the drainage into the green area which is where Mr and Mrs Williams ownership is, and into the Bonny Brook, which then runs on a route along, through the farmstead, and out through to the north. Can you follow me there, on the arrow, to see that again.

379. MR BELLINGHAM: Basically south-west of it?

380. MR BRIGGS: It’s going the other – it goes through, it goes northwards, it goes right through there, straight through the farmstead.

381. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Through the farmstead?

382. MR BRIGGS: Yes, and along there. As the name suggests, Old Mill Farm was a mill house and it was referred to in the Domesday Book, so it’s been there for a long time. It is surrounded by watercourses, and if we go to the next slide, please, you will

see that this is the main house is here, and you will see some watercourses down the side. It basically sits almost on a small island and the water mill, the water comes through as well.

383. But our forebears knew what they were doing, and it doesn’t flood. It’s very much like the pictures you see of Tewkesbury Abbey, when the whole of Tewkesbury is flooded and the Abbey sits there. And I have got plenty of photos on here, we can watch them all, but basically, it doesn’t flood.

384. And if we go to the next slide please, this is a levels plan that was submitted by Mr and Mrs Williams, in a planning application to the local planning authority when they recently extended and refurbished the house. And the reason I put this in is it actually illustrates better, you can see the blue, the position of the watercourses and the Bonny Brook. Now the relevance of this is when the planning application was first submitted, the Environment Agency objected to it on the basis that they considered the property flooded. But after discussion with the Environment Agency, they then accepted that it didn’t flood, and in terms of their modelling and they therefore withdrew their objection to the planning application.

385. And that is quite an important point. Because the modelling that HS2 are currently working on is that this is a one in a hundred event flood risk. And the letter that they produced in respect of the flooding issues are based on that. And in fact, if we then go to the next slide, this is a reflection of the water fall in the storms in the early part of 2014 and December 2013, which according to the Met Office, was a one in 250 year event. Well one in 100 and one in 250 year event, and if I go onto the next slide, you can see that this is pictures from the house in respect of the flooding of the watercourses. I can keep going through them to the next slide as well and this is the main entrance of the house. But the key point is that the house does not flood.

386. And if I could come – keep going to the next one, again you see the watercourses around the house, and keep going again, and watercourse, the whole area that the watercourse has burst its banks, but the main garden, where the photographs have been taken, does not flood. The point of this, and we can go to the next one as well; and then if I can go to the next one, which shows the areas in the summer in fact that is the same water course that was fuller. The point of this is that the margins here are very fine

indeed, and we are talking a few centimetres of difference. And your petitioners in this case Mr C hairman, are extremely concerned that even messing around with the water table to a small degree will have a fatal impact on their property. And it’s all very well to refer to a one in 100 year event, but the Met Office had a one in 250 year event, and the property did not flood. But as soon as we start introducing further artificial water to the deviation, which inevitably is going to happen, this will put additional water into the water course, which will distort the matter. And your petitioners are extremely concerned that that will then cause problems. It is no help to them if that happens in 10 years’ time, after the railway is built and HS2 are over the hills and far away. Who do they come back to, how do they deal with that redress?

387. And this is a theme, that is followed on by the parish council as well, which I alluded to before, because there are other properties, further down the line, that potentially could be flooded but have managed to escape that at the moment. But we then have that risk and I think we need to have some agreement with HS2 that they will work up a scheme in association with the local residents, Mr and Mrs Williams, and their neighbours, and the parish council, to come in with a kind of flood alleviation scheme; to make sure that we do not have that additional exposure and we do not push it over the edge, where it’s very finely balanced at the moment. To just produce an Environment Agency model, which is all that’s happened at the moment, is frankly not good enough. I refer back to the issues of noise as well; these models are very good to hide behind but they sometimes don’t reflect the reality. And the point I am trying to show here is this does not reflect the reality.

