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

Monday 3 November 2014 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Ian Mearns ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses: Mrs Afsaneh Eades Mr Robert Eades

Mr David Outen Mrs Outen

Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Managing Director, Rupert Taylor Ltd, acoustics and vibration expert

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Chairman’s opening 3

Robert and Afsaneh Eades Mr Strachan’s overview 3 Submissions from Mr Eades 5 Submissions from Mr Strachan 15 Mr Thornely-Taylor, examined by Mr Strachan 16 Mr Thornely-Taylor, cross-examined by Mr Eades 17

Mr David Outen Mr Mould’s overview 21 Submissions from Mr Outen 23 Submissions from Mr Mould 37 Mr Thornely-Taylor, examined by Mr Mould 43 Mr Thornely-Taylor, cross-examined by Mr Outen 45 Closing submissions from Mr Mould 48 Closing submissions from Mr Outen 51

(at 14.00) 1. CHAIR: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. This afternoon we are going to hear from Mr and Mrs Eades, followed by Mr David Outen. Welcome.

Robert and Afsaneh Eades

2. CHAIR: We normally start off with the Promoters just giving an overview of what they consider the issues. Are you happy with that?

3. MR EADES: Yes, I am.

4. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Strachan.

5. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Good afternoon, sir. Could I start with P835? As you’ll see, Mr and Mrs Eades live at the Old Hall in Mavesyn Ridware, and Mavesyn Ridware is to the south of Hill Ridware. The Committee will be familiar with Hill Ridware from some petitions last week, and Mavesyn Ridware is just to the north of the existing West Coast Main Line. So, you can see it on that plan. The Old Hall consists of a mix of listed buildings – I think the gatehouse is the oldest of the buildings. There’s an aerial photograph of the property if that would help, P838. The gatehouse is the section of the building to the left with the drive running underneath it, and the Old Hall to the right. Mr and Mrs Eades have brought some other photographs of the property, both before restoration and after restoration, which they may want to refer to.

6. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just check a point? Is it all in one ownership, the hall and the courtyard?

7. MR EADES: Yes.

8. MR BELLINGHAM: It is. And what about the cottages to the bottom left?

9. MR EADES: Are you – which, sorry?

10. MR BELLINGHAM: The cottage or the farmhouse – whatever it is – at the bottom left.

11. MR EADES: Bottom left – oh, that’s separate. The boundary line goes from the left-hand corner of the picture to the brick wall, and the group of properties, as it were, down the picture are separate.

12. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you.

13. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If we put up P836, I think it may assist just to see the extent of the boundary ownership. So, it’s from a slightly different angle but you can see in the centre of the red box the properties we were looking at, and then it excludes the ones that were shown on the photograph. Now, the nearest works that are required to the West Coast Main Line are a little distance away, but if I put you on to P839, again, we’ve got the Petitioner’s property shown. The nearest satellite construction compound is the Armitage Shanks satellite construction compound in Handsacre, over half a kilometre away, and to the left at the top end of the screen you can see a grey shaded area. That is the area of works where there would be the installation of gantries and signalling works that we looked at – or the Committee looked at – last week, which is accessed from Wade Lane through Hill Ridware. And I can show you that on P842, please – a plan that may be familiar to the Committee now, but you can see Wade Lane to the top part of the picture within Hill Ridware and the sorts of works that are required to be accessed through, and the duration is approximately four to five weeks.

14. The petitioners have raised concerns about the effects of road closure in the wider area, and if I just show you P840, there aren’t anticipated to be any material road closures in the wider area, and we’ve shown some of the works, certainly to the south – larger works. The A515, which is the closest large road, has a temporary diversion put in place whilst the new underbridge is constructed, so that is not intended to be closed, save perhaps for overnight closures where the works are tied in.

15. The petitioner has raised concerns about noise effects, and the Promoter has responded both in the petition response document and also by letter dealing with the

question of noise effects. Volume 4 of the environmental statement, which deals with off-route effects, is at P843 – the relevant extracts from it – and it may assist in the petition you’re about to hear, but just to understand what’s said in the environmental statement, in terms of actual additional traffic along the West Coast Main Line. The consequence of the HS2 scheme is a net increase of up to three trains per hour in each direction – that’s paragraph 5.2.3 – and there is some increase in speed on the outer lines, from approximately 110 mph to 125 mph – 100 mph to 125 mph, and the overall noise impact of that has been assessed as not resulting in an increase of more than 2 dB, and that’s identified in the environmental statement in the passages that we referred the Petitioner to. I understand that Mr and Mrs Eades have produced their own noise assessment. It’s not anticipated that’s likely to be materially different from the evidence that the Promoter understands to be the case, but we’ll hear about it in a moment. So, I hope that provides just a broad summary. Of course, Mr and Mrs Eades can make what other points they want to make.

16. CHAIR: Mr Eades, are you –

17. MR EADES: Yes.

18. CHAIR: Okay. Please, carry on.

19. MR EADES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Strachan. There are really two possible points we want to make. Mr Strachan has summarised them really already, but if I could just re-emphasise it. First of all, we wish to raise points about the impact of Phase One of HS2 upon our property in respect of both disruption and, once HS2 is up and running, in respect of noise pollution. We want to suggest ways in which we say this could be significantly reduced.

20. Mr Strachan has outlined already the property where we are and its position, and you will have noted that it’s in the valley of the River Trent. It’s directly north of the West Coast Main Line, and it is between two bridges: to the east, you have to go across the River Trent, the West Coast Main Line and the Trent and Mersey Canal to get southwards; and in the sort of north-west, you will have to go up to Rugeley to a bridge over the River Trent and the canal and the West Coast Main Line close to Rugeley Trent

Valley station. And it’s in a sort of curve, where the West Coast Main Line has a small kink between Handsacre and Cawarden Springs. Mavesyn Ridware is in a very large conservation area, and it was made deliberately so in 1974 to preserve and protect the setting of the village of Mavesyn Ridware and its amenity value for current and future generations. And I would like, please, if we could put up first of all A198 number 4. To the left of the plan, you see, shaded in green, about a third of the Mavesyn Ridware conservation area, and you will see the main listed buildings are in the cluster in the centre. And it was deliberately drawn large, as I say, in order to protect the integrity of the village setting and the listed buildings in particular. I would like the Committee to note, if you can, that the eastern edge of the conservation area, if one draws a line down the page parallel with the margin, really crosses the West Coast Main Line where the West Coast Main Line crosses the Trent and Mersey Canal, and that at the moment is the end of the fencing – the noise mitigating features that were put up on the West Coast Main Line through Handsacre when it was four-tracked.

21. Then if we go to 198 (6), please, that shows the western two-thirds of the conservation area, and as you can see, if one again draws a line down from the western edge, down parallel with the margin of the plan, one comes to the place where the West Coast Main Line crosses the River Trent, which is known locally as the Five Arches. And one of the concerns we have is that conservation area should be protected from further noise from the West Coast Main Line, and the setting of the village preserved in the way that was envisaged when it was made a conservation area.

22. Just to illustrate the point, if we could look at document 198 (2), please. That is an image of our property taken with the photographer facing south-west from the eastern edge of the conservation area, so that gives an insight to the size of the conservation area and its purpose, which was to protect the setting of the village. The housing in the village is widely dispersed, and the conservation area was not only set all the way round the village in the large boundary but actually, you will have noted, butts right up against the West Coast Main Line. The West Coast Main Line itself in the village runs on a high sandstone bluff or embankment, and as a result of the topography that you can see in that picture, it’s substantially higher than the house. There is higher land to the south, and the sandstone bluff which I’ve referred to tends to project the sound from the West Coast Main Line across the valley to the north, and therefore through us. But I will

return to that point later, if I might.

23. I want to now deal, if I can, please, with the first point, which is disruption during the construction phase of Phase One. We wish to argue that the Committee should restrict all HS2-related traffic movements to outside the rush hour in and around Armitage with Handsacre, the Ridwares and Rugeley Trent Valley railway station, as set out in our petition. We invite you, please, to look at our document 198 (7). The reason that we chose this particular map, which is produced by HS2 in respect of Phase Two, is that it conveniently shows two parallel lines going, as it were, bottom right to top left. The bottom line is the West Coast Main Line that goes through Rugeley, and the top one is the proposed route of HS2, part of it being Phase One, as you will see where the spear is on to the West Coast Main Line, and part of it is the proposed route of Phase Two. It’s our submission of the Committee that, although this Committee of course is only dealing with Phase One, and we recognise that, for us who live in the Ridwares the idea that you can separate out Phase One from Phase Two is really entirely artificial, since decisions made in respect of Phase One will, we suggest, been seen as precedents for Phase Two. The reality is that we face up to two decades or so of construction traffic and associated disruption, with Mavesyn Ridware, if I can coin a phrase, the filling in the sandwich between the West Coast Main Line, together with the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal, and HS2. And the gap between the two will be roughly around 2 km. Every single road to the north and east will be crossed by HS2. The only road to the west is a tiny country lane, which in places is only wide enough for a single vehicle. The only road to the south has to cross in succession the River Trent, the West Coast Main Line and then the Trent and Mersey Canal. This southern route will not be crossed by HS2, but the route does, as Mr Strachan has explained, provide access to work compounds off Old Road, Armitage – not Handsacre, Armitage – and is also impacted by Harvey’s Rough construction compound at Hanch, which was also shown by Mr Strachan earlier. It is believed that that compound will be operative during both Phase One and Phase Two.

24. The effect of all this is that HS2 will sever the hinterland of the village, because the village tends to look north and east as a result of the presence of the West Coast Main Line, and in particular will sever the united benefits of Mavesyn Ridware and Hamstall Ridware and King’s Bromley, will sever the roads to our GP’s surgery in

Yoxall, and this, we submit, becomes particularly burdensome if Phase Two is accelerated, as appears to be recommended by Sir David Higgins, because much of the route to the Ridwares is going to be on embankments, viaducts, and there is it is thought to be a maintenance loop at Pipe Ridware. We are of course mindful that HS2 Ltd’s response to our petition asserts that, for us, the Phase One disruption will be minimal, and I understand their point. But we would like to emphasise two matters. First of all, we have lived through the construction of the M6 Toll Road and the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line to four track. We have lived at the Old Hall now for more than 50 years, and what we found when those two great construction projects were undertaken was not that the projects themselves severed the roads; both took care to minimise disruption by keeping the severed roads open as far as was possible. The problems which arose came not from the construction traffic but from the restricted traffic flows that were caused at peak times. For example, drivers reacted by spilling out on to other roads that were unsuitable for such use, creating rat runs and chaos over a large area.

