Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Thursday, 13 January 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (In the C hair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Michael Thornton Yasmin Qureshi ______

IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr Timothy Mould, QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Councillor George Illingworth, Kenilworth Town Council Mr Joe Rukin

Witnesses:

Mr Ashley Ball, Crackley Residents Association Mr Nicholas Hillard Mrs Nicola Hillard ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Kenilworth Town Council (Cont’d) Submissions from Mr Illingworth 3 Submissions from Mr Mould 6 Closing submissions from Mr Illingworth 13

Kenilworth Stop HS2 Action Group Ltd Submissions from Mr Rukin 15 Submissions from Mr Mould 29 Closing submissions from Mr Rukin 38

Crackley Residents Association Submissions from Mr Ball 40 Submissions from Mr and Mrs Hillard 54 Submissions from Mr Mould 62

(At 14.02)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome, good afternoon. Welcome back to the HS2 Committee. We’re finishing the presentation on Kenilworth. We’d like to continue. Sorry to cut you off in your prime.

Kenilworth Town Council

2. MR ILLINGWORTH: No, no. That’s fine. Thank you. You recall that just before lunch I was dealing with Crackley Gap, and I dealt with two of the four issues there. I dealt with the design aspects. I dealt with the construction period. I want to talk a little bit about drainage, and could I have, p lea se, number 29? Is it 28? Have I missed something out? Sorry, 28, yes, I dealt with that, I think. 29.

3. Is it going to get any clearer? I can assure you my original was of better quality. It is actually an old map. I realised it was an old map because the A46 is shown in dotted lines, but years ago, because I couldn’t understand the drainage in my part of the wor ld – I’m a foreigner, coming from Yorkshire – I started to draw the rivers in the area, and it is quite complicated. Canley Brook, which we’re talking about crossing, happens to start in a place called Burton Green, but then goes round the south of Coventry, and Finham Brook runs through the middle of Kenilworth. I think it’s so complicated because we’re near one of the great watersheds of England, of course, in this part of the wor ld.

4. But Canley Brook drains much of south Coventry, and the University of Warwick. And one of the things that’s been happening is there’s been a lot of development in that area, both housing development in south Coventry and continuing development of the University. And of course, they are all supposed to have these SUDS – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, or whatever it is – that says it’s going to be no worse than it ever was, but it doesn’t happen, does it? So the flow in Canley Brook has undoubtedly been increasing. Once it joins the Finham Brook, it flows up to the northeast for three miles, to join the River Sowe and finally the River Avon, and then flows back southwest only a mile from the town. So it’s going in a complete ‘U’ shape.

5. Now, certain properties in the town of Kenilworth, though we don’t shout about it

too much, are at risk from flooding. And indeed, Kenilworth has been a pilot in a resilience scheme piloted from the National Flood Forum. And I mentioned earlier the major Severn Trent scheme that happened a few years ago, and one of the main aims of the scheme was to take surface water, draining from the eastern part of the town – where there’s been, again, a lot of development, certainly in the last 50 years – south under the watershed – not the main watershed, a minor watershed – taking it to Cattle Brook, which flows directly into the River Avon, instead of it going into F inham Brook. And there are current plans to improve sewers in the Crackley area.

6. And the reason I’m going into all this detail is to point out that we have had flooding problems in the town. Severn Trent has spent £16 million on renewing sewers. The flow in Canley Brook through Crackley, where you are about to totally alter the flow of the river, is increasing. And our concern is that what you do doesn’t make things any worse after a lot of effort has been put into improving the system, because our interpretation from the Environment Statement is that you’re only dealing with the Environment Agency now. With due respect to the Environment Agency, they’re only one agency that knows what goes on, and they only get their information from other sources. And, for example, both the County Council and the District Council are involved in flooding, and I know that certainly the County mention in their petition that they haven’t been involved. So can I go to the next slide please?

7. We are nervous, and we really need to be reassured, not just by words as written in Environment Statement, that all that good work that’s been done to direct surface water to the Avon, currently going to Canley Brook, so that the result of all the work you’re doing would be to reduce the risk of flooding from Finham Brook in the town, rather than increase it.

8. And the second point on here is, I was going to say, a slightly cheeky one, in a way, but perhaps not. What we haven’t mentioned is that, at Crackley, there is a pumping station. Now, the purpose of this, as I understand it, is that you built a concrete trough to keep the groundwater out of the railway. But if we get very heavy rain, of course, a lot of water will accumulate in the trough. We’ve talked about leaves on the line. We certainly don’t want an arrangement that HS2 can’t run when it rains, so you’ve got a bump in that sump, which is to drain the concrete trough. I did ask some questions in December, but the detailed design presumably hasn’t reached such a stage.

But I had one thought, which was that, if you’re going to pump it directly into Canley Brook at Crackley, that’s going to exacerbate the flooding risk again. I’ve no idea what the capacity of those pumps is going to be, but if there’s a lot of water, why not pump it straight down the track, to where you cross the Avon, and just like Severn Trent, cut out Finham Brook?

9. Can we move on from flooding? I just wanted to mention a little bit about compensation. I know that you’ve heard an awful lot about compensation, and I don’t want to go through it all again. And the important things about compensation at Crackley you will hear directly from those affected. I’d remind you, if I may, that the Kites have already appeared in front of you, and they are one of the people that you had concern over. As a town council, our suggestion is that, because of the magnitude, and particularly that width – remember, it’s a quarter of a mile wide at its widest, and this map shows that on the initial safeguarded area, when the rural support zone was announced, which is the yellow, it was completely lost within the safeguarded area. And therefore, apart from Milburn farm, which is just to the east of the railway, it was of no benefit whatsoever to anyone.

10. When we now are improving systems, we’ve got the homeowner zo nes. Can we go to the next slide please? Actually, that’s Stoneleigh. It’s my fault. Can we have the next slide please? There is part of Kenilworth on there if we need to discuss it. So there, to the right of the screen, is the safeguard area at Crackley, and you can just see the extensions on the protected zones. And there are the three rural homeowner payment zones superimposed on it, and you’ll see that most of the houses in Crackley Crescent are still not within the area of zoning, because it is measured from the centre of the tracks. And if the idea of this scheme is to keep people in the area, which is, as I understood, one of the reasons for it, then it is the construction phase that matters, not the operational phase. And the construction phase is major earthworks in that grey area.

11. And can I leave you with a final comment? We’re delighted that you’re talking about the Need to Sell scheme becoming more flexible, and possibly a ‘wis h to se ll’ scheme. But, of course, that applies outside the zones we’ve been looking at, and if the rezoning of wide works like these isn’t recognised soon, what you’re doing with the new scheme is driving people away, because the only remedy that they have is to apply for the Need to Sell scheme, since no other scheme can compensate them in any way. Can I

leave you with that thought, and say that, as a request, the s ituatio n at Crackley is a perfect example of why the definition of the zones needs to be considered? And I know that Mr Mould is going to explain that the Secretary of State made a statement. Forgive me if I’m repeating what so many people have said to you before, but I think this is s uc h a perfect example that the thing isn’t going to work, if everybody’s going to leave if the Need to Sell scheme is the only thing that works.

12. CHAIR: Okay.

13. MR ILLINGWO RTH: And thank you, that’s all. Thank you, on behalf of the people of Kenilworth, for listening to our requests.

14. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Councillor Illingworth. Mr Mould?

15. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I’ll work, if I may, reasonably briefly through the various issues. Can we put up CT0698 from the map book? First of all, there was a question raised about an area of land that’s included within the Bill limits. I’ll just deal with that. If the cursor just goes across the line, yes, and then just further. Just to the west of the line there is the area that was shown within the Bill limits by Mr Illingworth at the beginning of his presentation, and he questioned whether that was an area that would remain within Bill limits under the AP2 scheme. As you can see, I’ve put up the extract from the map book for this community forum area, to show that, actually, that is an area that is permanently required, and it’s required for woodland planting, which is part of the mitigation of the effects of the railway as it passes through Broadwells Wood, the area of ancient woodland. So the cursor is actually on the very area of land that Councillor Illingworth drew attention to. So that’s the answer to that. It is needed permanently for woodland planting.

16. Turning then to traffic, and can we put up A6918? Councillor Illingworth showed you the major effect points. I just wanted to comment on two of those. Bearing well in mind that we’re not dealing with the detail of lorry numbers and so forth today, the A46 is being shown now. The major effect point there on this plan is the junction of the A46 Stoneleigh road, and that’s a split-level junction with slip roads. That is a junction that we acknowledge is already heavily trafficked, and will remain so, whether or not HS2 is built, and HS2 will add a significant number of traffic to that junction. And we are reviewing the performance of that junction on our modelling, with the Local Highway

Authority, Warwickshire County Council and, I believe, also with the Highways Agency, as this is a trunk road, to see whether or not what is proposed under the Bill is sufficient, or whether we need to bring forward further proposals. So that’s a work in progress at the moment.

17. If we go to the north, so that’s to the left, we get to the junction of the A429 and of Stoneleigh Road at Gibbets Hill. Now, that is an area which is already experiencing congestion, that particular junction, and is predicted to continue to experience it, with or without the scheme. And my understanding is that there is a proposal, under the ‘pinch point’ policy initiative, to improve that junction, I think through a roundabout scheme. That’s a priority junction, or a signalised junction at the moment, and the idea is to create a roundabout there. And that, I believe, should help to alleviate at least some of the problem at the other effect location, which is just to the west. But I won’t say more than that now about these points because they’ll be dealt with at a later stage.

18. Can we then turn to A69110? Councillor Illingworth has very kindly acknowledged that the HS2 traffic tends to be disposed on the road network around Kenilworth, rather than within it. And he did mention that when the Severn Trent works were undertaken recently, those were works which involved, I think, a six-mo nth closure of Warwick Road within the town. And he mentioned that there was a compensation scheme that was operated by Severn Trent in the light of that. There are statutory compensation provisions in relation to works of that kind, and they are designed to enable particularly businesses who front onto roads that are directly affected by water construction works, such as shopkeepers and so forth, to recover financial compensation in the event that they lose profits and so forth.

19. Now, that reflects the general law. And as you know, the general law, in this respect, applies to the HS2 scheme. So, in the event that HS2 construction works were directly either to close up or significantly to impede direct access to commercial owner-occupiers, leaseholders, freeholders, on shops – so for example, if we were to close a road for a period of weeks, as a result of which the shopkeepers’ c us to mer s couldn’t gain access, or found it much more difficult to gain access, to the shop – then there may very well in those circumstances be a claim, under Section 10 of the Land Compensation Act.

20. But that is something which is extremely unlikely to arise on our predictions in Kenilworth, precisely because we are not proposing to take traffic through the town. We are proposing to distribute traffic on the primary route network, which lies to the east and to the south of the to wn. So the prediction shows that is a theoretical rather than a real prospect, in the case of HS2. I think there was a particular concern about restaurants, and tourists, and so forth. That applies as much to the evening trade, because although there will be some limited highway works to tie in new overbridges and so forth into the existing network, those direct effects will be limited to a very short dura tio n.

21. And, of course, one of the things that we will be seeking to do, in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority, is to make sure that the timing of those works, and the management of them, as far as possible, has the least impact that we can on traffic. So we’ve all seen signs on the motorways saying, ‘The M4 will be closed at this section between the hours of 10 o’clock and 6 o’clock on the night of the 12 January’, or whatever. It’s that kind of thing that we’re talking about here – weekend or overnight c los ures.

22. And that then brings me to what I think is the key ask of the Town Council, which is to do with liaison and consultation. And if we turn to A6911(4), I can say that the General Assurance 115, which is a reference to one of the assurances on the recently published register, is an assurance which is to do with the establishment of community liaison groups. And I’ll just read it out, because it’s he lp ful:

23. ‘In general, any site or area-specific community liaison groups or forums will be established nearer the start of construction. The establishment of local forums will be initiated at the request of local communities. The forums will address construction-related issues and concerns.’

24. Effectively, what we have today is a shot across the bows, I think. Kenilworth Town Council would like a body of that kind to be established to serve the community of Kenilworth. I can’t say straightaway there will be, but it’s one that clearly bears serious consideration. And I hope we’ll be able to keep up our line of contact with the Town Council as we move forward, with a view to addressing what seems a very reasonable proposal from Councillor Illingworth.

25. The other issue he refers to, General Assurance 68, is more concerned with liaison on day-to-day issues around the carrying out of the construction works. And that is one whic h, I think, at the moment the project would consider is better dealt with through the aegis o f the Local Highway Authority. But, of course, that doesn’t mean that the Town Council will be shut out. It means that the route of contact with the project we would envisage is better done through the Local Highway Authority.

26. And the fir st bullet point, I think I can say without any qualification – yes, o f course we wo uld be expecting to consider fully the effect on travelling in and out of the town, both during day and evening, on commuters, residents, customers and the economy of the town, and that’s a given.

27. Before we leave this, I suppose I should also just mention the Business and Local Economy Fund, which was one of those funds that the Secretary of State announced during the autumn of last year. That is a fund, as you will recall, which is designed to help offset the impacts on businesses from disturbance that may be associated with the construction of the railway. But that, of course, is a route-wide fund, so that would be one of those funds where there would have to be bids. What I was speaking about a few minutes ago was the rather different question of the fact that, in principle at least, there is a compensation regime which deals with direct effects through closure of highways and so forth on business owner-occupiers who front onto those and have business with customers who would otherwise use those highways.