388. We have the east-west rail issue to consider, HS2 have acknowledged their scheme has not yet taken into account the impact of the east-west rail scheme. And again, as I go back to my petition for Miss Bonham and Dodds Farm, is it not beyond the wit of man to have come up with a scheme, a flood alleviation scheme that will deal with all of those issues, given the amount of water that will be diverted. And this is really the main crux of Mr and Mrs Williams’ petition; that they live in a house that hasn’t flooded, to their knowledge it was built around the days of the Domesday Book, initially, it was selected because those areas didn’t flood but they were in proximity to water. So this is – that is the specific point, on that particular part. And I think, if you go to the next slide, I could show you the video, but actually I think I’ve illustrated the

point. Again, this is the dry water course and the next one is my reference to the east- west rail which is this sign over here, it’s actually that dotted line isn’t it, it’s that one there I think is the line. But that’s the proximity, this is Dodds Farm down here, which we’ve just referred to, and so even though Old Mill Farm is some distance away from the main trace, you can see the proximity of where our concern is because the Bonny Brook, which runs through here, is the main water course carrier for that area.

389. Could I then go back to the next point, if I go back to my first slide, which is A16441, running on from that, you will see the green lozenge, or green strip, which is the area of land that is proposed to be acquired on Mr and Mrs Williams’ land, and that is to put in a ditch to run from the balancing pond, into the Bonny Brook. Now, Mr and Mrs Williams fully understand the need to have water carrying to the brook here, but we have requested that this should be a pipe rather than a ditch. For a number of reasons, one there are horses grazing in that field, they tread down ditches. We would prefer – there isn’t a ditch there at the moment, we would prefer to keep the grazing land because we’ve got relatively tight grazing as it is, and we believe that having a ditch there would be the worst thing for us.

390. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You want a buried culvert.

391. MR BRIGGS : We want to put in an underground pipe of sufficient width. And that is what we’ve asked for. HS2 are currently proposing a ditch and we’ve said we would prefer a pipe; and they seem to be resistant to that for various reasons. We have talked about the east-west rail, the issues are clearly we would like a single skin and we made reference, in terms of the parish council’s request to have off-site planting. Mr and Mrs Williams would like to have some off-site planting on their holding, on their boundaries so that the new works are screened sooner rather than later, and we’ve asked if HS2 would engage on that and we’ve had a fairly flaky response on it. So they are the points in a nutshell Mr Chairman.

392. CHAIR: Mr Mould.

393. MR MOULD QC (DfT): One of the functions of a balancing pond, of course, is to balance the receipt and the discharge of the water into the surrounding drainage area, so as to enable the potentially flooding water to be regulated. And so this is an enhancement to the regime, which responds to the potential for somewhat greater run

off of water due to the presence of the railway work.

394. In so far as the local knowledge being brought to bear on the development of the works, one of the matters that is set out in the template, local environment management plan, that is annexed as annex three to the draft code of construction practice, is water resources and flood risks, which said this, ‘Measures to protect particularly sensitive water resources, water courses, ground water and extractions where they are identified, any site specific measures required to limit the risk of flooding will also be identified. These will also be subject to relevant third party consents and notifications.’ And then, paragraph 4.2.2 in the draft code of construction practice, the following general commitment is given ‘the nominated undertake and/or its contractors, will engage with the local communities, local authorities and other stakeholders in what is the local environmental management plans.’

395. The detail of how that will be done is still emerging, but you can see that the underlying proposition is quite clear that where local knowledge is of value in order to understand particular sensitive local flood risk areas and so forth, that that is something that the project is committed to tapping into. That is concerned with construction primarily, but you can see that the knowledge gained in construction is also going to be of value during the operational phase as well. So that is my response to the concern about will we understand the particular locality.

396. So far as the nature of the drainage facility itself from the balancing pond, the promoter is concerned about the proposition, the proposal that there should be a pipe. For a number of reasons, and I will just set those out, firstly ditches can be designed to have a greater capacity than pipes, which can provide additional storage volume. Ditches can be inspected and maintained more easily and safely then piped culverts. No specialist equipment is required, a blockage in a ditch is easier to observe than a blockage in a buried pipe, allowing a more rapid response for maintenance.

397. Where a piped culvert is in excess of 100 metres as I think this would be, going from the balancing pond, all the changes of direction means a need for intermediate chambers. Ditches are likely to be shallower than the depth or invert of the piped culvert and the ditch avoids the need for a particular depth to be achieved to accommodate agricultural activities and so forth. Ditches can be laid on a flatter profile,

which makes them more appropriate to the flat terrain, which we have in this area. If a pipe was laid too flat it is likely to become silted up more quickly and require more frequent maintenance. I think the message that comes out of that is if you can see the ditch, and see its state and see that it’s running, it’s much easier to react to the kind of concerns that the petitioner raised as part of this petition, if the thing is buried underground, in a culverted pipe.