25. Another example: drivers diverted off the M6 at Stafford and took country roads to join up with the M6 east of Birmingham, and during the West Coast Main Line works at Rugeley Trent Valley railway station, which has a particularly awkward access – an underbridge, and perhaps I can show that on document A198 (9). Rugeley Trent Valley station is the orange blob on the left-hand side of the plan, and there is a sort of finger in pale pink, which is presumably to do with the land that is going to be taken for, or may be taken for, works. The orange blob is a train platform. That whole area is in fact the ramp that leads off the public highway to Trent Valley station, and if all that’s taken up, it’s difficult to understand how Rugeley Trent Valley can possibly operate. But you will note that the access to the station is on the apex of a right-angle bend. The road comes from the left, comes to the end of the finger, and then turns sharp right to go under the West Coast Main Line, then across the River Trent into Rugeley. The road that goes straight on, called the Blithbury Road, is in fact a small country lane, and where you see references to Colton Hill Farm, that is in fact at that place a single carriageway with passing places. And when it straightens out to go towards the railway station, there is a series of terraced houses along there, and people commonly park their cars in order to avoid paying for the car park. That is, therefore, only passable by single vehicles, and it’s a real bottleneck. During the West Coast Main Line four-tracking, what we found

was that many workers’ vans would park themselves on the car park station so that members of the public could not park there, and the overspill from the public all round these tiny lanes became substantial and made travelling around particularly difficult. It was made even more difficult if the finger up to the Trent Valley station was needed for access: for example, low loaders, cranes, road-roll machines and all the rest. And on occasions that particular junction became almost impassable, and it was a substantial problem for those of us who live in the valley of the Trent and wanted to get to Rugeley.

26. We do not believe from what we have heard so far that HS2 has done any adequate modelling of the phenomenon of spill-out traffic over a wide area. They have clearly considered the direct traffic the construction will cause, but of course to see that in isolation, we suggest, is entirely misleading. We are of course conscious that whatever the Committee decides will be seen potentially as a precedent for Phase Two. We are also aware that the Committee has had many petitions and probably many more in respect of traffic disruption, and we cannot expect special treatment. But we do submit that the Committee can and should impose conditions that will ensure that over the next two decades travel in and around, and to and from, the Ridwares remains sensibly feasible. In this respect we support the petition you are due to hear shortly, I believe, from Mavesyn Ridware Parish Council, and the petition you heard about three weeks ago from Mrs Gillian Stockdale, who is a vice-chairman of the Henry Chadwick School governors. And they, we can see, put the arguments better than we. We suggest that the solution to this problem is that the Committee should make it a condition that all construction traffic and work traffic that blocks or restricts traffic flows is prohibited during the morning and afternoon rush hours, particularly during school term times.

27. I would now like to turn to the second part of our submission that relates to noise pollution. We wish to argue that the gatehouse, a Grade I listed building, and therefore designated one of national importance, which is open to the public by appointment and more generally on heritage open days, and is in the middle of the conservation area that I have already described, already suffers from a badly degraded environment from noise from the West Coast Main Line. I know the Committee has been to Ashton Hayes farmhouse nears Handsacre and heard the noise for themselves. But the noise there is really a short, if loud, rumble. The problem that we have at Mavesyn Ridware is that the noise is of a higher pitch and, because of the topography and the curvature of the

line, lasts a lot longer. And we submit that even the relatively small increase predicted by HS2 Ltd from their proposals should not be permitted without a requirement that the existing simple fence-style sound barriers that were installed in Handsacre when the West Coast Main Line was four-tracked are extended to reflect the width of the conservation area I’ve already described. That would mean an extension from the Trent and Mersey Canal running east to the Four Arches bridge over the River Trent in the west, which, if my measurement is correct, is about 1,400 metres. We submit this should especially be so because the solution is simple and, in the scale of things, inexpensive.

28. We invite the Committee’s attention, please, to map 198 (11), which is the sound map that has been produced by HS2, and you will see that it stops abruptly at Handsacre. And so to the right – and you can see Ashton Hayes referred to there – it is a computer generated model and that has produced that sound outline that you can see. But where HS2 Ltd could produce actual figures for the Committee and reflect the reality of what happens in Handsacre and Mavesyn Ridware, there is a blank, because as far as I can tell, and Mr Strachan will correct me if I’m wrong, there has been no study, although Mr Strachan has just conceded, I think, that HS2 Ltd aren’t going to seriously challenge the figures in the survey that my wife carried out. And we also submit that one of the reasons that it’s so noisy in Mavesyn Ridware is because of the local topography and conditions, including the height of the railway, the fact it’s on an embankment, the higher land to the south, and the way it reverberates across the river valley itself. HS2 Ltd have suggested that the increase will be minor, something in the region of 2 dB, and this is, as Mr Strachan has already explained, because their assumption is that there will be an increase of about six trains per hour, three in each direction, and that the speed of some services will increase due to the two outer tracks having their maximum speed raised from 100 mph to 125 mph.

29. Before I further argue the point, I would like to, if I can, just explain the background, which may assist the Committee to understand why we doubt very much the assertion that this is a mere 2 dB increase. We have lived, or my family has, at the Old Hall since 1962. Then, the West Coast Main Line through Handsacre was only two track. Traction was mainly by steam engine, and consequently the railway was regarded as an attraction rather than a nuisance. By modern standards traffic flow was light and

line speeds much lower. Thereafter, there has been a series of incremental changes that have progressively in salami-slice fashion worsened matters without any attempt to address the issue of noise. Diesel traction was introduced. The line was upgraded and electrified, with an increase in line speed and numbers of trains. More recently, the West Coast Main Line was four-tracked and the line speed increased again, and longer goods trains introduced.

30. Each time the argument has been advanced that the additional nuisance factor will be small. I myself responded to the West Coast Main Line four-tracking consultation, saying that I did not object, provided the sound barriers proposed in Handsacre were extended past Mavesyn Ridware. I did not receive any response, not even an acknowledgment, and needless to say the sound barriers were not extended. The problem is if we had gone in one bound from 1962 to today’s date in 2014, no one, we suggest, would have tolerated it. HS2 now make the same argument to justify the upgrading of the two outer tracks with increased line speed and traffic flows without any noise mitigation. They have made no study of the existing levels of noise pollution generated by the West Coast Main Line.

31. Consequently, in an effort to put our cards on the table, we invited HS2 to a meeting at the Old Hall on 1 October this year so they could see for themselves. Neither myself nor my wife are sound engineers, but we had done, prior to the meeting, an amateur survey, which we disclosed at the meeting to HS2, and that survey is in our documents: 198, page 12, 13 and 14. I don’t invite the Committee to study it in depth at the moment. It’s there, so you can see it for yourselves in due course. The sample study, as you will see, was from 28 to 30 September 2014, so weren’t, as it were, picking particular days. We just took three days in succession prior to the meeting with HS2. And that survey seemed to demonstrate that during the rush hour there were about 20 trains passing per hour, with often two and occasionally three at once. 20 trains per hour is an average of one train every three minutes, and the sound would last between 17 and 45 seconds per train. An extra six trains per hour, as proposed by HS2, is a 30% increase in frequency of a train, which would mean a train every 2.3 minutes at peak times, and of course it’s a greater percentage increase off-peak.

32. We suggest to the Committee that, in any language, this is a significant increase

and cannot be dismissed simply by an assertion it’s only 2 dB. It’s a big increase in frequency. We found that, on the south side of the house, they made a noise peaking at over 72 dB, and that is shown on page 14 – 198, page 14 – at a time when the background level was between 44 dB and 48 dB, and the noise lasted, albeit not at peak level, 30-odd seconds. The position is clearly worse when two or three trains pass at the same time, when the noise can last up to one minute and 24 seconds. This noise is so intrusive that visitors comment upon it, and conversation has to pause for several seconds, as in fact the delegation from HS2 on 1 November discovered for themselves. When I take groups around the exterior of the gatehouse, I often have to pause my talk as a train passes by. They are often amazed to discover that the railway is as much as 250 metres away, and to illustrate that perhaps we could look at my picture 198 (15). That is taken from the bottom of the garden towards the footbridge that goes over the Trent and under the West Coast Main Line there, and shows – I’m afraid the model’s difficult to see – a Pendolino train traveling northwards.

33. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are the swans hiding or are they undisturbed?

34. MR EADES: Well, they’ve nested, so it’s rather nice, and I think he was just scratching himself. I don’t think we chose it deliberately, did we? No. I surmise that, as I’ve said, the local topography and the height of the railway embankment are all factors in this noise level. I had hoped that once the HS2 delegation had experienced the noise pollution for themselves that they might carry out a proper, fully scientific noise survey of their own. We had no such luck, as you will have seen. The current noise level from the West Coast Main Line creates huge scepticism locally in that community that the computer-generated estimates and sound-booth simulations which HS2 have done are accurate, given that HS2, of course, will go twice as fast.

35. We submit to the Committee that a historical building of national importance, open to the public, and its immediate environment should not be disregarded in this respect. The gatehouse was constructed to provide guest accommodation for the medieval manor which was on the site. When the current house was built, it was turned into a stable block and offices, and later when the current house became the farmhouse, it became stables and a barn. Only in 1959 was its full significance recognised and it underwent a partial restoration – unhappily the money ran out – and it was Grade I listed

in 1964. Since then it has had no function and remains largely unused. English Heritage wish it that way, and tell us that we are trustees of future generations. There is a covenant in the deed requiring it to be open to the public by appointment. Thus, we suggest, it has become a dependency of the main house and a financial millstone round its neck. The experience of such buildings, we suggest, is not often a happy one, since owners prefer to spend money on the part they live in. There is now no public money for maintenance or repairs. It requires an owner with a deep pocket and a sense of obligation to spend the money that is required to maintain it.

36. And with this in mind, can we look at my document 198 (16)? Those are three photographs when the building was partially restored, so this is after the money ran out. And I invite the Committee’s attention to the photograph on the left in particular, because that shows the state of the building in 1959. The whole of the building was like that, and the main portion of the building, which is timber-framed inside, was splitting apart. The timber frame had parted and was collapsing to the east and falling over itself, and in order to restore it it had to be, as it were, jacked back into place and steel plates and rod inserted to make it stable. And then if we could look at number 17, which is after restoration, that gives you, I hope, an idea of the scale of the job that occurred in the 1960s in putting this building into a decent state of repair. Our great fear is that if the environment of this building is degraded in the way that we suggest it will be, there is a real danger that this building will regress back into the state it was in 1959, as shown in the earlier photographs. It would be, in our submission to the Committee, a tragedy, and the Committee must be mindful that if buildings like this are to be kept in decent repair for future generations, they are wholly dependent upon the owner spending the money required. When my family acquired the property in 1962, the house which was being lived in was in a decent state of repair, but the gatehouse and the other outbuildings had been left to fall apart in the way that we’ve seen.