28. That’s traffic. Can I turn to the Crackley Gap issue, and A6911(6)?

29. MR BELLINGHAM: Be fo re we leave traffic –

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

31. MR BELLINGHAM: Can we just go back to the last slide? You gave an assurance that obviously HS2 would do all it possibly could to prevent any unnecessary disruption to residents of Kenilworth. There is going to be a huge amount of lorry movement taking place. I mean, how are you going to stop contractors taking shortcuts? Because we all know that, as far as lorries are concerned, even if they sit in a bit of a queue in a town, if they’re cutting three or four miles off the journey, that’s an option many will take. And, of course, lorries who are accessing the town for deliveries and

whatever will be going there anyway. How are you going to educate your contractors, and is this a matter that you have given consideration to?

32. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yeah, very much so. And this is something which lies at the heart of the detailed arrangements in implementing the code of construction practice. Now, sub-contractors and contractors will have routing arrangements which they are required to keep to, and they will be expected to make sure that their drivers adhere to those. We can use new technologies, such as GPS, as part of that process. There will be penalties if there is evidence of sub-contractors abusing routing arrangements that are put forward. And, of course, as you know, for any routes that involve an appreciable level of HGV movement, Highway Authorities will approve the routes, and they will be keeping an eye on the project to make sure that those routes are adhered to. I think it’s also true to say, although all of us have had some experience of the phenomenon you describe, particularly in the da ys o f sat navs and so forth, when people obey them too clearly, that experience with other projects of this kind such as Crossrail and so forth suggests that generally speaking these arrangements do work well in practice.

33. MR BELLINGHAM: We ll, I hope that will be assurance to the Town Council. But hopefully, it won’t be needed, but if there are problems, then are you confident that the Liaison Committee that’s going to be established will be able to deal with this, as a specific point?

34. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yeah, I would have thought that the combination of the operation of the Liaison Committee following the purpose of General Assurance 115 and also of the day-to-day local liaison under the aegis of the Local Highway Authority, under General Assurance 68, will, I would have thought, keep pretty close tabs on the proper operation of the traffic management plans that are in place for this area. Beyond that, I’m afraid, we just have to actually see the actualité, as it were. But that’s the plan, and, as I say, it’s based on established practice, and using new technology where we can to assist in the management process.

35. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you.

36. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay, so Crackley Gap, if we can go to A6911(6). I’m so sorry, that’s the wrong side. It’s 17. A couple of points to make: the first point is

that what on plan looks like a very significant and substantial area of earth moving, which is where the arrow is shown at the moment – it’s important to bear in mind there are two things going on there. One is the construction of a railway in a false cutting through the area, and the second is the diversion of the Canley Brook. Now, the brook is passing through generally flat undulating countryside at the moment. And the effect of these works is not to create, as it were, mountainous country, where presently we have generally flat and undulating country. The brook has to find its way naturally along its diverted course, and the proposed land form at this conceptual stage reflects that.

37. And you can get a sense of that from one of the computer-generated images that we’ve got in the supporting material. If I can just take you to P2803, this is one of our illustrative photomontages, when we get it. I think experience suggests that these are the ones that take the longest, aren’t they, the photomontages? I’m sorry about this. That’s the one. Sorry, take a while.

38. CHAIR: This is 71 of 97 photomontages, which is why it takes a while.

39. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Here we go. If you look at the middle of the bottom of the page, the purple arrows show you broadly the direction of view. And as you can see, we’re just to the northeast of the A429, we’re looking in a northeasterly view across the railway. So, existing conditions are in the top half of the page, and then the photomontage with the railway year one is at the bottom. And I show this to you because it’s looking across the broad area where these earthworks are going to take place. The earthworks are towards the right-hand side of the view, I think, in this view. So, you’re just getting a sense of the realignment as you look to the right of that hedge line on the right-hand side of the picture. So, that’s a view across from the west.

40. And then, I hesitate to ask this, but if we try the next page – oh, there we are. There it is. This is from the east. So, this is just on the A249, east of the railway line, looking in a southwesterly direction. And again, you get a sense of the topography with the earthworks having been carried out. I should say that, on this photomontage, we’ve taken out the hedge that you see in the foreground of the current view, precisely so you can get a sense of the topography with the railway and the Canley Brook diversion, with the topography having been put in place. In reality, that hedge would not be taken out.

In reality, as far as possible that would be retained, for obvious reasons. So, that gives you a sense of what we’re dealing with.

41. Now, that then brings me to Councillor Illingworth’s request, which is that the local community and the Town Council should be able to have a say in the preparation of the detailed design for this element of the work. Now, he said he wondered whether this would be a significant design element for the scheme, to which the prior engagement provisions in Information Paper D1 would apply. He’s right. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t fall within the embrace of that element of our policy, and that’s because that design policy commitment relates to buildings and to structures. It doesn’t relate to earth working.

42. But doesn’t mean that the elements such as the earthworks to divert the Canley Brook and carry the railway beneath the A249 on an overbridge aren’t going to be subject to detailed control and approval by the Local Pla nning Authority. They will be, but they’re under a different paragraph of Schedule 16 to the Bill. It’s Paragraph 9, instead of Paragraph 1. Paragraph 9 is concerned with our obligation to seek the approval of the qualifying local authority before we can bring any of the scheduled works into operation. And that would undoubtedly include the railway as it passes through this area.

43. And, although there is no formal provision within the Bill for the local authority in question to engage with or to consult with the local community, practice on other schemes such as Crossrail has shown that local authorities, as a matter of course, set up their own procedures to engage with the local community. The example was given by Councillor Illingworth of the way in which, in a conventional planning application, the local authority consults with the town council, or the parish council. Experience with Crossrail suggests that’s what’s tended to happen with the Crossrail equivalent of Schedule 16, and we would expect that to be the way in which local authorities would operate here in relation to Schedule 16. This is a developing area of the way in which the Bill is going to operate in practice but that’s what I would expect to happen.

44. And it may be that Councillor Illingworth wants to speak to the local authorities – I think it’s probably Warwick district council in this case – and see whether they have any plans, looking forward, for consultation with their constituents and with local

community groups in relation to their Schedule 16 powers. I won’t say anything more about that at the moment.

45. And then, I think, flooding – we have indeed assessed the performance of our works in relation to Canley Brook and F inham Brook, not only from the point of view of the railway but also from the point of view of the risks to the local community. The response, in the Petition Response Document, page 17 Paragraphs 1 to 3, provides the answer to this. I won’t read it out unless you’d like me to, but it’s at page 428, 17 on the screen in front of you. Essentially, the design objective is that the scheme will need to perform satisfactorily in relation to a 1-in-100 year criterion, and that is set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 in this part of the Petition Response Document. There is an area of flood storage that is proposed immediately in the vicinity of Finham Brook as part of the scheme’s proposals. And I can say that, in simple terms, the design objective here is as Councillor Illingworth asked it should be, which is that the scheme should be designed so as not to increase the risk of flooding over that which would exist in the absence of the scheme. That is the design objective. Canley Brook being an ordinary watercourse, consent for the works will be required from the loca l lead flood authority` – that is to say, from Warwickshire County Council.

46. Yes. I’m not going to say anything more about compensation because I think you have our position on that. Thank you.

47. CHAIR: Okay. Any final comments?

48. MR ILLINGWO RTH: Am I allowed to comment on those, quickly?

49. CHAIR: Yes.

50. MR ILLINGWORTH: I mean, as far as the first one is concerned, the Wood is no problem, in any case. As I pointed out at the time, that’s not an issue. The A46 – I did n’t want to go into detail on traffic, but you’ve raised the point. I understand the Highways Agency has plans to improve at least one if not two junctions in that area, and because of the time scale of HS2 it may be that the two can be co-ordinated.

51. I still am worried about the need for local contact and liaison. That might be a local thing for us to work together, but certainly in terms of traffic, Warwickshire is

going to have its hands full up in the Coseley area as well. We work very well with Warwick; I know the ir officers, I think, sitting behind me. But there’s no substitute for local input. But that may be a local thing.

52. Crackley Gap – I’m disappointed that we can’t actually recognise this. I think the problem at Crackley is that it may not be as bad as everybody thinks. I showed you that map with all the hashes on, and it looks terrible. We don’t actually know. And it’s interesting – the picture you’ve showed of P2804, I’ve not seen before. I don’t know when that was produced, and I’m not convinced it’s looking straight towards the area. So we still have our suspicions, and it would be nice to be reassured.

53. And my final comment is on flooding. We are not saying your analysis is wrong. What we are saying is we are concerned, like you, to get it right, and we are highlighting some issues in the town which HS2 have never mentioned in any of their work. And therefore, we want to make sure that you are aware of the work that has been done, so that it is reflected in the analysis you do.

54. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’re grateful for that.

55. MR ILLINGWO RTH: Thank you.

56. CHAIR: Okay. Well, I’ve always had the impression that Kenilworth is a prosperous and successful place. As you said in your presentation, a lot of people have two cars. A lot of people commute around the Midlands. And the message that I’ve taken from Kenilworth Town Council’s presentation today is that you want to engage and have some input, as you did with the sewer and other projects you’ve had in the area. And I think that’s useful, because I think clearly if things are managed in this area, and it’s got to be managed very carefully, with all the works and construction works, and what we want to try and do is minimise the disruption to local people. And I think engagement in the discussion and liaison groups and all the other things are going to be pretty crucial with that. So thank you very much, Councillor.

57. MR ILLINGWORTH: Yes, thank you sir. We speak with the experience of an organisation that’s done it, so thank you for picking and exercising that –

58. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

59. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you, Councillor.

Kenilworth Stop HS2 Action Group Ltd

60. CHAIR: We now move on to the Kenilworth Stop HS2 Action Group Ltd. I did n’t know you were ‘limited.’ What’s it like having a famous son?

61. MR RUKIN : It’s odd. He loved being here today. It was as soon as he got out the door that he hated. There were five journalists waiting for him, and by the time we got out, there were another three. And by the time we got outside, he’d got down to one-word answers and, ‘Nah, I’ve had enough of this.’ But he loved the experience of the Committee.

62. CHAIR: You should just have told them, ‘No comment.’

63. MR RUKIN : It was alright to start off with. But at the end, he got asked to go into a TV studio, and then again he loved it all of a sudden. Because that’s one of the reasons he did the video in the first place. He said, ‘Dad, you’re always on telly. When am I going to be on telly?’ So I ended up in Russia Today, with a big screen of him behind him, and he thought that was brilliant.

64. MR THORN TON: Well, he was very composed. Obviously, he’s a very mature young man.

65. MR RUKIN : Yeah. The only thing that, looking back at it, that was wrong was me keeping – because he’s like that, so I kept – ‘No, Alex. You’ve got your hands in front of your mouth.’ That’s the only thing that looked wrong, watching it back.

66. MR THORNTON: Honestly, you can tell him from us that we were very impressed with him.

67. MR RUKIN : I will do that. I will pass on the Committee’s best wishes.

68. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I thought you wanted to go.

69. MR RUKIN : Right, okay. If we can move to my first slide, please. Kenilworth Action Group was obviously formed in 2010. We represent people, obviously in Kenilworth, but also Crackley and, of course, across the border in Coventry. The

problem that we see from the start is that we believe that HS2 Ltd have never really recognised the constraints that are placed in the Crackley Gap, between Kenilworth and Coventry. And our opinion is, from the start and it has always been, that HS2 Ltd were having trouble trying to figure out how to get to Birmingham Airport, and, as has been raised in the last couple of weeks, someone saw a line on a map, potentially, that said ‘disused railway’, and thought, ‘Brilliant. We can use that.’, without realising not only that HS2 would be much wider than that, but also the implications that it would mean further down the line for Kenilworth. And, of course, HS2 love saying they’re re-using a disused railway, where, of course, they’re taking about a third of a mile of what is a four and a half mile linear park in the place in Burton Green, where it would do the most destruction.

70. Now, our issues go through the gap completely, and the issues are that, obviously, to the east of Kenilworth we have the A46. We then have Dalehouse Lane, with a river right next to it. We then have, at the very tightest point in the gap, the existing Coventry to Leamington railway, which is obviously in operation, the A429 and Canley Brook, and, moving on, a lot of woodland, which is very rare – and HS2 Ltd have admitted to that – in Warwickshire, before going on to Burton Green.

71. If I can, I’d actually like to refer to HS2’s slide, p lea se, which is 52894, please. Just to start off. P2894. It’s one of the ones in today’s bundle. Just very quickly on the woodland, I should have started off by thanking Councillor Illingworth for covering the issue so well. We’ve worked very well with the Town Council and indeed the Crackley Residents Association, so we have hopefully minimised the number of times that we’ll be saying the same things twice, so we don’t have too much overlap. And there are things which you may think I would be saying in my petition which I’ll be saying tomorrow because obviously you don’t want to hear me saying the same things twice, though I am going to almost start off by saying a little bit of what I said yesterday, more so that it refers to my son’s petition. Or my son’s Petition Response Document, which we can’t find in any other Petition Response Documents.