398. And I suspect that this is – I will be told that I am wrong but I suspect in this area, one tends to see open drains, ditches, rather than piped culverts as a result, but maybe I’m wrong about that, I don’t know. Anyway, that is our response to that; we think that actually the petitioners and others in the area, would be better served by this being an open ditch than they would be by it included being underground in a piped culvert.

399. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: One of the advantages of being an MP is one gains some experience, and also means that being minister in charge of water in Northern Ireland, and other experiences. In my constituency, there is a once in a year event when a ditch got blocked and the road got flooded, and when that got turned into a buried pipe it hasn’t happened in the last six years. So although it is obvious that you can look at a ditch, you can’t look inside a pipe very easily, I think that the response isn’t necessarily convincing. I don’t think it’s convinced the petitioners, looking at Mrs Williams shaking her head.

400. MRS WILLIAMS: I drive a tractor over an open ditch.

401. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Perhaps discussions between the petitioner and the promoters might be a sensible idea for that particular passage of water. The second thing is if we look at 1644(3), and it might be worth expanding on the scale a bit so we can look at the middle of the slides, without being actually precise, it looks to me as though the flooding in the picture has got up to about 84.05, and the house stands at 84.4 or something. So the gap is not a great one and I think what we heard from the petitioners, or at least from Mr Briggs on behalf of the petitioners is the question of whether if something is going to happen which will raise the general flooding level anyway, so that the house stops being invulnerable to these rare but quite high water levels. I am not sure whether we have actually heard from the petitioner or Mr Briggs exactly what the physics was that caused that to happen, but it is super-saturation of the

ground or its water from somewhere else.

402. MR BRIGGS: It’s heavy rainfall and there is a high water table there, it’s called Marsh for a reason.

403. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes so, I don’t think we’ve heard, the promoters have heard enough for the concerns to be taken into account, and whether the response we have had, which is the standard response, is appropriate in these circumstances. I am not sure we have actually heard from the petitioners what action they thought could be taken that would alleviate their fears anyway.

404. MR BRIGGS: Do you want me to respond to that?

405. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or it might be better to talk outside. We can see that what we are told that there is a relatively narrow margin between getting wet and staying dry.

406. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well if it helps, my point, yes to a degree it was standard, but I was – I think you made the point a few moments ago that our approach is to take the existing situation and to introduce measures that ensure that it doesn’t

407. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Get worse.

408. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Get worse and if possible to coordinate measures that make it better when those are consistent with our plans. The only point that I should perhaps remind you of is that measures of this kind are all subject to lead local authority flood approval, as well as approval by the Environmental Agency, insofar as they effect main rivers. So there is a local authority whose task it is to adjudicate on these issues as well. But the concern, I thought, was that the project should be aware that this is a potentially sensitive property. And I have indicated a mechanism whereby that awareness, so far as it needs to be built upon, from what we’ve heard today, can be built upon through the process of the local environmental management plan.

409. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There are three levels of flooding risk, one is where the balancing pond lets the water come out on a graduated basis and there is no general flooding. The second is when there is general flooding, and the balancing pond, assuming it’s not over-spilling its banks, which it might do at some stage. I suppose the

third is extreme it gets full and adds water to a generally saturated area, and that might make a bit of difference or it might not, depending on how the water can get away beyond the Marsh Farm, O ld Mill House. And the third is when you’ve got the kind of thing we had three or four years ago, in Oxfordshire, where you had, in effect, tiny little streams turning into the Amazon. I don’t know if it affected you or not but it was pretty –

410. MRS WILLIAMS: It didn’t affect us, but a lot of the houses further down from us, the water was in the houses.

411. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Pretty much and in that case water, which would have fallen on the land that the railway is coming, will probably stay somewhere close to that but now it comes into the balancing pond and joins the general –

412. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes

413. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Streams and rivers, so I think that rather than just relying on the local authority and the Environment Agency, and the broad sweep of what your instructions are to tell us. I think that given the narrow margin between dry and wet here, that we would hope that detailed discussions with the petitioners, in case there is something, which can be done.

414. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I don’t know, clearly discussions with where we are aware of these things it is right that we should familiarise ourselves with the detail on the basis of local knowledge. But I do want to, of the three levels that you’ve mentioned, I think it is important, for the record, that I just emphasise again that where the railway comes to an area that is already subject to flooding because it happens, as you say, it’s called Marsh for a reason; people – it’s not reasonable for people to expect the railway to solve existing problems.

415. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I don’t think the petitioners are fussing about their land, or even their garage, from looking at the pictures, it’s the house itself, which is – it’s the old dry mill in an area of old wet land.

416. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and it’s proved remarkably resilient, as you say, and even though the degree of tolerance, if I can put it like that, I know it’s not the right

technical word, is, as you said from the levels, relatively – whoever designed this – the house and its immediate surroundings, however long ago it was, was obviously very good at future proofing.

417. MR C LIFTON-BROWN: Can I make a few comments. I do think the situation is very fragile. Peter has pointed out the differences in the levels, they are pretty small and what we’re finding in this country is we are getting more flash flooding. High levels come up very quickly and I would advise the petitioner to obtain from you, HS2, some figures of what water you are going to discharge, the volume, the quantity of water you are going to discharge into that scheme, then do some modelling around the house to see what effect that would have. Because it may be that the situation is so fragile that in a flash flood situation they will flood. I don’t want to be alarmist, but I think you need to do some modelling, somebody needs to do some modelling. There are people out there who would do the modelling for not too expensive money and I think that should be done.

418. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, there has been, of course, modelling done to the – as explained in the letter, and further modelling will be done, but your point is about shared –

419. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: The quantities of water you are going to discharge and I would also advise them that whilst the Environment Agency uses a one in a hundred hear event standard phrase, actually, with these flash floods, it is proving that is not adequate. It needs to be a much more cautious approach than that, a one in 50, one is 20 year event.

420. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well that’s a policy matter of course for them, which we can’t directly influence.

421. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I think, otherwise, relief piping around the back or something of that nature could well be considered.

422. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t think I can say anything more.

423. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Briggs?

424. MR BRIGGS: I think what we’re seeking at this stage is A. making, alerting the

issue and asking HS2 to engage with us in trying to devise some form of scheme, flood scheme, to deal with the issue on the ground working with ourselves and perhaps the parish council to come up with something. I take Mr Clifton-Brown’s comments about the discharge. We have asked for that detail, we haven’t had very little information other than saying the Environment Agency saying it is a one in 100 year event. And that’s basically all we’ve had and we would – the point of coming today is to try and get HS2 to engage with us to provide the detail, and provide us with a scheme that we are satisfactory with. And if we can have some suggestion to HS2 that that’s what they should be doing, and I think that’s what we’re looking –

425. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Clearly Mr Briggs, the Environment Agency had initially objected to this discharge scheme, shows that the Environment Agency’s figures show that the figures are very close as to whether the property was going to flood or not. The other thing I would suggest that I think you need to look at on behalf of the parish, rather than the petitioners, is what effect all this is having on downstream.

426. MR BRIGGS: Exactly, exactly.

427. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry, just to be clear the Environment Agency didn’t object to this discharge scheme, they said this scheme; this is in the letter I showed you. They said that this scheme is acceptable. They objected, initially, to a planning application to extend the property that I think the petitioners lodged with their local authority.

428. MR BRIGGS: And then they accepted that actually, on that site, it wasn’t the risk they thought it was because of the way it’s been constructed.

429. CHAIR: Is that all you –

430. MR BRIGGS : You’ve had enough of me now.

431. CHAIR: You’ve dealt with them all with the exception of HS2 Ltd and 570? And did you deal with the Burton Hill Partnership and all that.

432. MR BRIGGS: I did, that was all part of the Hunt’s Green Farm, right at the beginning.

433. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you Mr Briggs. Now we will deal with petition number 5709, Richard Stewart-Libe rty.

Richard Ste wart-Liberty

434. CHAIR: Mr Mould.

435. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, Mr Stewart Liberty is at Field End Grange, the Lee, a freehold owner, about a kilometre from the route. No land is taken and I think, if we just turn to the next page, P10983, yes there you are, you get a slightly clearer sense of the relationship between the railway and the petitioner’s property.

436. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Liberty.

437. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: May I first of all say I am a trustee of the Stewart Liberty petitions, which you heard earlier on today about. I would like to thank everybody really for their constructive response that we had to this. I don’t know whether that’s in order or not, what I’ve said. So yes, my house Field End Grange, is 900 metres away from the line and about 500 metres away from the works. May I have a slide please? The photograph, thank you, so that puts us in the parish of Lee, the area of outstanding natural beauty, and two fields away from the line and the works. This is a series of photographs of the house, which is 16th century, Grade II listed hall house. It’s been in my family’s ownership since 1890 and my family have been around this area for considerably longer than that. I inherited this house, it’s on the edge of the parish, a place of very great isolation and tranquillity and peace. I don’t live in it. It’s outside the compensation zone.

438. It is dead downwind from the temporary placement area where great vehicle noise and heavy machinery and clouds of dust will, I am quite sure, come straight over. During the construction period, it will be severed, as far as us anyway, by a rolling curtain of HGVs along the A413; cut off from Great Missenden railway station for anybody who wants to commute, my own place of business, in Watlington and to medical and hospital care.

439. May I have the next slide? If we just go through these very quickly, to the next one. Thank you. Keep going please, so here is a family photograph of people who lived

in the house about 100 years ago, taken from a book about the men from the parish of the Lee that went to fight in World War 1.

440. This man is called Arnold Morris, and in May 1916 he left his family and walked down to Great Missenden station to join his unit and following the Battle of Fromelles, at which eight out of this parishioners were killed, he failed to return. May I have my video, thank you? So, this is a video and it starts off with the bench, which was erected by Arnold Morris’s family. So you are approaching a gap in the hedge. And his memorial bench, which actually is treated almost like a war memorial around us, is right here. And coincidentally, and rather dreadfully, if you look out through the gap in the hedge from the bench towards HS2, the line of trees on the horizon marks the beginning of the works there. So this video then starts to take the same trip as the previous one, it goes over the land out of screen and sort of recreational parks sort of thing, so we can stop this if you like.

441. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this a drone camera?

442. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: It’s a drone from one of our old people that lives in our houses, an ex-helicopter pilot and very, very keen to fly for all purposes, so is very enthusiastic; has been unbelievable really. He was severely criticised for looking in somebody’s bedroom window. Here we are about the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, which I’d like to say a little bit about, I’m sure you’ve heard a great deal. But I would like to draw more attention to the fact that for the 8 kilometres between South Heath and the north portal at Wendover, HS2 tunnels up to the surface of the AONB at its highest, least populated, most tranquil and most beautiful stretch as it opens out into the Vale of Aylesbury.

443. And I consider that this is a wrong done by the State against its citizens, against current inhabitants who have taken care of the land over many generations, and others who have chosen to pay well over the odds to live in the area of outstanding natural beauty. Against people who come to use the area for all sorts of recreational purposes, which they do, and against future generations who have absolutely no choice in the matter.

444. The AONB is surely in everybody’s back yard. My Aunt Susan fought all her life to protect this land; she started Berks Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, Farming and

Wildlife Trust, The Conservation Area League, loads of stuff all – and I don’t believe that we should allow it to be damaged.

445. In support of that point of view, there was a letter from Natural England, it is the government’s advisor on all things environmental, on 27 February 2014, which expressed a number of concerns about this particular area, amongst which were the viaduct that crossed Durrant Farm at Well End View. The effect on the network of sunken lane, Leather Lane, Bow Lane and Rocky Lane, which we have all been talking about today. The permanent effect of the placement of balancing ponds at Hunt’s Green Farm, the historic field patterns, which you can see in the photograph. The removal of Grimm’s Ditch scheduled monument and I don’t know whether they’ve had a chance to comment on the new sub-station that’s appeared just under AP4, north of Leather Lane. On page 14 of this letter, Natural England summarises the impact of HS2 on the AONB as ‘adverse at a national level’ and I think I could translate that as a catastrophe.

446. May we go to the next slide, it may be the one after that, we may have skipped one, yes, the one after this. This is an archive document from the Department for Transport. I was looking at a newspaper article a couple of years ago, which was talking about the M3 at Twyford Down, near Winchester. And how, under different ways of costing the cutting which, however many years it is, 25 years later, is you know, still a scar as far as I’m concerned on the landscape forever. And so I tried to research what sort of stuff was available on this, and I found the Department of Transport had commissioned a report, ‘Valuing Transport’s Impact on the Natural Landscape’. Which was completed by a consultancy called Evtech in 2009.