37. It is my experience that such people who have the deep pockets I have referred to do not choose to put their money into a house disfigured by noise. They prefer to go elsewhere. This, we submit, is a good and pressing reason to put to one side the argument that the increase in noise will be small or that the population of Mavesyn Ridware is too small to justify the expense of sound-suppression measures. If such an argument is adopted, it will be yet another salami-slice increase, this time in terms of

traffic, of at least 30%. We suggest any such increase will matter. Furthermore, we suggest, Network Rail will undoubtedly take advantage of the increase in line speed, which HS2 does not seem to have factored into their figures. We submit that the survival of our heritage is important. There is, we say, a deep paradox here: on the one hand, the state has listed the gatehouse as Grade I – and perhaps we could see 198 (18). It shows the interior, and in particular on the left the crown post roof. In fact, there are two crown posts, and I am told by English Heritage that it is the only building in Staffordshire with two crown posts. And the photograph on the right shows the tie beam, the post and the braces, and the photograph in the middle is a more general view of the interior.

38. I was referring to the paradox: the state has decreed that the land around, over a large area, is a conservation area to preserve the setting of the village and its important buildings, and has dubbed this building Grade I so that nothing should disfigure its amenity value for current and future generations. I cannot myself so much as put a nail in the gatehouse without the consent of English Heritage. On the other hand, it has given another emanation of the state – HS2 and Network Rail – carte blanche to disfigure the house, its setting and the conservation area with noise, 352 days of the year. This, we suggest, is all the more extraordinary when there is a simple and relatively inexpensive solution. The solution we invite the Committee to adopt is that it should order an extension of the sound barriers from Armitage with Handsacre, where the railway crosses the Trent and Mersey Canal, to the Five Arches, where the West Coast Main Line crosses the Trent, or some other satisfactory sound suppressant solution as a precondition to HS2 carrying out the proposed works on the West Coast Main Line. In the scale of HS2 costs, this will be less than small change, we suggest. Further, it is not any sort of expensive precedent for HS2 Ltd since our case rests upon its own particular facts in respect of the West Coast Main Line and has no broader application. Thank you.

39. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Before we ask Mr Strachan, would you like to add anything, Mrs Eades, at all?

40. MRS EADES: No, I’m happy.

41. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can we just know the length between those two bridges?

42. MR EADES: 1,400 metres, roughly.

43. CHAIR: Mr Strachan.

44. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sir, I’m going to just deal with the question of construction traffic briefly. I don’t think I need to call Mr Miller to deal with that, just to explain the position, and then I’m just going to ask Mr Thornely-Taylor briefly to deal with the question of noise. But so far as the construction traffic’s concerned, P842, which I showed the Committee earlier, deals with the works that were nearest the Petitioner’s property in terms of the signalisation gantry works from Hill Ridware, and the Committee has seen the extent of the periods over which that would occur and already heard – and I can tell Mr and Mrs Eades – that of course construction traffic will be the subject of traffic management plans under the Code of Construction Practice. But in reality, the nature of the works in this area are simply those to West Coast Main Line signalisation here, and the other plan that Mr Eades took you to was A198 (9): similar works at Rugeley just to the left, where one is having the removal of a signal gantry and replacement. As the Committee’s heard, those works will tend to happen during a possession when there aren’t trains travelling along the lines in order for the signal gantry to be lifted off. And so the concern Mr Eades has expressed about traffic being able to access the station whilst those works are going on would not ordinarily occur, and as to set-up works beforehand, those would be limited but in any event will be subject to, as I indicated, the Code of Construction Practice. So, it’s not anticipated that these works would cause any material impact to Mr Eades or anyone else in this area, given those points, and that’s really the nature of those works.

45. Can I turn to the issue of noise and the effects specifically on Old Hall, and I’ll just ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to come and address you on that, but whilst he’s perhaps taking his seat, just to accelerate things, could I just ask for P844 (1) and (2) to be put up on the screen? Because I think Mr Eades was suggesting that there hadn’t been assessment of noise impacts in this area, but he was also concerned about line speed. But in fact there have been assessments in the environmental statement. I’ll get Mr

Thornely-Taylor just to deal with them, but if one looks at the page I’ve just got up on screen, the effects during operation in this area – they deal both with the effects of the increase of three trains per hour in each direction and increased speed, so that’s all factored into the environmental statement – the fact that one can go a little bit faster on the West Coast Main Line forms part of the assessment which results in the assumption of a 2 dB increase. You can see that just at the bottom of this page, 5.6.67, “The assessment has identified that in the area between Handsacre and Colwich, railway sound levels would increase by approximately 2 dB,” and then the vibration dose is carried on to the next page. Mr Eades referred to HS2 trains travelling twice as fast as West Coast Main Line trains. That’s not the case on this section. The HS2 trains travelling on the West Coast Main Line and the classic compatible services will not travel any faster than the existing West Coast Main Line services.

46. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which is what speed?

47. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think it is currently 100 mph, and it will increase to 125. That increase has been factored into the assessment – the increase in speed. I’ll just ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to deal with what I’ve just said, and particularly Mr and Mrs Eades’ concerns that they were measuring maximum noise levels of up to 72 dB from existing trains. Mr Thornely-Taylor, can you just explain, please, why it is that that 2 dB increase – what that means and why it’s not considered to be a significant effect for this area?

48. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The Committee will recall the presentation that I made on noise back in July, and I explained the two principal measures one uses: the maximum noise level and then the thing called the equivalent continuous sound level over a period of time, known as Leq for short. The noise measurements which Mr and Mrs Eades have presented in their evidence are maximum noise levels, which they measured in the mid-60s, with that one event of slightly more than 72, which appears to have been an unusually high level. Whether there was a warning horn or something sounded, I don’t know, but broadly speaking those maximum noise levels would be equivalent to an Leq somewhere in the mid to low 50s. It places the locality – if it were subject to the Noise Policy Statement for England, it would place it in the band between the lowest observed adverse effect level and the significant observed adverse effect

level, which would bring into play consideration of mitigation and minimisation. But it is of course beyond the end of the scheme, and it’s a well established approach to present the assessment of noise effects of a new transportation scheme before the use of the scheme, and that’s what the noise maps show. The trains are quite clearly audible, and they’re frequent, but the 2 dB increase is an increase in the LAeq, takes account of the fact that the net number of trains will be slightly more, and some of them will be travelling slightly faster.

49. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think the suggestion was from Mr Eades that the noise barrier – some sort of noise barrier mitigation or something similar – should be extended from Armitage along this section of the line. Mr Thornely-Taylor, in light of the results you’ve just referred to, and taking account of the survey figures you’ve seen from Mr and Mrs Eades, is that justified in terms of the approach and the policy you’ve just explained?

50. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: It merits consideration, and consideration is given to it in Volume 4 of the environmental statement, but a 2 dB increase is small in the context of increased noise from transportation schemes and isn’t large enough to merit provision of further noise barriers.

51. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I haven’t got any further questions for Mr Thornely- Taylor.

52. CHAIR: Mr Eades, do you have any questions for Mr Thornely-Taylor?

53. MR EADES: Yes. The logic of saying it’s only a small increase, and therefore it doesn’t mean under the scheme that any abatement measures should be taken, if taken to its logical conclusion means that the sounds could be raised every time there is some form of improvement to the West Coast Main Line. This goes on endlessly, does it not?

54. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: It isn’t of course endless, because we do have this approach of looking to see if it’s lowest observed or significant observed adverse effect level. If we were taking it above the significant observed adverse effect level, there would be something to consider because that would be quite an important step, but a

small increase in this band of relatively low impact – and I know for the Eades it is an important feature of their environment – but if you look at the many communities along the West Coast Main Line, and large numbers of houses are a short distance from it, in the context of West Coast Main Line impacts as a whole, it’s towards the lower end.

55. MR EADES: But do you agree that the increase will be about – in terms of traffic, it’ll be in the region of 30% or more?

56. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The number of events will be slightly more, yes, and the duration of some of the events will be longer.

57. MR EADES: You call 30% slightly more, do you?

58. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Well, the net increase in the number of trains per hour is three. Some of the trains will – the noise will last a little longer, because some of the HS2 trains will be 400 metres long, which is longer than a Pendolino.

59. MR EADES: Can you explain why HS2 have not actually done on-the-ground measurements of the noise of the West Coast Main Line at Mavesyn Ridware?

60. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: As a general approach to all major transportation schemes, you can’t assess an unbounded extension of the scheme, otherwise we’d be looking at noise barriers in Glasgow, for instance, because some of the trains go there.

61. MR EADES: But the point that I’m making, which you’ve heard me make, is that this is a historic landscape with a conservation area, two Grade I listed buildings, including the gatehouse, both of which are used by the public. Does that not become a factor in you consideration?

62. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Not at the levels that we are dealing with, given that there is a baseline of a major main-line railway with a not insignificant noise effect already, and in the context of that the change that is made by this scheme is not sufficient to warrant the kind of approach that Mr Eades would like to see.

63. MR EADES: So, when would you say enough is enough?

64. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: If we’d gone above significant observed adverse effect level, then we would have to look at it in a manner which would involve consideration of noise barriers and further mitigation.

65. MR EADES: Mr Thornely-Taylor, when it was four-tracked the approach of I think it was Railtrack in those days was that the increase was going to be small. But for those of us on the ground living in Mavesyn Ridware the impacts have been very substantial, because the number of trains and the length of trains and the speed of trains has increased, and the experience that we have is not of a low rumble, as I explained to the Committee, but of a higher pitched roar that, because of the curvature of the track, lasts much longer than it would, say, if you were standing on the platform of a railway station.

66. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: What I think is worth saying is the Committee will have experienced from the demonstration in the sound lab that we did that actually the type of noise from HS2 is slightly more agreeable, if I can put it that way, than the noise from Pendolinos, which one or two members commented on and asked why they sounded as they did, to which the answer was the wheels of the trains respond readily to vibration excitation and radiate noise rather efficiently. To the extent that a large number of Pendolino trains will be replaced by HS2 trains, it’s not necessarily a worsening of the total acoustic effect of listening to these trains.

67. MR EADES: When the Pendolinos were first introduced, they were actually rather quieter than they currently are, because they appear to have loosened up and the noise – I’m not scientist and I can’t tell you why, but the noise is much more intrusive. Can you explain why that is?

68. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: It is the point I’ve just made, so that the nature of the wheel sets of Pendolinos is such that they do produce a slightly more intrusive kind of noise than we will get from HS2 trains.

69. MR EADES: Thank you.

70. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Eades.

71. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m just going to ask Mr Thornely-Taylor just to clarify: the LAmax figures you referred to as significant observed adverse effect at night-time, for example, what sort of levels are they? You’ve got them in information paper E20, but I –

72. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes, there’s a table a E20 which shows that the LOAEL is 60 dB LAmax at night, that being the most important time of day, and as we can see from the measurements made by Mr and Mrs Eades, the existing levels are above that level, which is why I said we were in the zone between LOAEL, lowest observed, and SOAEL, significant observed. The trigger for SOAEL is, where there are more than 20 trains per hour, 85, and where there are up to 20 trains per hour, 80. So, we are very much towards the bottom end of that range.

73. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you very much. I don’t have any further questions.

74. CHAIR: Thank you. Are you calling anybody else or –

75. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry, I don’t have any –

76. CHAIR: You have no further witnesses.

77. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No further witnesses, and I don’t have any further comments to make beyond what Mr Thornely-Taylor’s made and the points I’ve made already.

78. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Eades, would you like to make some brief final comments, please?

79. MR EADES: I think I’ve already made the points I want to make, and I’m sure the Committee won’t want me to repeat myself, so I will resist.

80. CHAIR: It does look a lovely barn there. Thank you very much. Alright – now we are on to Mr Outen.

Mr David Outen

81. CHAIR: Right. We normally, Mr Outen, start off with the Promoter just giving an overview. Are you happy for that to be the case?

82. MR OUTEN: Yes, that’s fine.

83. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould.

84. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Mr and Mrs Outen live in Hints at Cedar Tree Cottage, School Lane, in that village. On the screen in front of you at P816 is an aerial photograph, upon which the line of the route has been superimposed, and the Committee will recall as the route passes to the east of the village of Hints it is in cutting until it gets just to the point alongside the northern most tip of Rookery Wood, and then it passes on to embankment to go across the Bourne Brook on viaduct just to the north of this image. To the east of the proposed alignment, marked in a red outline on the screen in front of you, is Mr and Mrs Outen’s property. It is about 550 metres at its closest point to the line of the route, so that’s the distance, if you will, if you were to draw an arrow across the screen from the line to the Petitioner’s property; that is, broadly speaking, the distance that we are talking about.

85. If we can turn please to P820, the Committee will recall from proceedings on 22 October, at which you heard the Petition of the Hints & Area Action Group and the Parish Council, that the Promoter is committed, by virtue of assurances given to Staffordshire County Council, to promote a revised scheme for the railway as it passes to the west of the village of Hints. On the screen in front of you at P820, by way of an aide memoir, I have put up the basic components of that scheme. If you will recall, it will lower the vertical alignment of the railway by some three metres as it passes to the west of the village, and it will realign the existing road known as Brockhurst Lane so that it passes as shown on the screen in front of us on a dog-leg to the south of the

existing alignment, so that it passes over the railway rather than underneath it, and it carries not only the private road that is Brockhurst Lane but also Hints footpath number 14, and a green element to the bridge for ecological purposes as well.

86. The Committee will recall that we provided some cross-sectional information to illustrate the effect of the proposed revised scheme, and if we turn to P821 we can see the cross sections. The petitioner’s property is, again, outlined in red, and as the Committee can see on this image, cross sections two and three are those which most closely illustrate the relationship between their property and the proposed revised scheme, and if we then turn to P822, I can just show you, by way of introduction, those two sections. If you just – at the centre of the page is section two. School Lane is marked on that section. If you take the building immediately to the left or to the west of School Lane, that is the Petitioner’s property or a good proxy for it, and then if you imagine a line of sight drawn from that property westwards across the valley towards the railway line, you get a sense of the degree to which in this cross section there will be a view. And as you will recall the scheme involves the creation of a false cutting through mounding to the east of the railway line, and then substantial new planting as shown on this cross section immediately to the east of the railway line as well. Then cross section three, which we saw on the plan a few moments ago, is just beneath that on the screen in front of you. Again, you can see School Lane. The building immediately to its left or to its west is a good proxy for the Petitioner’s premises, and again, if you imagine a line of sight passing westwards across the valley – in fact this cross section ought to show a planting belt immediately to the east of the railway on top of the false cutting here as well, because planting is intended to extend to this point to the west of Hints. Again, you get a sense of the intervisibility of the railway and the Petitioner’s property along this cross-sectional line.

87. If we turn to B828 (2), if you would, again by way of reminder, returning to noise, you’ll recall that we showed you this noise contour map. The Petitioner’s property is being shown with the red dot on the screen in front of us, and if you remember, as appears from the key at the top of the page, the red belt shows the operational noise contour for the night-time period at or above the 55 dB contour, and the grey belt shows the position of the extent of noise between 40 dB and 55 dB at night-time, which as you’ll recall from Mr Thornely-Taylor’s evidence on 22 October,

corresponds to the LOAEL and the SOAEL band in the noise design criteria that the project has been designed to. As you can see, you can see the relationship of the Petitioner’s property at the outward boundary of the contour as shown on that plan.

88. Mr Outen I think in a few moments is going to show you some documents which come from the history of development of the project, going back over the past four years or so. Just to set those in context, it might be helpful if I mention this to the Committee: since December 2010, the horizontal alignment of the line through Hints has remained constant and unchanged. In other words, the route that was published for public consultation in February 2011, the horizontal alignment of that route is the same as the route that you see on the screen in front of you. In terms of vertical alignment, since December 2010 the vertical alignment in this area has lowered marginally the order of about a metre. That is the consequence of a change to the vertical alignment of the railway as it passes beneath the A5 to the north of Hints; that has led to a marginal lowering of vertical alignment. Plainly, the proposed revision to the route that I mentioned to you a moment ago as a result of our commitment to Staffordshire, that will be brought forward in the form of an addition provision in due course and will propose to lower the route at this point by a further three metres, as I’ve explained.

89. If we turn to P823, the Petitioner’s case, I think broadly consistently with the case presented to you by the action group on 22 October, is that as a minimum the railway to the west of Hints should pass into an 800 metre green tunnel. I’ve put up on the screen, just to jog your memories, the slide which we showed on the earlier date to illustrate that, P823, and having reminded you of that, I think it’s time for me to hand over to Mr Outen to present his case.

90. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Outen.

91. MR OUTEN: Thank you, Chairman. Can I just say, at the outset, that what these plans do not show is the topography of the area? In fact, when you look out of our bedroom window across the valley at the view opposite and where this line is going to travel, it looks a lot closer than 550 metres. I’m not disputing the distance; I’m just saying there is an element here that is forgotten, and that is topography. We are on one side of the valley; the village looks directly opposite to the line – to the escarpment

opposite, and this line is going to pass, as you’ve probably seen from the site visit, right through that escarpment.

92. CHAIR: I think when we visited we went, with your Member of Parliament, to the village hall, which I presume is just 100 yards up the lane from that point.

93. MR OUTEN: That’s right, yes.

94. CHAIR: So, if we’d gone left, we’d have walked down to your house, rather than going right to go and have a look at the line.

95. MR OUTEN: That’s right, yes. The other point I would make is that I didn’t quite understand the section that Mr Mould was talking about – the change in levels. I do dispute something that he said with regard to the lowering of the levels, but I think in the course of what I wish to say to you, that will come out. Basically, I just want to discuss three topics with you. The first is the history of mitigation in Hints. The second is the sift and the appraisal process, which I think is quite flawed. I’m raising those two points basically because I think issues arise out of them that support the case for a tunnel at Hints. And finally I want to talk about the long-term hardship scheme and how it affects me personally and my wife, because I think it reflects the situation that many people in our situation find themselves in.

96. So, if I can start on the history of mitigation, the real consultation for the alignment past Hints didn’t take place during the public consultation. It actually took place before the public consultation started. It took place between March 2010, when the scheme was announced, and December 2010. Philip Hammond, the then Secretary of State for Transport, made an announcement in Parliament just before Christmas of 2010 on the changed preferred route for the scheme as a whole. It was a change to the route as first published, and included in those changes were changes around Hints. Since that time there has been no material change, as has been said, on the horizontal alignment of the route, and in fact I think there has been very little change on the vertical alignment, except, at the last community forum meeting that was held in the village, at Hints village hall, in the autumn of 2013, when it was announced – a shock announcement to all those attending – that the route beyond Bucks Head Farm heading

towards Whittington Heath Golf Course was to be raised by eight metres. And that really was in line with a statement made by the second Secretary of State for Transport for this scheme, Justine Greening, when in January 2012 she announced that the preferred route was going to be published for consultation, and at the same time she said that an extra length of tunnelling would be provided in the Chilterns, and savings would be made further north, and that one way savings were made was by raising the line, reducing excavation.

97. Right, well, I said Philip Hammond made this announcement, and it was confirmed in the letter – and it’s not the exhibit you’ve got in front of you but it’s 204 – it should be on the screen. This is an extract from a letter from Mr Hammond to Christopher Pincher MP dated 10 January 2011, and it says, and I’ll read it to you, “The route HS2 Ltd recommended and published in March 2010 was developed to minimise impact on the village of Hints by curving to the west at a low elevation in the landscape. Following my recent programme of visits to the line of the route, I commissioned further work from HS2 Ltd to assess options for further improving its recommended route and reducing its local impacts. As a result of this additional work, the preferred route for consultation published on 20 December 2010 differs from the route set out in HS2 Ltd’s March report for around half its length. We have moved the alignment further from Lichfield, meaning it would join the West Coast Main Line further north. This will lessen the impacts on the local community in your area” – in other words, in Hints and area. And as you will see, I will dispute that.

98. From examination of these reports, there has definitely been a reduction in the mitigation for Hints and a design compromise to improve mitigation for Lichfield. So, if I could have exhibit 2, please. Now, exhibit 2 is taken – there were three reports between March 2010 and December 2010, and this report is the first one – the September report. And in it it states, “We considered a more westerly alignment that moved Route 3 away from the village of Hints. However, this would require the tracks to operate at the limits of the railways technical specification, generating more noise as a result of wheel flanges pressing against the rails at high speed. It would require more frequent night-time maintenance and, therefore, disturbance to village inhabitants. Therefore, while we are not recommending this change to the alignment, we are recommending a slight lowering of the alignment to reduce noise and visual impact.” In

fact the drawing that was published with that showed a line radius of 7,945 metres, and unfortunately I haven’t got written down here the level, but I can find that, but it was somewhat lower – it was probably six metres lower than the level now is.

99. In November a further report was published, and it compared a straight-line route, which was recommended by a member of the public, with the preferred route. The straight-line route was dismissed for higher costs, the fact that it impinged upon Whittington Barracks and for various other factors. That in fact was then quickly superseded by a report in December which examined the variation for both routes, and if I could have exhibit 206, please. Now, in this December report, it considered a fairly significant change to the preferred route. This is where the route has been moved further away from Lichfield. If you look at the top left-hand corner, you can see that it goes through an industrial park in the north-east part of Lichfield. That’s the red line. The black line is the new preferred route. You can see it’s shifted away from Lichfield, and in fact it’s shifted very close to Whittington Barracks, which is in the bottom right- hand corner, and it goes directly through Whittington Heath Golf Course. I’m sorry; I could use this pointer to show you. So, it’s gone from there to there, and that’s Whittington Barracks.