72. I’d just like to read through just a little line: ‘Warwickshire is amo ngst those counties with the lowest woodland coverage in Britain. Although there are a number of woodlands within this area, woodlands the size of Broadwells Wood are uncommon.’ Which is odd, because they are uncommon, but it’s odd that they didn’t mention

Crackley Wood being about the same size as well. And that’s one of the things with this area. There aren’t many woodlands in Warwickshire – this is obviously on the Coventry-Warwickshire border – and HS2 Ltd, by choosing to go through the Crackley Gap, have decided to go through five o f the m. Obviously, for the benefit of Sir Henry, who wasn’t here yesterday, Roughknowles Wood is marked there, and although HS2 does not go through that, the road diversion will go through that. So it’s not listed in the 19 woodlands that HS2 itself goes through.

73. In terms of Crackley Wood, that is a massive amenity for the to wn. My son wasn’t joking when he said, you know, ‘Everyone he knows at school has been to Crackley Wood.’ And in fact, to be honest, when you talk to the majority of people in Kenilworth, although they will be concerned about very many points of HS2, Crackley Wood is probably the number one, because it is simply the place that everyone has gone to, and everyone has childhood me mo r ie s of. And I should repeat that the map, as presented in front of us, stops at HS2, where actually it should continue both on the left and the right with those, sort of, rabbit ears sticking up. Obviously, the construction damage to Crackley Wood is going to be far greater than the black line itself suggests. We’re also concerned about other ecological concerns, but I’ll leave that to Mr Hillard to talk about more expertly when he comes on.

74. If we could now move to my next slide. Although we showed the construction map to start off with, this elevation map of the current engineering design more adequately shows the constraints of HS2 far more clearly. It is like threading a needle, going under the A46, over the River Finham, and at the level of Dalehouse Lane, which will have to move above it, then under the railway line and over Cackley – sorry, Canley Brook; HS2 Ltd kept making that mistake, and it’s taught us to actually make the mistake as well – over Canley Brook, moving Canley Brook, and then onto Burton Green.

75. Now, the history of this situation is that, back in March 2010, the original proposal, as Councillor Illingworth mentioned, was for a massive viaduct which we described as the Coventry ring road’s ugly sister – ugly big sister, because it would be wider a nd longer than that. And in fact, on the HS2 route, it was the second largest viaduct. The Ladbroke Southam one beat it, and would have been the largest rail viaduct in England if it had been built. Now, what happened, fo llowing the initial 2010

uproar along the line about HS2, was there was a snap decision to remove those viaducts, and it was a very, very good idea and very well appreciated. However, what it introduced HS2 Ltd to is what they’d been ignoring, and one of the reasons that this was a very bad route choice in the first place – the constraints in that area.

76. And I think we’ll get back onto that, but if we could just go onto the next slide please. Now this is a compensation map. I’ve used this map instead of the construction map, and I’ve managed to successfully weld together two areas without you really being able to see the join. We’ve used this map because it’s the only one that really shows the actual land take and the construction impact in what is one of the narrowest green belts in the country – 600 yards. And pretty much the entire thing gets dug up. On the Crackley side, by Canley Brook, we have a quarter of a mile by three quarters of a mile, as was previously said. To put that into context, and not wishing to disrespect Burton Green – absolutely not – but you could fit Burton Green into that construction area, more than once, probably. That is the scale of what is being dug up, and this is because HS2 Ltd have never properly looked at constraints of this area.

77. If we could move onto the next slide. And this is why. This is the map that was produced in 2012, following the main consultation on phase two of the route. It had been pointed out to HS2 Ltd that the previous route, which was announced in September 2010, had various constraints. What they chose to do is move the line so that it actually crossed Canley Brook – which, at this point, we’d been telling them was called Crackley Brook for two years, and they still haven’t quite cottoned on to that bit yet – at water level. And this was the result of the 2011 consultation. These were the proposals that they came out with. Now, the idea of a 250 mile-an-hour train going through a ford may sound spectacular, but was hardly practical. But what it showed to us is that after two years of trying to point out the constraints of this area, they still hadn’t properly sunk in. To be perfectly honest, it was quite amazing that this proposal ever saw the light of day.

78. To be perfectly honest, in some respects there’s no point us ta lk ing about the brook in this forum, because, according to HS2 Ltd, ‘The design of the proposed scheme to date provides the level of detail necessary for the purposes of the Bill and the requirements of the environmental impact regulations. The level of detail design necessary to enable the proposed scheme to be constructed has yet to be carried out, and will not be completed until after royal assent has been secured.’ So basically there’s not

really much point us talking about this brook, because HS2 Ltd are only going to design it after the Committee have talked about it.

79. If we can go back to my first slide, please, I need to zoom in. There are two ponds there; of we could zoom in on the one on the right, p lea se. Yeah, that’ll do. Now, there are two balancing ponds marked on that map. The one on the right – thank you – is the one where HS2 will pump directly out into it. Helpfully, for an HS2 Ltd map, the blue line going through it is the current route of Canley Brook. And I’ll just read an excerpt again from our response document. ‘Section 13 of Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement provides a description of the proposed works to the Canley Brook. The realignment involves the creation of approximately one kilometre of meandering new channel, to enable the route to cross the water course on a single viaduct. Approximately 200 metres of the existing Canley Brook channel would be regarded, to use as an outflow channel for the balancing pond. The existing flow direction would be reversed.’

80. So basically, that pond, from the very right hand side, all the way – if you can track back the mouse, please, following the black line on the left, keep going, keep going – the brook there will have to change direction. It will flow what is now uphill. Now, the problem is with that is that we haven’t seen any detailed design of that at all. And if you look between the pond and the first bit of earthworks, there aren’t actually any earthworks right at the start to get it uphill. Looking at the far right hand corner of that pond, it is ten metres – because the contours are marked, thank you very much Ordnance S urvey, on this map – and there is about a ten metre incline to get it back uphill to where it would rejoin the newly diverted Canley Brook.

81. So, if we were to look at the photomontage that Mr Mould just pulled out – which I think took a long time to load, so we don’t need to bother, but for the record it was P2804 – again, another one of these verifiable photomontages clearly cannot be right. Because the lo w le ve l fo r tipp ing o ve r of that pond has to be 10 metres higher than it currently is, because obviously the water from the railway line will be pumped into it as seen at the railway, and then it’s up to gravity to get it back to the re-diverted course o f the brook. And there’s a 10-metre difference between where we are now and where we will be in the future.

82. And this is the problem. That what we’ve seen over the course of the last almost five years with these plans, is HS2 Ltd doing their best, or doing just about what they can get away with, to design how they are going to approach this gap. You can see, well, the red line, which is the diverted A429 Kenilworth-Coventry road. Just to the left of that is the current course of the brook. And over on the right, you can see the grey line, the Coventry to Leamington railway. And the problem that they’re having to do here is get under the railway and then over the brook, and it is like threading a needle. And they have still not come up with a satisfactory response.

83. They’ve fully admitted they have not designed what this will be, and as a result, I would contend that they haven’t actually costed what this will be. There’ll be a rough guess, but whether the hydrology works, whether any of it works as it is represented on the screens in front of us, is yet to be seen. And, as we have no cross-sec tio ns, we can’t tell exactly what the earthworks will be. We cannot tell the levels of the water. All we know is the level it’s coming in and the level it’s coming out, on the current levels of Canle y Brook.

84. So if we can move on please to, I was going to say, my next slide. That’s probably four down from where we were. There was something else that I should have said when we were on hydrology. It doesn’t really matter about the slide, but, in terms of the hydrology reports, we’ve also located the spring, which has always been there, but will now be on the inside of a cutting, pouring, as is, directly into HS2. We will be talking about that more tomorrow.

85. These are just two small points that I’d like to make about the construction timetable more than anything. These are excerpts; it doesn’t really matter that you can’t read them, it’s just to prove that they exist. And the last one was just in case there were issues about Roughknowles Wood. The first two are we have two deserted medieval settlements in the area. One is Hurst at South Hurst Farm, and one is Milb ur n at Milburn Grange Farm. As you may be able to see – well, as you may not be able to see, it depends on your eyesight – fro m what’s on the screen, the construction of the scheme with Hurst will result in the removal of archaeological deposits associated with the deserted medieval settlement at Hurst. And with Millburn, basically, a portion of the site will be removed.

86. Now, people will say, and maybe rightly, that HS2 gives us the opportunity, potentially, to excavate these medieval sites. However, although these things have been identified in the Environmental Statement as being there, there seems to be no timetable whatsoever. There is no timing of any works, any excavation, any archaeological digs that will take place to preserve these things. There’s more than that. With Milburn, there’s a potential that that would actually be Stone Age, potentially Neolithic, because Neolithic artefacts have been found just on the other side of the river when Highland Road was being built about 50/60 years ago. And we cannot find any mention anywhere, really, of archaeological digs taking place regarding HS2. And obviously, the problem is, if you have identified these things, and you are saying you will excavate, you will preserve, then it’s going to take time. It has to be accounted for within the construction timescale, and we don’t see that anywhere.

87. So if we can move on properly to the construction timetable, which is bracket 6, getting back onto the roads. Now, one of the things that HS2 Ltd have said consistently is that they would stagger any works on roads. All the roads that are being disrupted, that will have roadworks on them, that will have either temporary overnight closures or temporary traffic lights because there will be roadworks on them – or traffic management, in case of the A46 – lead to Coventry. Now, as you will see, despite the fact that HS2 Ltd have said that these works will be staggered, you see that the bridge works for the A46 will take place over 15 months, starting in 2018. The works for the A429 bridge will start for 15 months, starting at the start of 2018. And the works for Crackley Lane will take 15 months, starting at the start of 2018. The only one that doesn’t fit in that is Da le house Lane. However, it does have a six-month overlap with all the other roadworks. So basically, the four roads that point north towards Coventry will all be being worked on at the same time. Councillor Illingworth mentioned Hollis Lane, but Hollis Lane becomes Blind Lane, feeds into Crackley Lane south of where the roadworks are. So it’s clear again that this simply has not been looked at properly.

88. The worst thing is, in terms of roadworks, it seems it doesn’t really matter. HS2 Ltd are saying, ‘In most cases, the junctions are already considered to be operating close to their theoretical capacity in the morning peak hour, regardless of the proposed scheme. So the additional impact is unlikely to be substantial.’ Which is basically saying, ‘Well, the roads are already full, so it doesn’t matter how badly we mess it up.’

Which I find is quite bizarre and totally unreasonable.

89. If we can move on to the next slide, please. Going back to the constraints, one of the things that we’ve been extremely concerned about is the effect on the A46. HS2 Ltd keep referring it to the Kenilworth bypass. When it was built decades ago, that’s what it was referred to. But, especially with the extensions on it either side, the fact it’s effectively the M69, and the works that are taking place currently at the toll bar island in Coventry, it is now very much part of the strategic road network, and as such, a very important east/west route. Now, I know that we’ve had new traffic data landed on us this year, published 2 January, but going fro m the Environmental Statement, HS2 Ltd did a survey which, well, relied on 2012 figures, which basically showed that the work was at 67,000 vehicles per day, where the Highways Agency put it at 84,000 vehicles a day. As such, it’s an important strategic road.

90. The problem is, with the A46, the solution is being approached differently to every other strategic road. You look at where HS2 crosses the M6, it’s a bridge; M42 – it’s a bridge. The A38, now a tunnel, was a bridge. With the A46, the proposal, for some reason that we have never been able to understand, is to move the road, build a bridge, and then move it back, because that’s what the construction diagrams show. They show that there will be a temporary realignment of the A46, and then it will be on an overbridge exactly in the location that it is at the moment.

91. Now, this, seems a little bit bizarre to us. And it would be appreciated, I think, if some sort of costing in terms of this disruption had taken place because if you’re looking at the figures at the moment, 84,000 vehicles per day, if you’re saying you’re going to, because you’re going to reduce the speed limit to 40 for a little while, probably between the two junctions, if you add a minute to those journeys, that’s 30 million minutes a year. So, if you try to put the cost on how much time is lost to the economy, very much the same way that HS2 Ltd have said that HS2 is needed because of the time savings that it will generate, so say we put £35.00 an hour on to those 30 million lost minutes that would come out as £17 million a year in lost revenue for the roadworks. Now, obviously not everyone on that is a business passenger at £35.00 an hour. However, a lot of those vehicles are commercial goods vehicles and delays to those will be considerably higher than those figures. You may think that that’s a bit of a back of a

fag packet calculation, however, it does rely on at least two figures which are correct, which I say are potentially more correct than a lot of the HS2 business cases.

92. If we can move to the next figure, sorry slide? Now, notwithstanding the flows that were received as part of the petition response that were dated 2 January, what we find here is actually quite common with all the other information from the Environmental Statement regarding the flows on the A46, is that in the morning you’ll see that about 200 vehicles more go to Coventry than come back. And in the evening, about 300 vehicles more go to Coventry than come back. And it doesn’t really matter what time of day you look at it, there are hundreds of vehicles that are leaving Warwickshire and going to Coventry and never, ever come back.