447. What it said was there was a stated preference for research elicited a willingness to pay, and I find all this quite difficult to understand and the report itself, completely impenetrable, but I would like to – I think I can translate. So having lunch with an old work colleague of mine a couple of weeks ago and she said, ‘I bet you’re still whinging about HS2’ and things like that and proceeded to make whinging faces and noises. And I said what we’re trying to do is to get the last eight kilometres of this railway line in a tunnel. And she said, ‘Oh, I agree with that and we went on to talk about Frankie Dettori and the Arc de Triomphe. That’s what I think is a willingness to pay for it. And my question really, for – my question for the Department of Transport and HS2 is having decided each major project would merit this type of research, but on an

individual basis. Was there any research carried out on HS2’s traverse through the area of outstanding natural beauty and I don’t know whether there was or not, and that is my question, that is what I would like to draw to the Committee’s attention. There are other ways of barrowing this kind of work and I don’t know whether the consultancy which was carried out for several hundred thousand pounds has been acted upon. And that’s all I wanted to say.

448. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould.

449. MR MOULD QC (DfT): My understanding is that this document is part of the department’s continuing work to provide a comprehensive methodology for strategic appraisal of transport projects, the Webtag guidance that you will have heard mention of in the course of your hearings. And if that is right the answer to the question is yes, because you will recall that amongst the work streams that was undertaken and reported by the project in the suite of documents that supported the Secretary of State’s decision to proceed with HS2 in January 2012, was a document that provided an economic appraisal of HS2. And amongst the economic appraisal tools that they used for that purpose was an appraisal of the impact of the railway on landscape along the route. And you will recall that a figure of about £1 billion was attributed to the value of the project in that respect.

450. The references are set out in the Committee’s proceedings in July, when these issues were debated in more detail. But we have made it clear, consistently in responding to the case for an extended tunnel, a full tunnel through the Chilterns. That the approach that the project has taken has been to rely principally upon the environmental impact assessment process to understand the impacts of the railway on the Chilterns environment, both in terms of the specific impacts as it passes through the various immediate forum areas that make up the Chilterns AONB, which is relevant to HS2’s proposals. And also a route-wide appraisal of the impact on the AONB as a whole, which is set out in volume three I think it is, of the environmental statement. So there’s been a fairly comprehensive assessment of the impact of the railway on the Chilterns landscape and on the AONB, and we have drawn upon that appraisal in our evidence and our response to petitions, which have asserted the case for either an extended or a full tunnel through the Chilterns AONB.

451. CHAI R: M r Liber ty?

452. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: Yes, in view of the fact that £1 billion was the cost, I am not quite sure wha t o f.

453. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That was the figure attributed to the impact of the railway on the landscape for the whole of the Phase 1 scheme.

454. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: So what is the cost attributable to the last eight kilometres, which are being left out of the tunnel through the AONB?

455. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We don’t have a cost for that. Others have said that – have brought a cost to the Committee, but we have made it clear that we do not consider that that is a helpful approach, and we do not believe that there is a reliable economic tool, which allows that cost to be produced.

456. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: Well, I don’t know anything about that, but the Department for Transport did it in 2013, think that there was a basis for making a calculation. If there is a – if the cost was assessed to be £1 billion and you’ve only got eight kilometres left, I don’t see how it’s such a difficult sum to do.

457. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think you’re being expected to make concluding remarks rather than ask more questions.

458. MR STEWART-LIBERTY: I am sorry, I thought I – I understood that I had put a question, I don’t have any after that.

459. CHAIR: Thank you very much for your evidence. That brings me to the last petition of today, 1308, Frederic von Oppenheim, Baroness Marie-Rose von Oppenheim and Kimberley Limited, represented by King & Wood Mallesons, Mr Mould.