100. Now, in fact, in my opinion the appraisal that was done between these routes – and I will say at the outset I am not seeking a change in the route – but the appraisal that was done between the straight-line route and this new route was flawed and skewed in favour of the preferred route, and that’s for various reasons. First of all, it said that the environmental impact of the preferred route was less damaging but gave no explanation. But you can see that the new preferred route goes through Whittington Heath, which is a very rare heathland. It actually passes through Bucks Head Farm, which has five bat roosts of rare Natterer’s bats. It goes through a highly valued landscape, which is the Bourne Valley, and it damages ancient woods. That’s apart from other issues. If I can just quote the public inquiry for the Hints Bypass, which was done several years earlier, one of the alternatives to that bypass was to push it through the Bourne Valley. It was thrown out as being the worst option on environmental and ecological damage that it would cause, and in fact the final route went to the east of Hints. The other reason it gives is that it avoids Whittington Barracks. Well, in fact, in that December report it does admit that the straight-line route can be weaved past Whittington Barracks.

Thirdly, the preferred route actually affects 10 residential properties and 15 commercial properties, compared with a straight-line route that only requires the demolition of five residential properties. It ignores compensation costs and the effects on the local economy.

101. But the real reason that I am raising these issues with you is in the next exhibit, which is 207, and this is from the same December report, in which it says, under ‘Recommendation’ – it states “Option 1 would be a longer route with more curves” – that’s the preferred route – “and would require a section designed using minimum geometrical standards” – that, in fact, I think refers to the radius – “which would lead to a higher night-time maintenance liability and would require a small restriction in ultimate speed to 225 mph.” It says in brackets, in fact, “360 kph” but that was later corrected to “350 kph”. “However, we believe that it performs better in overall sustainability as it avoids Whittington Barracks entirely, avoids the village of Streethay,” which in fact so does the straight-line route, “and takes the alignment” – and this is the key; this is why it was all done – “some distance from Lichfield. Option 2 would be slightly more expensive to construct.” So, you can see from those statements that in the comparison of the two alternatives, the reduction in maximum speed and the increased maintenance were not considered detrimental on a scheme costing £50 billion. Any future problems that might arise from those decisions was not an issue, but significantly – and this is the point I really want to raise – is that the additional noise, and in particular the night-time maintenance, was totally ignored as an issue. In the September report you will recall it was a determining factor. For night-time maintenance, and I’m not a railway engineer, but obviously at night sounds travel further, and you will get construction sounds and erratic noises as a result of that. And also I think there’s a significant possibility that trains travelling a low speeds, which maintenance train sets will do – on super-elevated tracks, you’re likely to get wheel screech, which is very pervasive.

102. So, if I could have the next exhibit, which is 209. Now, this is a letter – no, sorry, it’s back one. You were right first time. Thank you. Exhibit 5. Oh, 208 that is. Thank you. Sorry. Anyway, this is a letter to Mr Pincher from Professor Andrew McNaughton, and it’s the second paragraph that I’d like you to look at. It says, “In the responses to your questions in your most recent letter, we predict that this route may

require three or four overnight maintenance shifts per year in the Hints area, which is about double the anticipated requirement of a straight line.” Well, I would suggest that is more than double, but that’s another day. “I enclose the In Your Area 14: Middleton to Lichfield fact sheet, which shows the areas where a notable noise increase may occur.” And so if I could have my next exhibit, please, which is – I assume it’s – that’s right. Now, unfortunately, this should be in colour, but I’ve only got a black-and-white copy. But, if you look at the noise impacts key and the table – yes, so if I point here – there are three categories, and they are all categories where there will be noticeable noise increase. If you look at the red rectangle down there, that is Hints, and you can see there are at least two circles in that area. So, at this time, despite what is now being said, it was predicted that there would be a noticeable noise impact in Hints, and in fact this deals with operating noise. It doesn’t deal with night-time noise, which, if you recall, in the September report, the maintenance was considered – would be unacceptable to the villagers.

103. Now, in fact, HS2 Ltd have consistently maintained that they have moved the line west by 100 metres away from Hints as an improvement by increasing the curvature. So, if I could have exhibit – well, it’s my 7A, so it’s – this is it, yes. Thank you. This is a letter actually to Christopher Pincher from Sir Brian Briscoe, who was then chairman on HS2. And if you look at this paragraph here, it says, “In the Hints area, the track has been designed for a maximum speed of 350 kph rather than 400 kph in order to increase curvature, allowing realignment 100 metres further from Hints.” Well, that is plainly a nonsense, and I’ll come on to why in a minute.

104. If I could have the next exhibit, which I assume – well, you haven’t got 7A on here. Oh yes, that’s it – thank you. This was confirmed in an FOI request that I made, dated 23 March 2011, and a letter from Alison Munro dated 17 May 2011, saying, “With respect to the clarification regarding the letter dated 14 January from our chairman, the increase in curvature and the lowering of speed was to avoid visual and physical impact on properties in your area.” Well, in fact, the track was raised by six metres. It was pushed away by about 100 metres, but, because of the curvature, there’s an increase in operating noise because there’s an increase in friction between rail and wheel flange on the outer rail, and there’s also the increase in night-time maintenance. I can illustrate that best by if we go back to exhibit A206. Now, you’ll recall that the

preferred route was changed from the red line across to the black line. If you look at the bottom, you can see those two lines are converging.

105. So, if we could go on to exhibit – where are we? Eight, is it? 211. That’s it. Thank you. Now, this, the orange line here, was the original preferred route, and you can see it’s going off up towards the top end of Lichfield. When they, HS2, had the requirement to move the line further away from Lichfield, they had two options really: they could have either brought the line within the original line – that’s the dotted red line. That would have had the effect of pushing the line further into Roundhill Wood, through the top of it, in fact, would have increased the excavation there; it would have severely damaged that wood, and of course it would’ve brought it much nearer to Hints.

106. So, they then had the other option of taking it outside to bring it up to Whittington Heath. If they brought it outside, the net effect of that was it would bring it up the hill; that’s why the line was raised. It also slightly impinges on Roundhill Wood, but it goes along the bottom of Rookery Wood at a lower level. But the key thing here is that, in order to do that, they had to reduce the radius of that line to a radius that was less than – well, let me start again. They reduced the radius. The effect of that was that, in order for the train to travel at the original design speed, they would have exceeded what is called cant deficiency. That is a measure, but not directly, but it’s a measure of the unbalanced force against the outer rail as the train goes round the curve. And the only way they could get within their design limit on cant deficiency was to reduce the speed to 350 kph. That is why this line was moved 100 metres away. It is nothing to do with trying to give mitigation to Hints, and in fact, because of this effect of wheel flange to rail being put to its absolute maximum in design terms, it means there is extra noise generated, there is extra wear on those rails – they have to be reinforced, in fact, to take that force, which I doubt has been included in their cost – and that means that we’ve got this increased maintenance provision at night. In fact the radius was reduced to 6,290 metres, and the speed, to get the cant deficiency to less than 80 millimetres.

107. So, my argument is this: that to mitigate against the noise and additional maintenance that’s going to be required around here – and, with respect to HS2, until this train operates they will not know actually what the maintenance requirement is; what they’re saying is an informed guess, I would suggest – the light pollution that

comes from that, there is a very good case, because we look directly at it, for providing a short tunnel through that escarpment. That will have added benefits. I’m a great believer in being, as was previously mentioned by the previous Petitioners, a trustee for the future – for the future generations. I’ve got seven grandchildren, and I think that this, the landscape through here, is going to be irrevocably altered. It’s a very unique landscape as it is, and by putting that short tunnel in, it will at least preserve the overall profile of the landscape in the area. That escarpment that you can see – and if we can move on to the next – well, you can see it from here. If I just point: that gap between those two woods, the Roundhill and Rookery, just across there, is very visible from many viewpoints around Hints and Canwell, and a cutting through there is going to be a very visible intrusion on the overall landscape, and certainly a very visible intrusion as far as the village is concerned. What is proposed, with all the planting and the further engineering landforms around here, will totally alter that appearance. By putting a tunnel in you will reduce loss of woods both at Roundhill and Rookery, particularly at Rookery, and one of the things that I am concerned about, which I raised with HS2 many times when we had meetings with them, was the question of leaves falling on the line. You can see from this photograph here that Rookery Wood is above the proposed line of HS2.

108. That line is going to be in effect a trough, a long trough all the way down there. And the prevailing wind in this area is from the southwest, so it’s coming across Rookery Wood towards the village, straight across that trough. I have included, if I can find it, exhibit 12 is A212… Oh, sorry it’s the next one along there, sorry. That’s it. I happened to see this while I was away on holiday, but it’s typical every year in newspapers. If you look at the bottom right-hand corner, it says, ‘A Network Rail spokesman said, “Strong winds, torrential rain and large quantities of falling leaves are making conditions difficult on the railway today.”’ I’ve raised the question of falling leaves with HS2. They then said, ‘No, it’s not falling leaves; it’s falling trees. It’s tree- fall that’s the concern.’ So we asked them, ‘Well, how far back is the wood going to have to be cut for this?’ And they say – well, we’ve never had an answer from them. The fact is that if you have a tunnel, that doesn’t become an issue. What I’m concerned with is that once the construction has been done and the train has been put into operation, they will have serious problems with that sort of issue. And there will be aggressive maintenance and that wood, because it’s so much higher than the line itself,

will just be cut back and cut back.

109. The last thing that I think why this tunnel is really required is that it does create a green corridor for animals and recreational users. If I can show exhibit 13, 216 – oh, sorry – it’s the one before that. That’s it, thank you. This just shows, that triangle in yellow, the area that we’re talking about: the Hints and Canwell Park Estate. And by chance, I don’t know, but it has been spared major development through it. There are major roads either side of it and the Hints Bypass now on the north side of it. The fact is that it’s a unique landscape. It’s highly prized by local people because it’s right on the doorstep – and this is the point – it’s right on the doorstep of northeast Birmingham, of Lichfield and of Tamworth. It attracts lots and lots of ramblers. During the summer, we can expect two or three parties – and I’m not exaggerating – two or three parties of ramblers through Hints village a day. That’s how popular it is. What I’m saying is if you just have that corridor through there, at least it will alleviate some of the reduction in the recreational value of this area for those people who find it an attractive place to come. The fact is that it is a very tranquil place, as I will come on to in a minute.