93. MR THORNTON: What happens to them?

94. MR RUKIN : Well, that I’m afraid you’d have to ask HS2 Ltd. And that’s the thing. This sort of calls into question the traffic surveys, especially the fact that their figure for the A46 in 2012 was a 17,000 short of where the Highways Agency were.

95. MR THORNTON: It’s that space warp time, again?

96. MR RUKIN: Well, exactly. I’ve no idea what’s happening with it. Entering into a wormhole and coming back behind them and going through twice maybe?

97. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Some people make a journey out during the a.m. peak but don’t necessarily come back until after the a.m. peak has finished. They might go out at 9.00 a. m. in the morning, but then have a job to go to and come back at 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Or they might come back at 6.00 p.m. in the evening. That’s why you get odd numbers.

98. MR RUKIN : It doesn’t really matter which timescale you look at, you’ve done a couple of 16 hour surveys, well, not surveys, but 16-hour figures, three-hour figures, it’s pretty much all the same, there’s more people going to Coventry than ever come back. But, it does put some questions on to the surveys and that’s one of the, there are

other things as well. For example, apparently the survey for Gibbet Hill originally, into the University, was first conducted while Gibbet Hill Road was closed, due to the roadworks that were taking place. According to Coventry City Council, who will appear in two months apparently, because, the reason that they’ve postponed is because they don’t believe the traffic figures, because mostly, I’m assuming, that’s the same with the University as well, because the figures are simply, we don’t believe them. Being 17,000 out against the Highways Agency adds some credence to that. Is that they were saying that initially to try and make up the mistake that HS2 Ltd were suggesting, going back to 2007 figures. And on this issue, Coventry City Council have pushed for a meeting with the University and Warwickshire County Council because, to be fair, most of the city council issues are about traffic and HS2 Ltd did agree to a meeting with the University and the County Council and the City Council and afterwards City Council were very happy. So, brilliant, can we have another one? No. I cannot understand why that has happened.

99. And if you could move to the next slide? Just again to put the A46 into perspective, this was initially comparing it against the other roads in Warwickshire. There are a couple of others which I’ll get onto on the next slide. But to put it into perspective, the A46, it says A, it should be M really. It’s as busy as the M40. It’s busier than the M69. It’s much busier than the M6 toll road or the M45.

100. If we could move on to the next one before anyone pays too much detail to that because it’s all on this one as well. All of these traffic surveys are from the Highways Agency and they are roughly at HS2 crossing points. The caveat is that the M6 and the A38, HS2 crosses those while a junction, or at least with the A38, did cross it, we don’t know where it’s going to be now, but crossed it while a junction was in progress but before that junction’s completed. So, the traffic counts would be identical. It’s simply that they would be, in the case of HS2, they would be spread across more lanes. The issue though, you’ve heard a lot about earlier, well last year, from Warwickshire County Council about the A446. You can see how low down that is with 26,000. The A38, which will now be tunnelled under, is on 54,000. The M42, this is around Kingsbury, where HS2 crosses, is on 71. And then you have the A46, on 84,000. Amazingly, at the crossing point of HS2, only 4,000 vehicles per day, quieter than the M6. The only one that soundly beats it is the M6 toll/M42, where both motorways are

combined and it’s over 10 lanes. And that’s how significant this road is. And HS2 Ltd have, instead of going under it, with a tunnel, or going over it, which we don’t want, they have decided to move at it, then build a bridge, and then move it back. For 84,000 vehicles a day. That, I would contend, is absolutely insane. And there has to be an economic cost to that. And that economic cost is nowhere. It has not been looked at. And you can say the same with any road with the A429, with the Day House Lane, with the Crackley Lane, the cost that our local community or the national economy has to contend with as a result of any of the works associated with HS2 have not been considered. The only thing that we’re aware of is that franchise holders, road franchise holders, will get compensated as a result of the disruption to Euston. That’s the only thing that we can find in terms of negative economic effects as a result of HS2, construction of HS2, being incorporated into the HS2 business case.

101. If we can move on to next one, please? This is just again, reiterate the importance of the A46, I think, possibly, been on about this enough now. But the point is, that it’s a strategic road network east to west. People look at the M42, and think that that’s the strategic road east to west and you can see in recent years they’ve been a little bit apart, but in the last three years, the A46 has actually got busier than M42. And when considering the M42 or even the M6, as previously mentioned, you just wouldn’t consider messing about with a motorway like that if it wasn’t for an improvement to that road. And that’s the thing, there are roadworks at the moment which are a pain, say at the A46 where it meets the A45, at Tollbar Island, but that’s to build an overpass. That’s to improve traffic conditions. HS2 will do nothing to improve traffic conditions. It just delivers pain. And that’s a problem throughout the piece in Kenilworth, is HS2 just delivers pain.

102. And that’s probably time for the next slide, actually? This is just a little bit about the Coventry to Leamington line. Now, at the moment it’s being proposed that HS2 are saying that it will only be closed for 104 hours in total. The bridge works, themselves, are going to take every year. But, this one, is only going to take 104 hours in terms of closing the railway. And to be honest, we find that a little bit unlikely. The other thing I should have mentioned back earlier on, the main construction timescales is, you look at the bridges, pretty much all of them, take 15 months. The road ones, the railway ones, they take 15 months. Obviously, here we have got a farm bridge, which is going

to take a year, which we’re going to be talking about tomorrow. But, despite the fact that say the A46, a six-lane highway, is going to take 15 months apparently for the brid ge. The footpath through Kenilworth Golf Club is going to take 18 months, to build a bridge. And this just seems again, it seems not to make any sense, whatsoever. The other thing I should have pointed out when we’re showing the timescale for the A46 br id ge, is, of course, the initial works is to move the road and that’s clear in the documents, that the initial works is to move the A46, however, they’re building the bridge before that. On the construction timetable. Which cannot possibly be the case because the bridge is meant to be where the existing road is.

103. If we can move to the next one, please? And finally, well, not quite finally, but, finally, on to the last topic. Due to the constraints facing the Kenilworth in the Crackley Gap, for Kenilworth, we have always been lobbying for a tunnel. Now, we’ve always been of the opinion that the most deserving place anywhere up and down the line would be Burton Green. If anywhere was going to get a tunnel, an extended tunnel, it would be Burton Green. And, as such, we’ve been very supportive of them. Also mention that the constraints in Kenilworth have not been properly assessed. And this is the real issue. These constraints have not been assessed. We do not believe in any way, shape or form that the solution between the Leamington-Coventry Railway and the Canley Brook is doable in its current situation. And there is a massive issue with the A46 not being treated the same way as any other major highway. As such, we submitted, as Kenilworth Action Group, in conjunction with Kenilworth Town Council and the Crackley Residents Association, the proposal now known as Option G. Now, this happened over a period of about a year and a half, through the community forums and then indeed the bilateral meetings which took place with representatives from the three organisations I’ve just mentioned, the Residents Association, the Town Council and the Action Group. And I’ll just read HS2’s response on this issue. ‘The promoter has developed and assessed a number of tunnel proposals at Burton Green which were assessed in the Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Community Forum 18, Chapter 2. More detailed information of the assessment has also been released following a request by Jeremy Wright MP.’ Now, what that should say is the action groups around the area submitted mitigation proposals in good faith. We asked for the appraisal. We kept asking for the appraisal. And in the end we gave up and went to our MP and he managed to get it out of them. Because it was like getting blood out of a stone trying to

get the assessments. And I’ve got this slide up here because it says at the end, each tunnel option was designed to outline preliminary level and evaluated against a section of the PCR scheme that it would replace in terms of engineering and environmental benefits and disbenefits and cost variants. Now, that’s not exactly accurate. Well, we do not believe it is exactly accurate. Because what we believe happened was we got a cost for the tunnel minus the cost of the land that would be used, sorry, that wouldn’t be bought as a result.

104. If we go to the next slide please? Now this is the first indication that the tunnel proposal was simply not considered at all or assessed in any way, shape or form properly. Because this is the map for it. And, obviously, I’m not a civil engineer, but ,I would imagine that if you are going to tunnel instead of have an overland route you might straighten it a bit. That line, that you see on the screen there, represents the exact alignment of HS2 on its overland route, which, clearly, if you were going to have a tunnel, the advantage in having a tunnel, is you do not have to follow the topography. The last thing you would do is put unnecessary bends in it. You would have it straight. Or at least straighter. And absolutely between the houses on the A429 and Burton Green, where it’s just bending around Crackley Wood and through Roughknowles Wood, where that section, you would expect would be straight. And it isn’t. And that suggests to us that the tunnel was never considered properly.

105. If you could go on to the next slide, please? Now, this is an extract from the Environmental Statement response which Councillor Whitehouse who was on last week and this basically shows that the assessments of the tunnels were a tick box exercise. If your tunnel proposal had a bad thing about it, it scored minus 2, but if it had a good thing about it, it only scored plus one. So, it was clearly weighted that any of these alternative schemes would not pass the SIFT criteria. And environmental criteria were all lumped together to give one score. The worst thing is, at the bottom, the cost comparison, ignores all costs other than the construction and property costs but not, as far as we can see, and I’ll challenge what Mr Moore said in response to Dr Thornton earlier, it’s not an additional cost to the scheme. Because it does not take away the cost of what’s proposed already.

106. Now, if we go on to the last slide? And I apologise for the graph not being in

scale. I did try. I couldn’t crack it. But the point that this is meant to make is that the options that we saw all increased in cost per kilometre, the longer the tunnel was. And I do remember Mr Chairman, you actually, I can’t remember the witness you’re asked, but there was a witness you asked specifically on this issue, the major cost of having a tunnel, as Dr Thornton alluded on earlier, is getting the machinery there in the first place. And then your cost per kilometre, goes down the further you go. And that’s what we’ve been told for the last four years. But, you find that consistently with these four tunnel options, the one that we were supporting is Option G, the cost per kilometre goes up the further you go. And this leads us to believe, absolutely, that these tunnels were not assessed against what is there in the overland proposal.

107. CHAIR: If you go further along the results, the cost of tunnelling per section falls, but the absolute cost is bound to go up.

108. MR RUKIN : Yes, the absolute cost goes up. Absolutely. And that’s what the table shows. Option G was 855 million, minus the 10 million lost in a property costs, but towards the right-hand side it shows that the longer the tunnel gets, the more the cost per million goes up, which, everything that we’ve been told up until this point, up until we got that document, says exactly the other way around. But, it also indicates to us that these tunnels were not assessed against what is proposed overland because the difference between Option F and Option G. Option F starts just after Crackley Woods, so Option G includes the complete re-diversion and all those earthworks for Canley Brook. It includes going under the main railway line. It includes the A429, Day House Lane and, obviously, it includes all the works that will have to be done to move, build a bridge and move back the A46.

109. Now, we believe, I might be wrong on this, but moving the motorway, building a bridge, and moving it back, is actually quite costly. And building that bridge will probably take longer than building a bridge for a footpath. This does not seem to be represented anywhere. We have never seen the costs of what is currently proposed. And as mentioned earlier, in terms of re-diversion of Canley Brook, we do not believe there is a cost because there is not going to be a design until after the Committee has actually concluded. Which, you know, is effectively saying that you can’t make a ruling on at, which I find quite bizarre. And not really in the spirit of this process. And

anyway, so, it just seems very odd to us is all we can say. And we would like, what we would ask for, is that these options are assessed properly. At the very, very least, we would like cost for the current overland route to be published because we do not think that they have been removed from the overall cost.

110. And just as a great example, through Kenilworth Golf Club, at one point there is a cutting which maxes out at about 17 metres, but for over 100 metres it’s at a 15 metre depth. Now, given that we would have a 3 on 1 gr ad ie nt for a cutting, that’s what HS2 Ltd have told us, for Mercia mudstone, Kenilworth sandstone, we will be having gradients of three and one, with obviously, 22 metres at base. Given the excavation cost of £27.91 per cubic metre that gives, for a 15 metre cutting, an excavation cost of £28,000 per metre compared to a tunnel of £32,000 per metre. So, at that point, it’s actually for that hundred metres through Kenilworth Golf Club, it’s only £4,000 per cubic metre more expensive to build a tunnel than it is for the cutting because of the depth of the cutting and the cost of removing the spoil. As result, we cannot believe that the cost of what is represented on the overland route have actually been assessed and removed from the tunnel options. And I’ll be totally honest, that’s not just about Option G, it’s about all of these options. We simply do not believe that the prices that are shown are the additional cost of the scheme. That they are the cost of the tunnels, but not removing the cost of the overland routes.

111. Just finally, HS2 will be a massive impact on Kenilworth and we are looking for a better route, sorry, a better solution, but, at this moment in time, given the fact that we do not have a design for Canley Brook and we do not have a costing for Canley Brook, we simply do not know what is going to happen, we are significantly concerned that we could end up with something potentially a lot worse than what we have now.

112. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Q uestions, Mr Mould?

113. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ll come back on one or two things. If we just row back to the Woodland point, I can deal with that very quickly. If you look at P2210? We had knowledge, of co urse, as you know that the works through this area do involve the loss of some areas of ancient woodland and we acknowledge that those are rightly

to be treated as irreplaceable. That’s paragraph 7.4.38 in The Community Forum Area Report, Community Forum Area 18. I’ll just show you 2210 to remind you that we do have areas of woodland habitat creation which are designed to reinforce existing woodland, we have the box on screen with three arrows fro m it, that which is pointing to the north, or to the left, is woodland, additional woodland I showed you before lunch in which relates to Broadleaves Wood.

114. MR RUKIN : Broadwells.

115. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Broadwells Woods. Sorry. And then for Crackley Wood, we have the area to the, I think the second area, and indeed the third. But, I think particularly those two areas are designed to mitigate the loss of ancient woodland, relatively limited, but nevertheless significant loss of ancient woodland, that will result from the construction of the scheme through this area. And I think you will remember that Mr Miller told you about, in some detail, about the practicalities of translocating woodland soils when he gave evidence in response to the petition of the Burton Green Parish Council last Tuesday morning. So, I won’t repeat that.

116. In regards to archaeology and the medieval villages, the Code of Construction Practice includes detailed provisions for written schemes of investigation, both route wide a nd in relation to particular locations, which will be undertaken in conjunction with the local county council. They are the statutory council that are responsible for archaeology. And those works of investigation and recording will need to be undertaken under the terms of the code at a time which enables them to be completed before or during the construction phase itself.

117. Turning to Canley Brook again –

118. MR RUKIN : Can I just ask for a clarification there, before the construction phase?

119. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, the recordings going to have to be done at a time when it can be done. We are not going to commit to recording archaeological remains

and then, in fa ct, carry out works which obliterate them before they’ve been constructed.

120. CHAIR: Presumably, there will be Royal Assent, and at that point, the archaeological groups will go into particular areas and if there were something significant found then you would just have to schedule the construction work so they would have time to take out the bodies or the remains or whatever they find.

121. MR MOULD QC (DfT): A very good example of that from Crossrail is the discovery of black death burial sites at Charterhouse Square, just on the northern edge of the city, if you remember, where they were digging shafts for Crossrail and my recollection is that they downed tools to enable a proper scheme of archaeological recording and so forth to be undertaken. And if we came across a similar situation, that’s what would be done. It’s designed to be an effective process. It’s not been put forward so that it can be ignored, as it were.

122. MR RUKIN : That’s the question that we had, is that with the Crossrail example, if something that you didn’t know was there, with the cultural heritage surveys that have taken place, these are things that you do know are there.

123. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s why we go in and investigate them. So, that we can establish, record, if necessary take finds and allocate them to local museums, that kind of thing, before, the railway works are carried out in such a way as would otherwise remove them, destroy them, whatever it may be. This is not rocket science. This is something that happens, and is part of the process of carrying out major works in this country under the prevailing national planning policy framework, under the aegis of county archaeologists, with whom we would be working in this case, as in substance one would be working if we were carrying this out under ordinary planning powers. It is set out in the Code Of Construction. I really do want to reassure you that we are alive to the importance of making sure that these things are done, in practice, so that important, valuable archaeological remains are not lost to record, not lost to investigation, before these works are carried out.

124. MR RUKIN: I appreciate that. But, how is this represented in the construction timetable?

125. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, in the construction timetable, it’s part of the preliminary works, in the overall construction programme, which will be taking place at the beginning, as the Chair say, at the beginning of the construction process following, once, we’ve got powers to go out and actually start building things.

126. CHAIR: I presume that right at the start, you’re going to have diggers look at the geology of particular areas just to check whether a site is, as you think it is, and taking test holes all the way up the line.

127. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

128. CHAIR: And at that point, anything that came out.

129. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. We’ll have survey work going on. There’ll be ground investigation. In my experience, relatively limited as it is, with these things, is that one finds that the people who do this are extremely zealous, and often one finds them, shall we say, earnest conversations going on between those surveying and those who are looking to get on with the work and so forth. And the point is, in this case, under our code, the archaeological investigation has to be done before the construction work can start.

130. MR RUKIN : If I ca n just, because I’ve now got a document. Just to mention that it’s basically, it’s three months between the schedule from the end of the surveys and the start of the work. So, if there is anything there, it’s got to get out in three months.

131. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No. If three months is not long enough, then more time will have to be found.

132. MR RUKIN: Then, if more time has to be there, then that means the construction starts later. And that was the heart of the question I was trying to ask. Was that as these

things do not seem to have been identified as far as we can see in the timetable that was provided, then, if they are identified, and they are there, and the work has to be done, then potentially the construction timetable moves back.

133. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and as you know we are at a relatively early stage at the moment in the development of the construction details for the railway and so you will find that construction programmes which are presented for the Committee tend to reflect that relatively early, what we might call, conceptual stage in the process. As we go forward, between now and shall we say, I don’t know, the end of 2016, being optimistic, you may find, and indeed I hope you will find, that those kind of programmes will have a bit more flesh added to the bones, as it were. But, we are alive to the risks that you mentioned. We really are. And the reason why we’ve mentioned these resources, these archaeological resources, in considerable detail in the Environmental Statement is precisely because we feel a strong obligation to acknowledge them, to record them, to make sure that they are not lost to the nation through record or whatever else may be the appropriate means of doing so, as part of the construction operation of this railway.

134. CHAIR: It’s also the case that many archaeological groups will be aware where the route is; aware that the project is going to end up going; may well get their well in advance of Royal Assent, looking at various sites to see what’s there. But, I don’t think it’s insurmountable. But, I agree there is a point about how you deal with construction and whether it’s quicker or whether it’s slower. But, there is certainly enough to build on this railway that they would be able to re-schedule the works. Okay. Next point.

135. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Can I just turn then to Canley Brook? I hope Mr Rukin will forgive me if I just ask her to put up a couple of exhibits which are in the pack which went to Mr Ball and to the Crackley Residents Associa tio n. It’s just a convenient way of making the couple of points I need to make. It’s P2825. I think Mr Rukin was particularly concerned about the flow between the balancing pond and the retained section of Canley Brock to the east of the railway into the diverted brook itself. Of course, he’s right. The construction of that feature of the scheme, if it’s to serve its purpose, will have to be such as to enable the natural flow of water to remain from the south to the north so that the water can discharge into the diverted brook.

136. And if we turn to the next page? P2826. We have sections. Section one is the southernmost section, that’s in east-west section. Section two is a more northerly section, on an oblique, southwest, north-easterly angle. And the levels show that the level of the balancing pond is at around 74 metres AOD, and if you look at the diverted brook in the lower section, it’s around 70. So, there is, on that conceptual, on those cross-sections, you can see that that the levels support the direction of flow in the right direction, that is to say from south to north. So, if we go back to P2825? What I was showing you was the journey of water from the balancing pond to the east of the railway line which just touches the tip of the first cross-section and then I was showing you the journey, the passage of water from the balancing pond, northwards along the retained section of the Canley Brook, flowing down from about 75 AOD to about 70 AOD as it reaches the point just beyond where it joins the diverted water channel at section 2. Now, obviously, that is all subject to detailed design and it will be a challenge for the designers and for the builders to make sure that that direction of flow is actually achieved in practice but that is what the plans are designed to show. That is the intention.

137. MR RUKIN : However, the design is not completed.

138. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No. No. Of course.

139. MR RUKIN : So, the costings?

140. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then the next point, which you raised, was concerned with the A46. And I just wanted to a degree to reiterate what I’ve said already said today but just to add one or two points. With the A46, we recognise the very significant flow of traffic that flows upon that road. It’s a trunk road. It’s fulfilling its function as a trunk road. We are, as you say, we are constructing the railway in cutting, which will pass beneath the A46 and we are carrying out works to take the A46 over the railway line. The road will not be closed at any point during the construction of the railway. The road will, we will, for relatively short periods whilst we tie in the overbridge serving the A46, while we tie in the existing road on to the new overbridge,

we will need to reduce the number of lanes during the period of time. And that will mean that we’ll be able to retain two lanes each way during the day and one lane at night when we do this. And I explained earlier this morning, that we will be constructing this overbridge as with other overbridges through this area, constructing them offline, so they will be constructed to minimise the amount of physical disruption to traffic. The disruption will be limited to the period when we tie the newly constructed bridge into the existing highway. But, I do want to stress, we’ll not be closing the A46 to traffic at any point, other than for some unforeseeable event that may occur. We will not be closing the A46 to traffic during the construction of this railway.

141. MR RUKIN: If I may say, that’s the very first time that I think any one has heard that were going down to two lanes on the A46 –

142. CHAIR: For tie-in works.

143. MR RUKIN : Yes. So, my estimate of a minute’s delay on the road may well have been grossly an underestimate. What Mr Mould may not be aware of is at peak periods in the morning you will find traffic going off to Gibbet Hill. And this is forgetting the roadworks that’s happening at the moment, before the roadworks, before anything was happening on Warwick University Campus, you will find that there’s traffic queuing on the A46 trying to get off. Now, this queue would be going back into the section at which you would be reducing the road to only two lanes and as a result that is going to be an absolute disaster.

144. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I cannot guarantee it. But I think that the likelihood of the tie in works to bring to route traffic on the A46 over the new overbridge, the likelihood of that happening during peak periods, I think, is in the highest degree unlikely. I think that the County Council and the Highway Authority simply would not be prepared to agree to it. I think we will have to find off peak, as I say, likely, overnight and weekend periods, during which to carry out that aspect of the work.

145. MR RUKIN: Do you drive, Mr Mould? As I’m just wondering if you’ve ever encountered any roadworks on motorways or major roads? It doesn’t really matter if the

work’s happening. If the work is going to happen at some point during that day, the cones will be out and will remain out for, once that work has started, until it has finished. And to assume that the A46 would come down to two lanes for a bit. You’ve already said that it will be two lanes during the day and one lane at night. So, it would be in peak periods.

146. CHAIR: It’s difficult to stop some disruptions. I mean I think we have to accept that, but, you did trailer that the Warwick University and others, no doubt, will be coming back on things like the roundabouts and figures and roads and everything else. So, we’re going to give that one a good go and you have set the scene very well. So, shall we move on then to costs, tunnelling or, shall we do?

147. MR RUKIN : Yes. Can you just allow me a second?

148. CHAIR: Okay.

149. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry. Oh, yes. I think I said earlier that we would expect to sequence the overbridge tie in works in this area so that they were not all being done at the same time. And I’m sure that that will be something that the Highway Authority would be keen to manage with us carefully. Right. Tunnels. We dealt with this to a degree earlier. The only point I want to make on this is that the tunnel reports have been provided. They’re in the public domain. They’ve been produced to the Committee and produced to petitioners. The Burton Green tunnel report we have focused on the fact that the additional costs of the short bored tunnel, that this to say, tunnel D1, involve an additional cost of some £55 million over the enhanced build cut and cover scheme which is B1. And we have drawn attention to the cost, the very substantial additional cost of construction, as we have them on an indicative basis, of the longer tunnels, including G and H.

150. Mr Rukin makes the point that there would be savings in relation to aspects of the build scheme through constructing a longer bored tunnel as compared to constructing the railway as we propose. But, there would also be a multiplicity of other factors that would need to be brought into account. We have focused, in our costings, really on the

basic construction cost. But, if one is going to carry out the full-blooded comparative assessment that he has mentioned one would need to factor in impact on the operation of the railway, impact on testing, impact on, there’s a whole range of other factors that would need to be considered, and the purpose of the report was to give the Committee, as I said earlier, an indication of the order of costs that one would expect to see from these tunnelling options, focusing in particular on that which was particularly of concern to Burton Green residents. The order of costs one would expect to see as compared to the environmental gain that we had acknowledge would come from those reports. So, it’s not pretending to be an exercise other than it is.

151. CHAIR: Where you have an existing deep bored tunnel, and you extend it, there will be a marginal cost to extending it, but the fixed cost of fitting it out with all the other electricity stuff you have to put in would be pro rata. But nevertheless, it still would cost more.

152. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. But, I think the key point that you have from us on this, which I think is the point that Dr Thornton put to you this morning, actually, was that there isn’t a straight line relationship. This is as Mr Smart’s sa id to you, and, as we saw from the diagram that Dr Thornton showed you from his presentation, the longer the tunnel, there’s a significant increase in costs.

153. CHAIR: And vents.

154. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Vents. Cross passages. Mr Smart dealt with this in a little more detail in his presentation, but it’s not a straight line relationship. And so the costs that Mr Rukin showed you, which I think was the burden of his the principal point that he wanted to make, he showed you that a set of costs. That’s right. A690-16. Those costs per kilometre that you see in the table on that slide, between Option D, which is a short bored tunnel, and Option G, which is the 10 kilometre odd plus tunnel, a difference of £5 million or £6 million per kilometre is completely consistent with the evidence you have from Mr Smart. I’m not talking about the precise numbers, but I’m talking about the relationship between the cost per kilometre on that basis of Option D, which is a short tunnel. And the cost per kilometre of a significantly longer tunnel,

whic h is Option G. You can present them in a graph as they have been presented which emphasises the differential, but if you had the index, if the index on the left hand side was 0 to 100 million, of course, it would be flattened out a good deal more than it is. So, the ratio, the key point is the ratio between those unit costs, if you want to present them in that way, I’m not saying that’s necessarily right, but, building on Mr Rukin’s approach, it is consistent with the evidence that you have from Mr S mart, which, I think, Dr Thornton accepted when he gave his evidence this morning.