Frederic von Oppenheim, Baro ness Marie-Rose von Oppenheim and Kimberley Ltd

460. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P11014 shows the location of the petitioners’ properties. Mr Ricketts, appears on behalf of the petitioners. I will just mention my understanding of their various titles, and then I will hand over to him. Kimberley Limited is the freehold owner of Boswell’s Farm, Baroness von Oppenheim is the freehold owner of

Hartley Farm, Frederic von Oppenheim is the tenant farmer at Boswell’s Farm and Hartley’s Farm and Frederic and Baroness von Oppenheim live at Boswell Farm. And land is acquired, supposed to be acquired from their holdings for the purposes of construction and operation of the railway, and it’s this plan and if we go to P11015 one gets a more detailed understanding of that. I might just mention, by reference to P11018 one particular point, which I think Mr Ricketts will want to speak to so I will just draw attention to this feature of the scheme. This is the Small Dean viaduct as it takes the railway over the A413 and the existing C hiltern line. And if you just make out here, there is a feature which I believe I am right in saying is the driveway to Boswell’s Farm and in order to accommodate the – to take the viaduct across the road and the existing railway line; it is necessary to adjust the entrance, the access point from that driveway onto the highway, broadly where the cursor is now. I know that’s a particular source of concern for the petitioner, so I thought I would just mention that and I will hand over to Mr Ricketts.

461. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is that where we come to the best avenue we have seen so far?

462. MR RICKETTS: Absolutely, Sir Peter and I have possibly the best photo, perhaps I can start by assuring the Committee that we have worked closely and collaboratively, over the last few weeks, with HS2 Ltd, to resolve most of the concerns that have been raised in relation to mitigation; by way of receiving assurances that if the scheme proceeds without a full tunnel under the Chilterns, the matters for which they are looking for protection have largely been covered by way of formally binding assurances. We thank HS2 for that we have three specific continuing concerns, I suspect one, and only one of those is controversial but we will see. On the screen you do indeed see the avenue, or driveway that leads from the A413 to Boswells, which is the family home. Also to other cottages on the farms and this track is used for residential access, but also fo r farm ve hic les.

463. Now, the first point, and I suspect the only point which may be controversial indeed relates to where the A413 meets the drive, the access to the property, there is another photo which is photo A16553. Now this is where you come off the A413, there are two sets of gates and then you are on that drive.

464. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But it doesn’t look to me as though the avenue starts immediately by the gate does it?

465. MR RICKETTS: Past those second set of gates, that second set of gates.

466. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Oh Beech Street, so does it start straight away?

467. MR RICKETTS: I’m not sure if they – it is all thinly laid out from – at the moment, you go past those second gates but I suspect not so much turns on that. The point is that we only have very small scale plans in the public domain which show that the viaduct going over these gates. Probably a better plan than the one that Mr Mould referred to is in fact plan P11017, if we could have that. Now there are more detailed plans that aren’t in the public domain, but if I point to here, the cursor needs to go to the left a bit. Yes, so what the plans show is the realignment to the access to the drive so that, as you come out of the drive it’s kinking to the left. There is also, again it’s very difficult to see on this small scale plan, but the A413 is – the alignment of it is slightly altered so that it bends slightly to the west, around where that access is. Now, the reason given for that is that piers to support the viaduct need to be located where the drive currently is.

468. We’ve been looking for an assurance that the viaduct will be designed so that piers can avoid the need for that drive to be realigned, because this is the main access to what is a very structured landscape. And we haven’t been convinced, so far, that there is a reason, in engineering terms, why piers can’t be spaced so as to avoid the need to change the alignment of the drive, and indeed consequent changes to the alignment of the A413. So that was the main point that I really want to resolve, if we can. I suspect that if we’d had longer in the discussions we might have been able to resolve it, we haven’t.

469. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: In a rough way, don’t plonk a pier in way that mucks up the drive.

470. MR RICKETTS: Correct.

471. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the simplest request I’ve heard.

472. MR RICKETTS: In the discussions, we might have been able to have resolved it.

We haven’t.

473. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Roughly, don’t plonk a pier in a way that mucks up the drive.

474. MR RICKETTS: Correct.

475. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the simplest request I’ve heard.

476. MR RICKETTS: I don’t know whether Mr Mould wants to respond to that before I move on to the other points.

477. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m happy to do that. It’s easy to say but it’s much more difficult to achieve in this location because of the need for this viaduct to find a way across the A413 and the existing railway line on the alignment that the railway is going to follow. I’m told that the spacing of the piers, as shown on the plans at the mo ment, is at a distance that is the maximum that is considered to be acceptable, and that it would be very difficult, according to the engineering advice that I have, to achieve that which has just been put forward.