110. The last thing I wanted to show you was how I believe that HS2, from day one, have tried to disguise the fact of what they have been doing around here. And I refer you to exhibit 217 – oh, sorry, it’s the one before that. My numbers aren’t the same. But again, in the same report, the December report talking about option one, it says, ‘It follows a similar alignment of the published route past Hints, but then makes a tighter curve to the east to pass northwest of the village of Streethay.’ I won’t bother you with the next exhibit, but it’s a communication I had from HS2 following a query I made with them to find out exactly where the tighter curve was. And they gave me the changes. And in fact, the tighter curve is not around Streethay; it is around Hints. And in fact, if we have the exhibit, I will just show you the –

111. MR MOULD QC (DfT): A217.

112. MR OUTEN: A217, thank you. It did come up before, but… Yeah, if you just look at – actually, it’s Streethay. It says that a round 185 plus 000 change does not have a reduction in maximum speed from 400 kph. The reduction is around Hints. Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say on that particular topic, Chairman.

113. CHAIR: Okay.

114. MR OUTEN: So the next thing I’d like to talk about is the Sift process and the appraisal process. I might have got these two confused a bit, but basically it’s the appraisal process that was used.

115. CHAIR: The appraisal process. Your first point was about you wanted a tunnel.

116. MR OUTEN: Yes.

117. CHAIR: Yes. And the point of your second point is…?

118. MR OUTEN: Well, I said I was going to talk about three different topics at the outset. I’ve talked about the history of mitigation. I now want to talk about the appraisal process that was used in the environmental statement to produce these tables.

119. CHAIR: Right.

120. MR OUTEN: Because, again, I think it has a bearing on where tunnels have been constructed, or recommended, and where they haven’t. And basically, what I am saying is this: that the appraisal process used for environmental appraisal is opaque and almost totally subjective. You can see down on this table, it has key sustainability issues. I’m not going to go through them, but basically what I am saying is they are too broadly defined and they cover issues outside of local impacts. There are four main headings, 16 subdivisions, and then those 16 subdivisions are divided between construction and operation. So in all, there are 30 divisions on these tables. And we’re looking at the table that was done for the section around Hints. So straightaway it is quite complicated and not easily understood. It appears that equal weight has been given to all sustainability issues, regardless of whether they are temporary, i.e. occur during construction. Also, I think some of those sustainability issues should be considered only at a macro level because they have no local impact. For example, carbon dioxide emissions is a sustainability issue concerned with the scheme as a whole. The emission of carbon dioxide near to us is irrelevant; it all just goes into the atmosphere as part of the overall carbon dioxide load, and likewise energy.

121. The net result is that if you look at the top right-hand corner, these classifications have been divided into: major worsening, minor worsening, neutral, minor improvement, major improvement. And I would suggest to you that, actually, the outcome of that sort of simple classification is that this table is rendered worthless. And the reason I say that is because if you take a tunnel, for example, it will score very highly on major worsening and it will score very highly, probably, on major improvement. Whereas if you take the alternative to it, which is cuttings and engineered landforms and so on, it will score lowly on minor worsening or less, but it will only score lowly on improvements. So the two just equal each other out; they don’t actually give you any useful information, I would suggest, from a practical point of view, from some ordinary person looking at it, to try and understand how decisions have been made.

122. In fact, I would suggest that to determine adequate and fair mitigation along the route, sustainability should focus on longer-term local impacts and it should be concerned that environmental and ecological assets that we have are more closely defined. They’re all lumped together in this. There’s no distinction between anything. So I would suggest that it should have been defined: quality of landscape, ancient woods, rare species, recreational amenity, community impacts, conservation areas and so on, which are all local things that people understand and the impact of the scheme on those things.

123. The process should be transparent between communities and numerable. This is totally subjective; there’s no attempt to numerate any of these things so that you get a pecking order. It should be easily understood and not wholly relying on the judgment of professionals. You see, when you look through the environmental statement, the beauty of the Hints area is acknowledged. I will just quote a few things: ‘A series of steeply sided rolling hills and interlocking valleys, creating a sense of remoteness, seclusion, tranquillity and enclosure, punctuated by a series of prominent hilltops. The largely tranquil landscape is a high-quality landscape with a high sensitivity to change. It was formerly designated a special landscape.’ Now those things, there’s no means of comparing that with the landscapes either side, which are fairly ordinary if I may say so. They’re all lumped in together. There are one or two little phrases, but when you put it

into this, it disappears.

124. In fact, the Staffordshire County Council classification for this area requires that any development should blend unobtrusively into the landscape and not alter its characteristics. That’s why I’m asking for that tunnel, to retain that space between the two woods. The promoter acknowledges that the scheme and associated earthworks and planting will change landscape. They acknowledge that Rookery and Roundhill ancient woods will be damaged. They’re both sites of biological interest. It acknowledges that there will be adverse effects on the village of Hints. And here I show exhibit 16, which is A219 on this. That’s right. This is taken out of the – I’ve lost my place now, sorry – the non-technical summary of the environmental statement, November 2013. In the bottom, it very specifically says, ‘During operation, noise and visual effects will affect the setting of Hints, which is in a conservation area, part of which relies on the views it has,’ and so on.

125. So Hints, I would suggest to you, appears to have a very strong case for a tunnel but the Sift process fails to provide a convincing and regularly understood method for supporting the protection of some small communities outside of areas of natural beauty with short tunnels while ignoring others.’ There are tunnels, and I don’t know why they’re there, but there are tunnels at Greatworth, Chipping Warden, and Long Itchington. In fact, if you look at the tunnels that are proposed, there are 24 miles of tunnels proposed south of Burton Green – in rural areas, I’m talking about – and none to the north.

126. So I would suggest to you – and we’ll come on to this later, I’m sure – that actually the cost of a tunnel is quite independent of the appraisal that HS2 have put forward. I think value judgments have been made to determine where tunnels are because if you think about it, any area where there is a tunnel could equally be provided with a high-speed route that involves just cutting and straightforward construction. And the cost differences between those two will be – well, if you take the Chilterns it’s several magnitudes of difference. And so what I am saying to you is that the Bourne Valley is of very high value. It’s a unique landscape; it’s a unique location very, very close to major conurbations. That’s the point of it. People from that area, if they want to go anywhere else like it, they have to travel quite a distance. It’s right on the

doorstep and it’s a prized amenity for a lot of people. And I think it should, at least, at a minimum, be protected by that short tunnel. The majority of areas appear to be brought down to a common level by the Sift process, by professional judgment, in my view just to justify – to reduce justification, sorry, for improved mitigation measures. That’s all I want to say on that, Chair.

127. CHAIR: Okay.

128. MR OUTEN: The last thing I wanted to talk about is the long-term hardship scheme. My wife and I are both in our mid-70s. We’ve already suffered four-and-a- half years of blight. We’ve got at least another 11-and-a-half years of blight. In fact, if we look at exhibit 17, which is A220, this is taken out of the draft environmental statement. The published environmental statement said a similar thing, but it omitted naming the cottages and houses. But if you read where it’s coloured yellow – and I’m sorry, I’ve lost it. Oh, there we are. It says, ‘View southwest from the edge of Hints. Visibility of the proposed scheme between Roundhill Wood and Rookery Wood with extensive earthworks will be visible from Cedar Tree Cottage, Hints Hall, Ladywalk, and Hintsbrook. Sensitivity of visual receptors: high. Magnitude of change: high. Level of effect to visual receptors: major adverse.’ Now, that is the table published for when the scheme is first put in to operation. If you read the blurb, it says after 15 years all will be well. But if you add 15 years on to 16 years, I won’t be here then. I might not even be here that 16 years, but we’ll see.

129. I’ve had my house on the market for nine months. Well, in fact it’s over nine months now and I’ve had one viewing only. I had it valued when HS2 was first announced and it was valued at £800,000. It’s on the market currently at £650,000 and I can’t sell it. It’s a very nice house. The thing that I want to point out here is that when we retired, we made a conscious decision to buy a larger house in fact, in the country, so we could enjoy the quite solitude of country life in a village, but also so we could have our family, the whole family, at times of celebration and so on. In fact, this year we’ve actually celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary and we had a long weekend with family and friends all in our house, but we did that on the basis that we knew there would be a time when we would want to downsize and we would want to release capital.

130. In fact, we have reached that time because the house is getting too big for us. The garden is too big for us. We in fact have told our sons that we are not going to do that sort of thing anymore, but we can’t sell our house. We wanted to release capital now because the eldest of our grandchildren is starting university and we wanted to help them with their university fees.

131. The only reason I’m saying all of this to you is because I do not think that the long-term hardship scheme covers our situation. We’re already retired. We do need to move. We’re not in ill health, although my wife is suffering more from arthritis as the days go by. But I certainly do not think it’s right that we should just have to wait until one of us falls seriously ill in order for us to get HS2 to buy our house. In fact, HS2 has not only blighted our house; it’s blighted our retirement. It’s not hardship that’s the problem; it’s blight. And the fact is that this government does not recognize that we are taxpayers. They’re saying, ‘We’ve got to be fair to taxpayers,’ but we are taxpayers. We’ve paid our taxes all our life. We’ve always been in the PAYE system. We’ve never had any opportunity to avoid paying tax. We’ve paid tax since we first started working and we are now in a situation where we are not only being asked to pay our taxpayer’s contribution to the scheme, but for no fault of our own we’re being asked to pay a good lump sum of our savings towards the scheme, and I don’t think it’s right. That’s all I want to say. Thank you.

132. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. I know you’re not a co-petitioner, Mrs Outen, but would you like to add anything at all? I know you’re making notes for your husband. Would you like to add anything?

133. MRS OUTEN: Sorry?

134. CHAIR: Would you like to add anything?

135. MRS OUTEN: Well, I just obviously endorse everything that David said. And I feel really sad hearing him making those comments at the end, because I would like to add, it isn’t just us. There are thousands of people down the route who are affected in the same way. And although David personalized it, it isn’t just about us; it’s about the sheer unfairness of the compensation scheme as it affects so many people. I think it’s

about 172,000 properties that are in the same situation as us.

136. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould. We have had witnesses before on the tunnel issue –

137. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You have.

138. CHAIR: And the deep cut, so I don’t think we need to go over a lot of that ground but I would be interested to hear a little bit about compensation.

139. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, you might also want to hear very briefly from Mr Thornely-Taylor just on the maintenance point, which I think wasn’t raised in terms during the previous presentation.

140. CHAIR: Okay.

141. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So if I can trouble you for five minutes on that, that may add as a codicil, as it were, to what you heard before. But can I turn straight to the question of compensation for you? You’ve heard quite a lot about that over recent days, I know. If we can put up p. A231 please, I hope the Committee will forgive me for referring you again to this document, which you’ve seen before, and reminding you that by the end of 2014 the government is committed to bringing into operation the ‘Need to Sell’ scheme. That scheme is a scheme that the Secretary of State has decided should be available to people who, as the name implies, have a need to sell their property, they are unable to do so at a price that is acceptable by virtue of the effect on the local market of the gestating HS2 scheme. And the scheme will enable them to apply to an independent body – that is to say, independent of the government – which will hear their case, decide it on its merits, and will then make a recommendation accordingly. It is a scheme that operates without geographical limit, as you have been told before.