155. CHAIR: I’ll just make a number of points. The big ask of the Committee has to do with tunnelling. And we did pay attention when we discussed and considered tunnelling. The second point I’d make is that although HS2 do produce figures, don’t presume that we always believe figures that we are given by HS2. And indeed if we got to the point where we felt there was an overwhelming argument then clearly we would have to go through very carefully all the statistics and figures and double check and triple check and everything else. So, we will request more information when we feel we need it. But, it is useful for you and others to raise some of the issues because it just reminds of the very important job we have to do.

156. MR RUKIN : I think, overall, we’re just saddened, really, that we were never, all we’ve been given is, you want a tunnel that’s 10.7 kilometres. It’s going to cost 855 million quid. Okay. Well, what’s the cost of the 10.7 kilometres without the tunnel? And that’s what we’ve not had. So, we don’t know. So, without that, all of these assessments, A to H and B1 and D1, and whatever, they are all completely meaningless.

157. CHAIR: Yes.

158. MR RUKIN : Because obviously, the longer the tunnel, the more it’s going to cost. We all know that. But, we don’t know what the planning costs, and talking about moving a river, moving a motorway, that’s got to cost money. And that is not represented in these assessments. So, we believe that these assessments are deceitful.

159. CHAIR: The default position of Members Of Parliament is the we are sceptical about anything we are told. I mean, you know, we look, we question it, and we wonder,

and clearly the promoters have an agenda and the opposers have an agenda. Don’t presume that we accept everything that we are told because we’ve had one or two figures which I know clearly are wrong. Okay? Alright. We’re seeing you tomorrow as well?

160. MR RUKIN : Yes. Indeed. Absolutely. Well that’s the thing. You may have thought that I missed a few issues out.

161. CHAIR: Yes.

162. MR RUKIN : But I’m covering those tomorrow. I wasn’t going to bore you by saying the same thing twice, and obviously disappointing the people I’m appearing for.

163. CHAIR: Okay. Fine.

164. MR RUKIN : Saying, ‘Why haven’t you mentioned that?’

165. CHAIR: Now, I understand the last group, which is the Crackley Residents Association, Ashley Ball and Nicholas and Mr and Mrs Hillard, are coming on as a group?

166. MR HILLARD: Not all as one, no.

167. CHAIR: Okay.

168. MR BALL: Crackley Residents. N ic holas Hillard and Ashley Ball together.

169. CHAIR: Okay.

170. MR BALL: And then the last two.

171. CHAIR: Okay. We’ll have –

172. CHAIR: Welcome. Thank you for waiting patiently at the back.

Crackley Residents Association

173. MR BALL: Thank you, no, thank you for having us. Okay. Just to clarify, today I’m representing myself and a lso my family as well but also the Crackley Residents Association in Kenilworth, an organisation of which I’m chairman of. Alongside me, Mr Nick Hillard, who is a fellow resident of Crackley Crescent and also a member of the Resident’s Association, a former Secretary and he will be contributing as well. I’m directly and personally affected by the Bill because my house is located approximately 350 metres from the centre of the rail line. I’m part of a community that’s affected by the Bill as the current route destroys the narrow stretch of the greenbelt land known as the Crackley Gap, which is an integral part of the area. In terms of the order of what I would like to say today, I’ll start with an overview and some background information, summarise the concerns and then expand on some of those concerns. I also wish to draw attention to Crackley Crescent, specifically, the street upon which I live, as I believe it warrants being viewed as somewhat of a special case. As it demonstrates real examples of the inadequacies of the proposal and the very real effect that it’s having on people’s lives and the community as a whole. I’m aware that at early stage you’ve heard from George Illingworth, from the Kenilworth Town Council, obviously just from Joe, Dr Thornton earlier, both of these petitions have gone into greater level of detail on some of the specifics for the area. So, to avoid duplication and, of course, save time, I will not be doing the same level of detail, but, understandably, there will be some overlap as the concerns for the area of the proposal are shared by the community as a whole. I would just like to put on record that, obviously, I do support what Joe and George have said before me though.

174. Can we move on to the next slide? So, just remind you, for those of you who visited the area when you came on your tour. You may recall, Crackley Crescent, you can see in the top left hand corner? Where initially you viewed it from the Greenway, the bridge. That’s my daughter Lois, stood on the bridge. And at the bottom of the slide is a view, showing the crescent as it sort of ‘S’s’ down the road and up through the Crackley Gap and up towards the University and Coventry. Crescent is slightly misleading in the fact that it is the A429. That’s the Coventry Road, sometimes that has

been mistakenly referred to as the Kenilworth Road on some HS2 maps. But, obviously it is crescent shaped. And yes, follows that path up towards the University. One thing of note, on the bottom slide is, as you see it, coming up the hill, the plan is obviously for the railway line to go under the A429 involve a new road being created to the right of that, as a flyover.

175. Go onto the next slide.

176. MR BELLINGHAM: Where did our coach stop in the bottom picture?

177. MR BALL: Right. If you look at the top left-hand corner?

178. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

179. MR BALL: The coach stopped, going backwards, back up the hill towards the green bridge.

180. MR BELLINGHAM: Right.

181. MR BALL: I might be able to show you better on a slide that’s coming up shortly actually which shows my house in relation to other areas. I can show you. And the coach picked you up further down, in the bottom of the bend. Is that is your recollection?

182. Go to next slide? So, yes, this is a map sent to me by HS2 showing the position of my house and if you follow the road back up the Coventry Road going down the slide, Laneham P lace and then just slightly beyond that is the Greenway, the bridge and that’s basically where the coach stopped. Obviously, you can see also to the north of the slide the grey area being the safeguarded zone and the line being the train line.

183. Next slide please? Yes, this is my property. It’s number two. It’s probably worth just pointing out, of note, that I am the next door neighbour of Morris and Pauline Kyte, who you heard about in November. I believe you’re fully aware with their situation.

184. Move on to next slide. Just a brief better background, around me and my family. We’re a family of four, with my wife, son Jasper, who’s seven, daughter Lois, who’s four. We moved to Kenilworth in 2008. We actually relocated back to the UK from a period of time in the US, in Boston. Jasper was born in the US. We chose Kenilworth as an ideal place to raise our children, build a family life. We invested significantly in the property in terms of making improvements to that property. We spent over £80,000 on it. HS2 aside, we are very happy and settled in Kenilworth, so much so, that I also launched a business in the town in 2012.

185. Next slide. For the Residents Association perspective, I became the chairman of the association in 2009. This is obviously a volunteering role. It’s a long established association. It’s been going for 26 years. It was formed to maintain and improve the quality of the environment of Crackley and the surrounding area. Member households number approximately 130. The vast majority of these members are elderly people and retired individuals. They are deeply concerned about the proposals as it will dramatically change the area for ever and cause chaos, in some cases, for their remaining years. They also find the process of consultations, petitioning, and everything that goes associated with this scheme is very daunting and difficult. So, I obviously hope to do my best to represent them. I’d also like to note that at the other end of the spectrum, in terms of membership, there are a number of families with young children and that sort of demographic is fairly indicative of the Residents Association and of Kenilworth as a whole, as well.

186. Next slide. There is a picture of, there’s that green bridge you’ve been on before. So, this slide, in a very basic manner, shows the locations of the majority of the members of the Residents Association. The red dot, in the sort of middle, towards the top, is effectively Crackley Crescent. So, obviously, members all along there. Members all the way back up the A429. And then associated roads, Woodland Road, Highland Road, that pretty much surround the HS2 works. We do have other members of note, who you’re going to hear from individually, as well. Paul Hunt, of Milburn Grange Farm, which is top right or middle right of that slide. The Elliots, who live on the Coventry side of the Crackley Gap, as well. And obviously also we have members on Crackley Lane, going out towards Burton Green.

187. Next slide please? So yes, very quickly, are three main concerns are the devastation of the Crackley Gap. Which I know you’ve had an awful lot about. And the finished product effectively of the planned works. The dramatic change in its appearance, both during construction and when completed. The years of construction of the scheme and associated problems that will affect the community, such as traffic, pollution, potential reintroduction of flooding issues, and the current inadequate compensation proposals that simply do not address the real life problems that the scheme is causing communities right now.

188. Next slide. So, this is just a Google map shot of obviously the area as it is at the moment. Clearly, a lot of greenbelt land. Lots of fields. Greenbelt land, essentially. An abundance of wildlife and fundamentally, it is a very tranquil setting.

189. Next slide. As you’ve seen this slide, many, many, many times, this is obviously effectively what is going over that previous slide to show what we are looking forward to.

190. Next slide please? Just a zoom in. What is jaw-droppingly shocking is the immense scale of the planned works. As you’ve already heard today and I really won’t labour the point, but there are significant engineering constraints of crossing the Crackley Gap, coming under the A46, over Day House Lane, under the existing railway, through Milburn Grange Farm, under the A429, continuing through the fields towards Burton Green. It is proposed that a new flood plain is created with the diversion of the Canley Brook, which includes a new meandering channel, the re-grading of the channel, use of balancing ponds and reversing the existing direction of flow. This is major. Especially in terms of the earthworks required. You’ve just heard a lot about this today. But, obviously, these are huge concerns for residents of the area, fundamentally.

191. Next slide. This slide, I believe, shows effective viewpoints from the construction and I guess I put it in really because the solution predominantly seems to be planting of trees after the works to try and put it back to the what it looked like.

192. Next slide. These are maps showing construction. Again, the scale of the works

is very, very frightening. You can see to the bottom left is Crackley Crescent. That’s around there, absolutely. So, in terms of what is absolutely going to be on our doorstep, in terms of the works, the compounds, the associated traffic; that is effectively what we are looking forward to.

193. Next slide. I think the main point on this was construction traffic and I know HS2 have sent us a subsequent slide, but, it does say no construction traffic proposed to use the A429 south. I mean effectively the entrance, or the planned entrance, to the zone where the Canley Brook so going to be diverted, is just beyond the last house on Crackley Crescent, number 16. Obviously, yes, it would make sense that any traffic comes out and goes left, rather than into town, but, we’d certainly ask for some assurances that that absolutely will be the case.

194. MR HILLARD: And this is the point, at the moment we’re trying to communicate to 130 householders, mostly elderly folk, what the impact of this in this area of the Kenilworth is going to be. What we’ve got, is this drawing which shows the Canley Brook, if we look at the point of diversion, that is about 68 metres AOD. If you go up to the point where the diverted river breaches the Connect2 Kenilworth path that we discussed with the Greenway last week, that’s about 88 metres AOD. That’s a height of about 20 metres, we think, from the point of diversion to the point where it now crosses the C2K route and we were talking about the preferred route to take the redirected Connect2 Kenilworth route across on its current path and then down and then underneath the line itself.

195. So we’ve done some estimates in terms of the total amount of material that will have to be excavated in that area. And we talked about that. And a lot of that will stay on site. We know there are earthworks and material that’s going to be left on site. But if you take an area of 400 metres by 700 metres and you excavate that down to an average of 10 metres, to accommodate that 0 to 20 metre height differential, you get about 2.8 million cubic metres of spoil. If you bolt that up at one and a half times, you get about 4 million cubic metres of spoil. Some of that is going to stay in the area. Some of that is going to be used for earthworks and mitigation bunding. But the majority of that is going to be passing through a farm gate, at the moment, on to the A429. And at the moment the only assurance we’ve got is that no construction traffic is

proposed to go south through the Crackley area. We would like that strengthened. And I know Mr Mould has already pointed to the Code of Construction Practice, but we need some teeth to that Code of Construction Practice, that forbid almost trucks from going through that area.

196. Just picking up on a point from earlier on about sat nav. Crackley Crescent will not be picked up on satellite navigation systems at the moment. You actually enter Crackley Lane. You can try it yourself, if you’ve got a sat nav, try putting Crackley Crescent into that. So, that’s the first point. We want something a bit stronger then and we’ve picked up in that in the Kyte’s petition, but, we would like something a bit stronger that says that that disruption is not going to go through the majority of Crackley residents.

197. We note with interest the discussion yesterday about the release of information. You were talking about the fly through of the route. And going back to Joe’s point, 18 months ago, we sat down on a number of occasions, three occasions, at what were called bilaterals, and these were trying to really tease out the technical detail of the disruption in this area; the technical detail about what it would look like, so that we could communicate to members of our Association.

198. If you move on to the next slide, we were pressing for cross-sections and to be honest this is what we were provided with and it’s been admitted, that it is probably a mistake releasing them, because it is essentially something that could have been done on the back of a cigarette paper because that does not give any information about what this thing will look like and the real concerns of residents as to what the appearance of it; how the different features of the landscape will look. There is a worry with releasing information for the public domain because it can be pored over and lead to wasted time. I do feel for the engineers, obviously, at this stage they are at, the detailed design hasn’t been done. We would urge you, again, to consider this Crackley Gap as a special case and to bring that design forward to before the hybrid Bill because the cost implications, the environmental implications and the social implications warrant that.