478. We are at the stage that we are in the design of this railway, and I see no reason to say now that that is the final position; in other words, I see no reason why the promoter cannot say that it will continue to review, as part of the detailed design, whether it is possible to achieve that which the petitioners seek, because, if it is possible to do it at reasonable cost, without compromising the operation of the railway, then further discussions can continue. But I cannot, on the instruction I have, give a commitment to that effect to you today.

479. SIR P ETER BOTTOMLEY: But you can go on talking.

480. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

481. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And we could say that we would expect every reasonable effort to be made to avoid destroying a major constructive feature.

482. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’d like to use the phrase ‘reasonably practicable’ because, as you know, that encapsulates the proper balance between the cost and benefit that the project regards as crucial to custodianship of the public interest in this matter.

483. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, it may be then a discussion with the petitioner, if the process could come up with the best form of words and let us know what those are, and we could then decide whether we can leave things like that or whether we have to try to use better or worse words of our own.

484. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The other point I would make is this: the Small Dean viaduct is a scheduled work. There are limits of deviation which apply to scheduled works, but those limits of deviation provide a certain amount of flexibility within which to operate. And I make that point because, if the reality is that further work can continue on this issue as part of the detailed design, then it need not necessarily be prejudiced by considerations of initial provisions and that kind of thing. So, matters can continue whilst the Bill continues its parliamentary passage towards Royal Assent.

485. MR RICKETTS: That would be helpful, and thank you for that. We look forward to those discussions. Moving on to the other two points, one of them is related to that access, because we recognise that, particularly during construction work, it may be sensible to have an alternative access to the residential properties and to the farmland, and we are proposing to upgrade an existing track which comes from the north-east and joins on to the avenue, like that – no, below there. Yes, that’s it.

486. And the assurance that we’ve received in writing from HS2 Ltd, for which we’re grateful, is that the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to engage with and will support an application for a single estate/farm drive from the north-east, and the reasonable and proper costs of the application and construction process will be covered by the undertaker and the costs will form part of the claim for compensation. We’re grateful for that. There was just a detail that we just wanted it made clear that that clearly would be a track that would be appropriate for heavy farm vehicles and domestic cars accessing the properties. It’s not an earth track; it is going to be a tarmac road equivalent to the basic specification of the road that there is there at the moment.

487. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Clearly, our approach is to provide a track which is sufficient in its design to accommodate the vehicles that use the farm.

488. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Appropriate to the use.

489. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, exactly.

490. MR RICKETTS: Yes. Well, that’s what we need.

491. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we have a fairly prolonged construction period here. We’re talking years rather than months. We’re talking about a three-year construction period, so that needs to be factored in to the nature of the accommodation works that we’re dealing with here.

492. MR RICKETTS: Thank you, Mr Mould. And then, finally, we have a binding assurance that the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to engage with the petitioners about the creation of a landscape screening bund and/or green walls to provide some visual mitigation from the effects of the railway from their land, and the idea is, as with the driveway, that we will make the planning application, HS2 Ltd will provide their support for that to the local authority, and we don’t take it as read but we hope that it’s the case that the wording is meant to encompass that, as with the alternative access road, the reasonable and proper costs of all of that will be met by HS2 Ltd. That was the only other outstanding point on the specific issues that we were looking to bring before the Committee today.

493. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Outstanding because they weren’t raised before or outstanding because they weren’t agreed before?

494. MR RICKETTS: Weren’t agreed before and, as I understand it, again, I think, if we’d had longer, the right people with the right authority might have been able to reach a final view on that issue. As I say, I suspect that it’s inherent in giving the obligation that it’s understood that the works which have to be reasonable and proportionate will be paid for by HS2 Ltd, but I don’t want an argument about this in several years’ time.

495. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That may be the sort of issue that we could leave the petitioner and promoters to discuss outside this room and, if there’s a major problem, come back, but if there isn’t…

496. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I see the force of what Mr Ricketts says. I think I would be grateful if we can do it that way, because I haven’t got a specific instruction on this and I would like to make sure I don’t go too far.

497. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think, if there can be a precedented agreement,

then fine. If what’s being asked was unprecedented, and if the promoters stand out against it, why we could think that that was reasonable. So, I think a discussion rather than being imposed.

498. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I’m happy to take it away on that basis.

499. MR RICKETTS : Thank you. That was all.

500. CHAIR: Thanks very much. That completes the business of the Committee today. Order, order.