142. And I perhaps, for the record, should read out two passages from this document. Firstly, on the left-hand column of p. A231, the penultimate paragraph on that column: ‘Some individuals who need to sell their property for a specific reason may not be able to secure a sale due to plans for HS2. To ensure that people can apply to have their case considered, we are proposing a ‘Need to Sell’ scheme for owner-occupiers who have a

compelling reason to sell. This scheme will have no outer boundary and will apply along the full length of HS2. We intend to launch the scheme by the end of 2014.’ And then we go across to the other column, the right-hand column under the heading Need to Sell Proposal: ‘Under the proposal for a Need to Sell scheme, owner-occupiers would be able to ask the government to purchase their home for its full unblighted market value. An independent panel will consider each application on a case-by-case basis and make a recommendation as to whether the property should be purchased. This scheme will be available in urban and rural areas by the end of 2014 following a consultation.’

143. If we can turn to page A332, the Committee will be familiar with this but in deference to the petitioners I will just remind you of it: ‘Applicants could be asked to submit evidence against five criteria. Property type: applicants are asked to demonstrate that the property in question is owner-occupied or that they are acting as a reluctant landlord. Location: to ensure that the impact of HS2 on a property is taken into account, although there will be no fixed outer boundary to the Need to Sell scheme. Effort to sell: applicants must have marketed their property without success for at least three months. No prior knowledge: applicant must have bought their property before the initial preferred route of Phase 1 was announced on 11 March 2010. Compelling reason to sell: a variety of different circumstances would be considered, but some scenarios where we consider applicants would be able to make a strong case that they have a compelling reason to sell include unemployment, relocation for a new job, dividing assets as part of a divorce settlement, ill health, and the need to release capital for retirement.’

144. Now, the circumstances of Mr and Mrs Outen’s case have been laid out before you. What they have told you is that they are owner-occupiers of their premises, of their home. Their location is well-known to you now. They have told you that they have made efforts to sell their property, without success. Other than that… Well, the implication is at other than at a value which is significantly below that which the market would have borne in the absence of the HS2 scheme. There’s nothing to suggest that they bought after the initial preferred route announcement, although that’s something which no doubt they can confirm. And from what you’ve been told a few moments ago, this is a couple who tell you that they have a need to release capital for retirement. They bought initially a larger house in which to be able to accommodate family gatherings,

but they are now at a point at which they would wish to move to smaller premises in order to release capital to fund their grandchildren’s university education and so forth.

145. So on the basis of the evidence that the Committee has heard, one can see that in shortly, when this scheme comes into operation, this scheme has at least the real prospect of offering these petitioners an opportunity to secure the remedy that they tell you they seek. I cannot, as you know, tell you whether they will succeed in that because it is a scheme that is intended to operate through the medium of an independent panel that will consider the facts of each given case and make a recommendation. But I think at a previous hearing I put things in similar terms and it was suggested by one member of the Committee that I was suggesting that on the face of it, perhaps four-and-a-half of the criteria had been satisfied in the case of that petitioner, who had very similar circumstances, I think, if I recall, to those that these petitioners have put forward. And so, as I say, I don’t want to raise expectations beyond that which I can, but it does on the face of it seem that this provides at least the first point of call for these petitioners in relation to that aspect of their case to you. Within a very few weeks, the scheme will be operational and they will be able to make their application. 146. CHAIR: I mean, clearly it would have been more satisfactory had the scheme been in operation now –

147. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

148. CHAIR: Rather than in December. And I presume when you say operational in December, the panel will be starting to hear cases or taking applications at that point?

149. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is my understanding. I will check that for you and if matters are different, I will let you know.

150. CHAIR: And how long do we expect them to make a decision? Are we talking six to eight weeks, something sort of business-like?

151. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The intention, as I understand it, is that it should operate in a business-like way, so that people will not have to wait for many, many months before they get a decision.

152. CHAIR: All right. It does sound helpful, but the petitioner did also – I mean, clearly releasing capital for retirement is important but there are a lot of people who also want to release capital for children and the university fees, and family reasons I think a little wider than this. But nevertheless, I think it is quite important.

153. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, as you see in the passage that I’ve read out to you, particularly the final bullet point, these are not intended to be read and are not intended to function, as it were, as strictly circumscribed criteria. The idea is to give a series of indicative scenarios which are expected in principle to provide a strong case for showing a compelling need to sell. Clearly there would need to be a need to sell, but whether the circumstances of a given case were judged to satisfy that criterion would be a matter for initially the applicant in question to seek to put their best foot forward, as it were, and for the panel to consider. But it is intended to operate on the basis that people who have a genuine need to sell should have a remedy.

154. The alternative remedy that is available under the statutory compensation code, so that you can see the context within which this discretionary scheme is intended to operate, is that a year following the coming into operation of the railway – so on current projections, by 2027 – people would have a statutory right under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to bring a claim for any reduction in the value of their premises that they are able to establish as at that point. So you can see that this is intended to sit alongside, as it were, and provide an earlier remedy to those who do need to move and can satisfy those other criteria, so that they don’t have to wait until a year after the opening of the scheme, as far away as 2027, in order to secure a remedy which is predicated on them remaining in their current home.

155. And it’s building on the experience of previous schemes, particularly Crossrail, but perhaps more pertinently CTRL because that is the best comparator in terms of a major overland new railway scheme, where, as I recall, the scheme that came into being there was an exceptional hardship scheme and was therefore more closely circumscribed than the scheme that is now proposed and which I have outlined to you today. This is in part intended to reflect the experience of that previous scheme and to recognize that there was a case for a scheme which had a wider ambit than that which it operated in

relation to that previous scheme.

156. CHAIR: Okay. Sir Peter?

157. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Mr Mould won’t mind if I say two things. The first is that while he is being helpful to us, he did three times say, ‘Compelling need to sell.’ The words are, ‘Compelling reason to sell.’ The need comes in the last line and a half of ‘Need to release capital requirement.’ I think the Committee is likely to expect that the independent panels will say if people have a reason which is not just a slight or an arbitrary one, that that would be acceptable. So if the reason for selling is a mixture of health, age and state of life, or retirement as Mr Outen put it, that if the cause is a sensible one and an understandable one, then that should be regarded as what caused the reason to want to sell and therefore compelling. It’s not to be interpreted, as I understand it, in the category of the exceptional hardship.

158. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I agree with that and that is the intention. As you rightly say, the words are ‘compelling reason to sell’ and what you have just said follows naturally from that. Thank you. I think you said there was another matter?

159. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I was going to say that probably it would be helpful to us, and certainly would be helpful to those who may be considering whether or not to bring their petitions in the new year, that if there can be reasonable clarity that give or take an initial bulk of applications when the scheme starts, of what the expectation would be for the resourcing of the panels and the processing, so that people can have an idea – and so can we – as to roughly how long most applications will take to having a yes or a no.

160. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. That I have no doubt we can deal with. I would wish to emphasise that this of course is a scheme which the government has decided should be set up and I’ve sought to explain the basis for it to you through this leaflet. The Secretary of State, I have no doubt, will wish to, in any event, to audit the early weeks of its operation. And I have equally no doubt that this Committee’s views on the initial output of that scheme are things that he will find helpful in his assessment of its performance, as it were.

161. CHAIR: But Mr Mould, we have seen petitioners which have been signposted that this may be what will deal with your issue. No doubt there are people who will come to us again who no doubt will go away and make an application. We’d be quite interested to know whether those applications were accepted, because if several people are petitioning us and we think they might fit the criteria and the answer is no, then clearly the scheme isn’t working as it’s meant to be. So what I would like, if possible, if occasionally one could hear a report back of how the scheme was operating. If a petitioner has gone towards the scheme then we’d be particularly interested in whether or not they actually ended up with a satisfactory outcome or whether or not they have been disappointed, in which case the scheme may be rather more conditional than it sounds at face value.

162. MR MOULD QC (DfT): By all means. And indeed, I very clearly understand that point. All I wished to do was to make clear that the Secretary of State has, if I may say so, just as much an interest in it being seen to operate in that way because it is designed, amongst other things, as you will appreciate, to try and relieve some of the sense of frustration that exists up and down the route, of which you have heard some examples already.

163. CHAIR: Absolutely.

164. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It was promoted for that purpose, amongst other things.

165. CHAIR: Okay.

166. MR OUTEN: Can I just make one point on that, Mr Chairman? The reason I raised the points that I did with regard to this is because the wording of that does seem to me to be quite circum… Whatever it is.

167. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It reads more toughly than it probably is meant to be, I think.

168. MR OUTEN: It says, sorry, ‘To release capital for retirement.’ I’m already

retired. That’s what concerns me. I’m afraid that we’ll slip between the boards there.

169. MR MOULD QC (DfT): One’s always worried when one’s counsel for the promoter to stick one’s neck out and say what one thinks might happen, because one will find that one will go away and privately get it in the neck for saying something that went beyond what one should have done. But I’ve been doing this long enough and I’m prepared to put up with a bit of that. If somebody knocked back on your case simply on the basis that you didn’t satisfy the criterion of ‘need to release capital for retirement’ because you are retired, in circumstances where you have told the Committee that actually you wish now to move to smaller premises so that you can release money to be able to help with the education of your grandchildren –

170. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or any other proper reason.

171. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Or any other proper reason, exactly. I, for my part, think it highly likely that if that was the response, as it were, from those who were scrutinizing your case –

172. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’d be gobsmacked.

173. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It would meet fairly short shrift from the panel, if I may say so.

174. CHAIR: Mrs Outen also suggested they could get divorced. And clearly, if £200,000 or £300,000 were involved, what we don’t want to do is people who have been married for 50 years feeling they have to get divorced because of HS2.

[Laughter]

175. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s only £10,000 a year of marriage.

176. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m absolutely with you on that. Anyway, that’s that one. I would like, if I may, just to ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to come in really for a very, very few minutes. While he is just coming around into the hot seat, could we just put up

one of Mr Outen’s exhibits, which is A211 please? Mr Thornely-Taylor, you will recall this from a few moments ago when Mr Outen was making his presentation. And just to remind the Committee, the centre line, the pink line: that is the initial route that was published in March 2010, the route known to us as Route 3. The blue line is the horizontal alignment of the bill scheme. You recall that.

177. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes.

178. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And Mr Outen has referred to correspondence in which reference is made to the degree of curvature on the bill scheme – that is to say, the curvature that has resulted from moving the railway line some 100 metres to the west for reasons that have been set out in the documents – and the degree to which that will result in a greater maintenance liability, which might have consequences in terms of cost but more particularly might have consequences in terms of night-time noise and disturbance. Can you just comment on the likelihood of noise and disturbance from that aspect, from that cause, being a material factor in relation to Hints?

179. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes. Sir, the question of noise from maintenance of the operational railway is discussed in the ES in volume 5 in annex E2, and it does point out that in any one location from time to time, it will be necessary for maintenance work to be carried out. The type of maintenance work, because it will be infrequent and although have a noise effect on that night, it’s not considered a significant effect in the ES.

180. The consequence of a shorter radius curve is higher rail wear and the need to grind the rails primarily more frequently, and eventually rail replacement will take place on a slightly shorter time span, but the letter from Professor McNaughton points out this would be increased up to about three to four times per year in the Hints area. The noise involved is effectively like a slow-moving diesel locomotive. There’s a specialised vehicle which you may have seen on the railways that does rail grinding. Maximum noise levels are not actually significantly more than that of the operating railway. It would just be a different sound with a different duration characteristic and would be noticeable on the night but is not considered significant, though it would be slightly more frequent with a shorter radius curve.

181. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We heard earlier that the design speed for the line had reduced from 400 kilometres an hour to 350 kilometres an hour as part and parcel of the change in horizontal alignment that was made in the latter months of 2010. Would the fact that the railway is designed to operate at a lower design speed, 350 as opposed to 400, would that have a material effect on the frequency of maintenance or would that not be a factor that would have any particular significance for that purpose?

182. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: In the context of the infrequent maintenance requirement, it’s not really material.

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s not. Right, the letter from Professor McNaughton that I think you had in mind, just so we have it on the transcript for the record, that’s the letter of page A208, I think. There we are. The letter of 21 July 2011 and I think you referred in passing to the passage that Mr Outen has highlighted in the second paragraph, didn’t you?

184. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: That’s right.

185. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Okay, thank you.

186. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Mr Outen, do you have any questions for Mr Thornely-Taylor?

187. MR OUTEN: Well, yes I do. I would just like, first of all, for him to explain why, in the September report, it clearly says that increased night-time maintenance would be unacceptable to the villagers.

188. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: In would be an increase in the number of occasions when this would occur, and I’m sure the villagers would prefer that it never occurred.

189. MR OUTEN: But you are suggesting we are not even likely to hear it.

190. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Sir, I did say it would be audible. It would be the

same sort of level of noise as the operation of a train in normal service.

191. MR OUTEN: The second thing I would like to ask him is, how does he calibrate his model?

192. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The noise of maintenance, if that’s what we’re talking about, has not been explicitly predicted in numerical terms. It was considered in the ES, in the annexe I mentioned in volume 5, but not calculated in terms of predicted noise levels, so there is no calibration required. It is a qualitative assessment of a range of maintenance activities that could take place, some of which are rail-grinding, as I say, and much less frequently rail replacement.

193. MR OUTEN: Well, can I ask, then, with your daytime analysis of noise, did you include the fact that there will be additional noise generated around Hints because of the increased friction between wheel flange and rails?

194. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The consequence of different wheel-rail interface geometry is mainly one of wear on the rails. There is reference to flange contact in one of the documents, but in fact that very rarely happens on any railway. The profile of the wheels and the profile of the railhead is what keeps the train in the position it needs to be on the track. It’s very rare indeed to get flange contact, and there is no material increase in noise from the point of view of predictions.

195. MR OUTEN: So are you saying that the action of where it is occurring on the rail isn’t accompanied by noise?

196. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: It’s mainly a metallurgical effect. There are metallurgical changes to the surface of the rail and to the surface of the wheel treads, and there can be damage to what’s called the gauge corner of the rail, which results in this need for grinding that I talked about earlier.

197. MR OUTEN: You didn’t answer my question.

198. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: I think the answer to your question is ‘no’.

199. MR OUTEN: Okay, thank you. Have you calibrated your noise-modelling system against real noises generated by trains travelling at 400 kilometres per hour?

200. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: The essential feature of the model used for HS2 is that it is fundamentally an empirical model. Its origins are in work done for HS1, when very large numbers of measurements were made of existing high-speed trains. It is true that the speeds are not as high as 330-360, which have been assumed in the modelling, but studies have been carried out to validate the extension of the top end of the speed range to those which are applicable for this project.

201. MR OUTEN: Well, I’ve had experience myself in mathematical modelling, and my experience suggests that, unless you can actually calibrate it against real and tangible data, the accuracy of that modelling must be reduced.

202. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: That’s entirely right. Sir, this model is however an empirical model, as I say, and it is based solely on measurements of real trains. If it were a hypothetical model which calculated noise levels using mechanical input parameters and used formulae to predict what the noise level might be, then I would entirely agree that further work would be needed to calibrate it against measurements, but it is based primarily on a huge number of actual measurements of train noise in the field.

203. MR OUTEN: Well, can I say that, from actual experience of living in Hints, I don’t believe the result of your modelling? Can I just ask you two questions? First, in the modelling, did you take account of the fact that the prevailing wind is from the south-west across the valley, across the railway, to the village of Hints?

204. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes. Those were the conditions that were used as the basis for the prediction.

205. MR OUTEN: Okay, and the second thing I’d like to take account of is: does your model take account of the contours of the area you’re modelling?

206. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes, they do.

207. MR OUTEN: It does. Okay, thank you, Chairman.

208. CHAIR: We were told about the south-westerly wind when we did the visit, so your neighbours put their points across. Any further comments, Mr Mould?

209. MR BOTTOMLEY: What was your –?

210. MR OUTEN: It was hydraulic.

211. CHAIR: Any further comments?

212. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: No, thank you.

213. CHAIR: A few brief final comments, Mr Outen?

214. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I just come back on a couple of points, sir?

215. CHAIR: Yes.

216. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I don’t know if Mr Thornely-Taylor wants to resume his seat, but the points I wanted to make were these. First of all, just so that the context is clear for the debate that we’ve just heard, the project has remained within the tolerance of a straight-track maintenance regime in this case by increasing the curvature to move away from the village, but it’s lowered the design speed from 400 kilometres per hour to 350 kilometres per hour to remain within those parameters. That was the point that was being made in the correspondence that you were shown extracts from earlier, and I just wanted to make sure that that point was clearly set out on the record.

217. The next point I wanted to make was this. You were shown a slide which included an extract from the detailed environment appraisal process that was undertaken in order to inform the environment statement; that’s A218. The committee will, I have

no doubt, have appreciated that that is but one page from a very comprehensive assessment, which ranges across each of the environmental factors that were raised by Mr Outen, including matters such as the impact on historic areas such as conservations areas and so on.

218. The product of that is what is then set out in a much more summary form in the discussion of alternatives proposed by the community, including an 800 metre tunnel and a longer tunnel, a three kilometre tunnel, that are recorded in the relevant community forum area report, volume 2 of the environmental statement, CFA 21, at pages 36 and 37, between paragraphs 2.6.12 and 2.6.17.

219. On 23 December 2013, the project wrote to Mrs Outen. I haven’t got the letter on the screen, I’m afraid, but that letter is worth mentioning, because, in that letter, Tracey Bailey, who is the area petition manager for Country North, reported to Mrs Outen that the sifting criteria had previously been shared with community forum area meetings, including the meeting that took place in Hints, of which I think these petitioners were active members.

220. MR OUTEN: My wife was.

221. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mrs Outen was, and an explanation was given of how those sifting criteria had been applied in considering options for the construction and operation of the railway. Of course, the output of that was an option that did not meet with universal favour amongst the community of Hints – I accept that – because there were a number of people in Hints who would have preferred at least a short tunnel to have been the preferred option for the scheme, but that is in the nature of these processes, as you know.

222. The final point –

223. MRS OUTEN: Could I just ask something, please? Is that allowed?

224. CHAIR: Please.

225. MRS OUTEN: The letter was addressed to me. It seems to me, Mr Mould, that the main criteria of the decision-making were based purely on cost, and that was what we were told at the bilateral meeting that Ms Bailey is referring to.

226. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It was not based purely on cost, no. Cost was an important consideration, of course, because, in order to justify a more costly option, one has to be able to demonstrate that the cost is securing benefits that are judged to be worth the cost, but it would be wrong to say that it was purely based on cost. Cost was one of a number of factors. Environment performance is an important consideration.

227. I’m very conscious of the fact that, sir, you said the Committee didn’t want to go over ground that was covered on 22 October, but I simply say this. You will recall there were two documents that I showed you, in order to bring out the comparative environmental performance of the short tunnel option, as compared to the proposal that we’re bringing forward pursuant to our commitment to Staffordshire to lower the route by three metres through this area. I showed you two things. One was a long section, to show you how constructing the short tunnel would affect the view, when one factored in porous portals and so forth. That is in the documents for this petitioner, and I’ll simply just give you the reference for the record. I don’t need to take time referring to it in more detail. It’s P824.

228. The second document that I showed you was a table, in which we compared the environmental performance of the short tunnel option and the three metre lowered scheme option with the Bill scheme, and we did so in terms of the degree to which they would provide environmental benefits in terms of reducing the loss of ancient woodland and that kind of thing, and the cost. If you remember – that’s at B825 in these documents – the cost of the short tunnel option, the point estimate that we put forward was it would add £56 million to the cost of the Bill in this area, and that the relative costs of lowering the route by three metres in order to give effect to the commitment that we have given to Staffordshire County Council would add £2 million.

229. So that gives an indication of the process that one inescapably has to follow in this kind of case in order to make sure that one is not only looking at cost but looking at whether the benefits which those costs would realise are actually value for money.

230. CHAIR: Mr Outen, a few brief final comments, please.

231. MR OUTEN: Yes, well, as I’ve already said, if you take an area where a tunnel has been deemed to be approved, through that area you could equally do cuttings and embankments and so on to provide a similar solution but without the huge cost. It seems to me that cost actually has nothing to do with that process. Despite what’s being said, that process does not distinguish between areas that have ancient woods, landscapes of high value and endangered species in a rigorous and numerate way. It’s merely words, and things are referred to, but there’s no actual mechanism that you can see that actually pulls something out of it to justify the benefits that Mr Mould is talking about.

232. In the Hints area, there are huge benefits, I would suggest to you, but someone’s decided that the cost is too high, whereas, in other areas, there’ll be big benefits, and someone has decided the cost is okay. There is no correlation between the two. I can’t see it from this system, and I don’t think anybody else can.

233. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Outen. Safe journey back to the Midlands. Thank you for your evidence. We meet tomorrow at 9.30. If people can withdraw from the room just so we can clear our thoughts, thank you very much.