199. If we move on to the next slide? Are other concerns in terms of communicating to members of the Association is around the photo montages. We could play spot the

difference in this one. This is the one we had before the exhibits were fired through and you’ve seen the other one that Mr Mould showed from the C2K, the Connect2 Kenilworth path, looking back the other way. This is from one of our members, just up from one of our members’ homes, and you look at that photo montage and you will consider there is no real impact of the scheme. Interestingly, if we zoom in on the next slide into the area which is just an enlarged version of that previous one, we see not a great deal of change. For example, we don’t really see the realignment of the A429 there and that is on all the plans. We don’t see any form of noise mitigation. We see, I presume those stakes are staked trees in year one of the scheme, and those are the ones that HS2 allude to will be screening the route at that stage, one year after planting. So, the message is that the information that we are trying to communicate to our members to alleviate some of their concerns and their legitimate concerns about the scheme aren’t being helped by the level of information being provided in terms of its accuracy.

200. If we move on, just briefly on noise, and this is something that has been picked up, in terms of the implications for Kenilworth in its entirety. As Ashley mentioned about, the residents in our Association are mostly on that eastern fringe of Kenilworth. At the top end there. And from this representation from the Environmental Statement there are no concerns with noise in terms of our members. We cannot believe that is the case. And again, we are pressing for more detail noise assessment in the area.

201. CHAIR: Be aware, at some point there will be a division in the house on the Charter for Budget Responsibility. If that happens, I’m afraid I will just simply adjourn for 15 minutes. So, carry on.

202. MR BALL: Fundamentally, there’s a strong belief that this proposal is not the best solution for the area. You’ve heard a lot on that today and then a far more extensive appraisal of the Crackley Gap should be carried out as a matter of urgency. I mean, to compound the concerns, in the promoter’s response to our petition, and you did hear something similar from Joe earlier, we were told the level of detailed design necessary to enable the proposed scheme to be constructed is yet to be carried out and will not be completed until after the Bill has secured by Royal Assent. But, obviously, that would appear to be too late. We are therefore asking a detailed design for this section of the line to be undertaken as a priority. We also ask that this includes costings

of the construction and the economic impact to the surrounding area and that can then be compared to alternative proposals such as a deep bored tunnel which I know you’ve heard about. Again, you’ve heard about the SIFT criteria and alternative options earlier. But, certainly a deep bored tunnel starting beyond the A46 in S toneleigh, going under the A46, under the gap, and up beyond Burton Green, would alleviate the vast majority of the constraints and the surface problems associated with the current proposal.

203. In terms of construction, if we go on to the next slide, again just in terms of concerns for everyone in the local area around construction, traffic and pollution, the key thing is about the response that we had was the working hours of 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. weekdays, 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on Saturday, occasional night time, weekend, and 24 hour working. Fundamentally the area used to be a very tranquil area. And as part of the response to air quality and traffic there was also point 4, which said that: ‘The railway is expected to operate efficiently, efficient, electrically powered trains, which are non polluting at source. Changes in road traffic flows at Euston and Old Oak Common will result in significant localised beneficial and adverse effects. These impacts in themselves are not expected to have any bearing on the UK’s compliance with the EU quality legislation.’ I presume it’s an error but I’m not quite sure how the effects on Euston are going to really come into play with our problems in the Crackley Gap.

204. Go on to the next slide? So, this shows the scene outside my house in December and fundamentally this is a pretty common view most mornings due to, it’s been spoken about today, some works up at Gibbet Hill, towards Warwick University. It was taken in December. The traffic jam was about one and a half miles long. Fundamentally, the A429 is a very well used road. Traffic goes towards the University. People are going to work. There are many, many families doing the school run. And obviously, the photo had indicated or has indicated that they’re going to add about 350 HGV journeys daily during construction for the removal of spoil. We feel that this will cause chaos in the area for years on both sides of the Crackley Gap. Whilst the promoter has acknowledged that construction traffic, or to quote: ‘Construction traffic will be a concern for the residents’, they also suggest that construction traffic is not considered to give rise to a significant change in emissions nor is the impact of dust expected to be

significant. But, we simply disagree. And this photo shows a more likely realistics of the affect on the community. Again this is all I’ll say on traffic because as you alluded to earlier it’s going to be discussed further in more detail by other organisations, as well. I think the point is that traffic flow is finely balanced in the area and even just, arguably, a small disruption for the current roadworks, can have some major effects on the area. As with the engineering proposals for Crackley Gap, we’re basically not convinced that the traffic management proposal is workable and do ask that that be reviewed.

205. If you go on to the next slide? We’d now like to talk about compensation. You obviously have heard a lot about that. I don’t pretend to be an expert on engineering or major projects. I can consider myself to be an expert on my own life and that of my family. Additionally, I’m well aware of the effects the scheme is already having on people’s lives and the factual reality that the current proposals for the compensation do not have and are not addressing the reality of the impact of the scheme. The slide just simply lists the current proposals.

206. We can move on from that to the next slide, if that’s okay? The next two slides showed the safeguarded area in grey and in pink the extended home owner protection zone. Go to the next slide, it sort of zooms in. On this zoomed slide, again, what is clearly apparent is the size and scale of the safeguarding area required for construction. What is also of not is how the extended home owner protection zone extends and the stops at all the boundary of all the homes. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can argue that homes you see, especially on Crackley Crescent, are not affected by the scheme. It is also hard to be cynical of the Proposer and actually begs the question of what is the point of the extended homeowner protection zone on this map. It doesn’t protect any homes.

207. If you move onto the next slide, the most recent compensation proposed possible payments to homeowners as an incentive to stay in their homes and thus keep communities together. This is, of course, welcomed. However, the criteria of the distance from the centre of the line, especially in this example, negates those gains as most homes do not qualify. Additionally, the financial amounts proposed on the homeowner payment proposal appear inadequate depending what they’re trying to address, but especially if they are designed to compensate in any financial loss in

property value.

208. Can you move onto the next slide? Again, I sort of hashed together two maps here. This is actually one I gave you when you came on your tour to the area to try and demonstrate the reality of those coloured zones. Basically, on the Crescent if you look at the coloured zones no home sits in the first to banding, the orange and pink. One or two sit in the green, which is the 180 to 240 metres –

209. CHAIR: Order, order. I’m sorry. I’m going to have to adjourn for 15 minutes. Catch your breath and have a glass of water.

Sitting suspended On resuming—

210. Order, order. As we’re now quorate we may as well crack on. Sorry, Mr Ball, to interrupt you. Pray continue.

211. MR BALL: That’s quite all right. We’re jumping straight back, yes?

212. CHAIR: Yes. Jumping straight back in.

213. MR BALL: So, yes, just to recap. We were looking at this slide showing the different coloured zones. And I guess the main point being the first two zones, not one property is incorporated in those two and very few properties basically qualify for anything. This is still talking about the homeowner payment scheme to ideally encourage people to stay in the area. It just seems crazy when you look at what is proposed and where we live that measurements are taken if they’re going to be using a distance from the line criteria that they are taken from the centre of the railway line, because with the construction works that are available and the safeguarding zone most of wha t’s proposed to be on offer is basically swallowed up. So we are ideally asked for a review of that and it would make more sense for up and down the line if there is a distance from the line criteria to be used for it to be used from the edge of the safeguarded area rather than the centre of the line.

214. I think also the width of the bands needs looking into. I mean on the Crescent each house, the width of it, is approximately 10 metres. And, equally, again the amounts proposed, especially from the resident association members are not quite sure what they’re trying to achieve with those sorts of levels. I mean £7,500. They’re not quite sure what’s on offer, why that’s being offered, I guess.

215. If you move onto the next slide, this is obviously part of the Promoter’s response about compensation. The first point, it is the Promoter’s view that the compensation provisions in the proposed scheme are sufficient and appropriate. Obviously, this is really worrying because the realities of it are simply that is not the case. And, obviously, we need the situation that is the real situation to be addressed by compensation.

216. If you move onto the next slide, I guess I wanted to talk about Crackley Crescent as a case study I guess, for want of a better phrase. This is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in on the Crescent. It is currently a lovely place to live. Many have done like we have done and chosen to raise families there. I think there are currently 18 children growing up in ten of the 17 houses on the Crescent. Many of these kids are primary school age: Sophia and Heidi at number 14; Samuel and Josh at number 13; my two; Sam and Grace at number one. There are more. Also, a point of note is that a lady is a registered child minder and runs her business out of number 5. So there is also morning drop offs for other children coming into and out of the area on most week days.

217. I mean what we’re looking at is my two are aged 7 and 4 and with the scheme due for completion in 2025/26, basically Jasper is going to be 17 or 18 and Lois is going to 14 or 15 when it’s a complete. So what it means is they will have to live with the construction of HS2 for the remainder of their childhood. And the reason I say have to is that currently with the proposed scheme if we wanted to move it is very unlikely that we will be able to sell our house on the open market. This is currently being proven by the Kites, my next-door neighbours, who you heard from in November. It’s also been proven by N ick and N icky sat next to me. Both of those houses have been on the market in 2014 for many, many months with only a handful of first viewings, no second viewings and absolutely no offers.

218. If we move onto the next slide, just for a personal perspective, as I mentioned I’ve invested a decent amount of money in developing and building a home for my family. The top left hand screen, we’ve made it a four-bedroom property with the loft conversion. We’ve added the conservatory at the bottom. We’ve put in a brand new kitchen. The top right photo shows the view from what is my bedroom and in the loft at the top. We have basically created what I would consider to be a lovely home. The houses benefit from off-street parking. They’ve got good-sized gardens, not often common in Kenilworth as well. And they are very conveniently located for the greenway and the Connect2 cycle route. If you move onto the next slide, that shows you the view from the Connect2 path back at my house, and right in the middle you can see my loft conversion. It conveniently pops up and demonstrates the view that we have.

219. If I could quickly go to one of HS2’s slides because where I took that photo is where they’ve taken one of theirs, and I think it is P2803, just to give you some perspective or show the area.

220. MR HILLARD: It’s actually the one you saw earlier on off the Connect Kenilworth.

221. MR BALL: So, literally, if you were stood taking that photo if you turned 90 degrees you would get that previous view of my home. I saw it come through, it is exactly the same spot. It just demonstrates the tranquillity of the area that we live in, basically. The point here is, fundamentally, there is absolutely not reason whatsoever why houses on Crackley Crescent would not sell on the open market. They are or they were very desirable homes in a desirable town. However, they simply aren’t selling. No one is interested in buying them. Would you, frankly? Yet the proposal deems that the current compensation scheme is sufficient and appropriate. Well, in this case it really isn’t. Our initial fears when this scheme was first announced of the affects of the – and literally being trapped in our homes are already a reality. The scheme is destroying the unique selling points of the location, of the property, the tranquillity, the views, the ambience. There is currently no exit strategy for households in this situation. We are very much affected by the proposal and it simply isn’t fair.

222. If you go onto the next slide back on my slide, if that’s okay, which would be A689. Yes, thank you. Obviously, this goes back to the original slide just to show the location of my property here. And I do appreciate that the proposal has to consider the return for the taxpayer if they are to purchase properties as part of this scheme, and I guess, obviously, they’re worried about accumulating a large property portfolio. As an aside I’m a tax payer myself, obviously, and usually property as an investment is usually deemed to be a good investment so I don’t see why it would not be deemed in this case, thus the Promoter should be biting our hands off to be investing in such great properties. Regardless, I believe there is a natural cut off in terms of how we’re affected in this area. The cut off being pretty much where the Crescent begins.

223. The reason I say that is if you look at other houses or how the property market behaving just slightly further away up the A429 houses are selling. Then if you can zoom in, if you can see Laneham Place, which is just a little bit further up the road, two houses have sold there in 2014. Woodland Road is another one slightly to the right or further down, two houses have sold there. Leigh Close is just off of there as well. The reality is that edge of Kenilworth does not seem to be as affected and people can make decisions on their own lives and go about doing what they would like to do. That is not the case for Crackley Crescent. We are trapped and that is the simple summary of it.

224. So I mean with a review – I suppose the point I’m making is if you reviewed the current proposals don’t think you’re going to be opening the flood barrier to people needing you to buy their homes. Many people actually want to stay on the Crescent to be perfectly honest with you, but they just feel in complete limbo in terms of their lives. Currently, it is do they have any choices looking down the next ten years or so. They probably want to make improvements to the house, but everything has been put on hold just because of this and we just field that this is totally unfair.

225. Now, we know there has been a lot of talk about the Need-to-Sell scheme. I believe, I’ve been told today, that maybe some news is coming on that shortly. We welcome the fact that that is a scheme that operates under no defined boundary, but I think we ask the criteria ‘Need-to-Sell’ be placed with the ‘wish to sell’. I think that would certainly go some way in ourselves. People’s lives change. Fundamentally, people aspire to greater things. Buy a bigger house, a fresh start, whatever it may be.

Certainly, when I bought this house I didn’t think it would be my forever home. I’m in no hurry to move. We love it there at the moment, but at some point I would expect to want to move on. And I don’t see why I would have to demonstrate a need to move on. You should be allowed to move on, basically.

226. I mean, there are a couple of things on the details of the current proposal that I wanted to pick up on slightly. One criterion is about the Promoter talks about marketed pr ice and market fluctuations or process. Fundamentally, I totally appreciate that but I think there needs to be some clarity on it. Of course, in an attempt to tell your house you may well market it at one price then reduce that price. I think we need some clarity on what is deemed to be the marketed price. This is all in line with the criteria of having to be forced to accept an offer within 85% of the value, so taking a 15% hit on the value of the house. I mean just to keep the numbers round on a £400,000 house they are basically saying that if you were to get an offer of £340,000 on that house you have to take it. Well, I think most people would agree that if you put in an offer of £340,000 on a house that is worth £400,000 and it doesn’t need any work doing on it you know what sort of an answer you’re going to get, and it’s not going to be received well. I just think that in this example asking someone like us to take a £60,000 – £70,000 hit on our house, on our investment is effectively what we’re looking at losing, and it’s all completely beyond our control. Of course, there are other people where this sacrifice rises significantly into the hundreds of thousands, certainly for properties on the other side of the Crackley Gap on the edge of Coventry. I guess I just think that the final scheme must include the provision of an exit strategy for people that are in our situation, whether that is for HS2 to purchase the house or if you do get a below value offer there is some sort of top-up system in place. I think the reference of a bond has been proposed in the past. But just some scheme that allows you to move on if you cannot move on because of this proposal.

227. I mean we’d like to ask that Crackley Gap is given specific review as I do think it is a genuine example of where the compensation proposals do fall down. The Crescent is having to deal with the impact of the proposed line, the realign on the brook, the change of the road outside our houses, the A429 flyover. And whatever form it takes we ask that either the Crescent is either incorporated in the safeguarding zone or it is given a new title as an area designated as suffering unique or adverse affects, but

fundamentally we ask that a serious review is given and case studies looked at to just try and address the concerns that we have and, fundamentally, the realities of where we are today.

228. I’m coming towards the end. My notes are slightly all over the place. In terms of what we’re asking for, we’d like a review of the plans for the Crackley Gap and surrounding areas, both from an engineering perspective and certainly from a traffic management perspective. We’d certainly like some undertakings on the flow of construction traffic away from the town etc. And absolutely would really like a co mpensation scheme that is actually fit for purpose and actually does address the realities of the situation we find ourselves in. I think the next slide is simply the view out my son’s bedroom window. I just thought I’d end on a nice note. And I just wanted to say, sincerely, thank you for listening.

229. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould is going to reply to all the Crackley Gap questions today. So if you move back, Mr Ball, so that Mr and Mrs Hillard can move over onto the camera line. Then after that if you could come and sit in the middle, Mr Ball, because you’re not shy. In a minute. Then if you have any questions for Mr Mould you can join him. That’s great.

230. MR HILLARD: Thanks very much. We’re Nick and Nicky Hillard. We live at 11 Crackley Crescent and you will remember the visit you made to our garden, during whic h – I forget who said it – but one of you forthrightly asked, ‘What do you want HS2 to do for you? Buy your house?’ And we responded, ‘Yes.’ On returning to the house after your visit a letter was on the doormat, which was from the Department for Transport instruction HS2 to buy our house under the express purchase scheme. That was 7 October. Our petition is still valid on the basis of both that, if you pop onto the next slide, but also ecology, water resources, flood risk, and noise blight and air quality. So there is still some meat to the petition that we submitted obviously before that great day on 7 October when we received confirmation.

231. In short, our asks on the next side are accelerate that process of compensations, schemes are fine but if they’re mishandled they lead to frustration and bad publicity. So accelerate the process of compensation on the existing schemes and, obviously, Ashley

has talked about any proposed improvements to the scheme. We are asking for better ecological assessment in the area and I’ll use a proxy of the pond that viewed at the bottom of the garden for that. Better noise, light and air quality assessment, and flood risk assessment enhancement, which we will touch on as we discussed that at length earlier on.

232. MRS HILLARD: To be honest we should be celebrating. We’ve been deemed as the lucky ones to have actually got out Crackley Crescent. We had a valuation and survey on 24 November. To date we are still waiting for HS2 to come back with any value for our property, which is eight weeks this Friday. For us it has obviously been a financially damaging, the hardship that the four of us have been put against. I’ve listened very often, as you can imagine, to the effect on taxpayers. Well, there seems to be two different lots of taxpayers. There seems to be the taxpayers affected by HS2 and those who aren’t. And really this is a very real what is going on with the compensation? I didn’t perhaps want to share the damage this has done to us as a family.

233. As you can see this is a picture of our property before HS2. We had four agents who I had negotiated very nice fees to sell our home. Two days before the house was going on the property in July 2013, it’s 19 months we are down the line, we had a letter from HS2 saying the part of our property being safeguarded. At that point our agent said the house would be unsalable and has he been proved right 19 months later.

234. The next side, please? This is a view sent to us by HS2, which I’ve put the current – These were being sent at times, I think, inaccurate or misleading information. That is the current Crackley Brook in our area, not the new one. It doesn’t look so bad when you look at it like that. You think, ‘Okay. The line is quite a way from the house. About 200m, if that.’ We’re going to be about 50m away from the new realigned brook.

235. Can you go to the next picture? This is actually the reality of what our property and our friends and neighbours will be faced with. I’m no expert with maps, but looking at that where you have construction traffic for what I’ve looked at many, many years. We’re not talking months here, because of the depth of the Crackley Gap, the railway and the road we’re talking years of disruption in this area. And just to get a sense of what it is really like – the next slide, please – this is what it is really like. As

many of you have been aware when you came to our garden and many of the houses on the Crescent – it is a crescent, it’s not a straight road – look directly onto this.

236. Next side, please? This is a catalogue of what I’m called the HS2 household journey for the last 19 months, from June 2013 to the present day, today. I did check yesterday with our agent if he’d heard anything from HS2. He had not. I find it totally unacceptable that we as a family have been put through this. We have young children who struggle with us having to live apart because Nick had to move to London for a job. It wasn’t our choice for him to move to London. As I said, we got our letter successfully from HS2 on 7 October, I think. The people I’ve dealt with sometimes at HS2 have been great. I’ve Connor, who’s our key person. Sorry, I don’t know his surname. He seems very nice. The chap who came to do the survey, very nice. The valuer, very nice.

237. I do want to make one point. Obviously, we’ve had issues with being able to apply for statutory blight being turned down. Obviously, that letter arrived in October. We appealed. And actually, really, being simple folk – not simple, that’s a bit insulting to us – straightforward folk didn’t realise the actual appeals process and what it really meant. There was an error of delivery, but it did sit in an HS2 – I won’t say seven weeks because that was the whole process – for over four weeks. A registered delivery letter to a named person sat in a HS2 office. Totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. We therefore got a letter back to our agent on 24 December – he decided not to share that with us over C hristmas – to say that we had actually missed the appeals deadline. We had sent letters to the Department for Transport in October 2013, still to this date have had no response. We have sent letters to HS2, still to this date have had no response to those letters. I am thankful to our MP, Jeremy Wright, and in particular Caroline Pickering, for their ongoing support because it has been at times, as you can imagine, invaluable.

238. Next slide, please. I’m not going to read through these but there are many things that are unjust about this whole process. Some of those or many of those are what we are still facing today. One of those: because our expenditure has been stretched to about £1000 per month. Many of you live or rent within London. Nick rents a room. It is £600 per month. So our expenditure for Nick being forced, and I will saying being

forced to live apart, is £1000 per month. That is not acceptable in any way, shape or form to anybody. We are talking about taxpayers. We are being overlooked. We are being given misinformation.

239. I’m concerned when we go to re-mortgage with the new guidelines are they going to be looking at us an saying ‘You’ve stretched your expenditure.’ We have been forced to stretch our expenditure. We haven’t chosen to do that. And the insult – We had got a beautiful home. Many of our friends on the Crescent and the other side of the Gap have got beautiful homes. It was a joy, when one person came to look around asked me, ‘Would you buy this house?’. It’s insulting. It is unbelievable. We have to move. We lost a house in Princes Risborough, which was a year and a half ago. We have to find schooling for our children. We have to find a house. We can do neither of those without having a valuation to say we can move forward. Next slide, please? I’ll pass over to Nick.

240. MR HILLARD: Nicky has articulated that a great deal better. She is at the front end of that journey and that compensation struggle. And all we would ask is we should be celebrating, but actually it’s a hell of a journey even when you do actually qualify for the scheme. In terms of what I’m going to talk about now, it’s the issues in Crackley and the issues in the 12 years that we’ve lived in the Crescent that are going to affect the Crescent itself and the property. And they’re all listed there. You’ve got the current view. You’ve got a night-time view at the top. If we go onto the next, because I am an environmental specialist as you are aware. I studied ecology. I have got a keen interest in ecology, hence the reason for buying a drover’s pond at the bottom of the garden. When we saw that when we looked around we had one of those tilt moments. When we first looked around this house that was my tilt moment, when my eyes just went wow, if we could own that overlooking the greenbelt.

241. This pond, if we go onto the next map, this is the 1908 county series second edition map. You can see the pond it. You can see the hedgerow leading, basically, left to right. So it is an old pond. We believe it to be a drover’s pond that was used in days gone by. It is of ecological interest, and that was obviously identified by HS2 and hence the reason for doing amphibian survey’s in the pond. Next slide. Over the 12 years that we’ve lived there we have seen all of these features around that point. I went up one

night, having returned at one o’clock in the morning, and was disturbed by a badger rooting around at the edge of the pond. Muntjac deer. Three species of bat were identified during the collective Kenilworth ecological survey. Interestingly, no bat surveys were done of the pond, which is a key feeding area. And, obviously, feeding up that ancient hedgerow which leads up left to right in the previous exhibit. Moorhens are living along there. My daughter, who is seven, saw a tawny owl, and we saw a tawny owl fly off from the oak that overlooks the pond, which was a highlight moment for her. So there is ecological interest there. Great crested newts were found in that pond during the HS2 surveys.

242. The reason the great crested newts were found in there during those surveys and not three years previously is because of the next slide. In September 2011 – sorry, not the previous. The next slide. That’s the one, sorry. In 2011, that pond dried up. That is the pond. You can see the Kenilworth sandstone cobbles going down. That’s what we believe are the cobbles the drover’s used to back their wagons down to swell the wood against the metal rims of their wheels. The pond dried out. The fish died. Great crested newt eggs survived. Great crested newts found in HS2 surveys. The reason the great crested newts were there was because two years earlier the pond had dried up. By doing one survey and identifying newts in the pond HS2 has treated it as a special case in terms of protected species and rightly so. What other ecological features have they missed from not doing that length of ecological assessment? And as I’ve stated previously, on a one off development it is fine. On scheme of this scale it is not acceptable. The next slide shows that pattern over different years. So it does vary. The height of the water in that pond does vary, and this ties in with water resource. So the bottom right shows it in flood and you can see that the drainage pipe leading out from the pond is insufficient and it overflowed.

243. This ties in with what I’d like to talk about quickly on water resource and flood risk. If we look at the next slide, this is the view from the point of exit of those wagons coming off the Crackley Gap. This is the view looking along from basically the A429 bridge over the Crackley Brook, currently. And this is the flood plain extent of what we saw in November 2012. So within approximately two years ago this was the flood level. On the left hand side of the main picture you can see a tree branch coming out, that is the hedgerow that I’ll point to in the future. So the water level is almost two thirds of

the distance from the brook to the hedgerow.

244. If we go onto the next slide, which is the indicative flood plains map of the environment agency, which are used – They’re slightly more sophisticated to inform the flood risk models that HS2 have used. But you can see from this that on the circled area on the right hand side, which is the risk of flooding from rivers, the circle denotes the area that we’re looking at. There’s a vertical line there which denotes that field margin where I pointed to where the branch was coming out. If you look at the indicative flood plain from there it extends to the sort of distance that we were looking at in November 2012. That is one in 100 year flood level and we have experienced it in the last two years. I would suggest, and the exhibit from HS2 that has come back has shown that the revised flood levels in terms of the new scheme and we can look at that in due course in terms of response. But I would suggest that the one in 100 year flood level has been almost breached in the last two years, hence the reason for thinking that using that to inform flood risk model is not necessarily best practice and possibly needs refining a little bit more. That’s flood risk and we think we would like greater flood risk assessment in that area because it does impact on all those houses along the Crescent and materially affect the conveyancing of those properties.

245. If we go onto the next slide, this is traffic light. I’m not going to major on this point because it was raised earlier on. That is the entrance way we’re talking about we’re talking about onto the Crackley Gap to the west of Crackley Brook that those 4 million cubic metres or however much soil is coming out of that area is going to have to exit by, onto the road, swing round, and then turn right as we look at it. If you look at that drawing there is a sign post there ‘Coventry Rd – Crackley Crescent’, there is a brown building behind another fence, a Severn Trent pumping station there. On the right hand side there is a gashouse there. So there is infrastructure in that area that will have to moved, altered. I cannot imagine that that is adequate for the sort of scale of trucks that are going to be moving out of there on the numbers that have been alluded there.

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do the trucks go in there as well?

247. MR HILLARD: They will do, yes. So the movement is round and then out as I

understand it.

248. MRS HILLARD: Because the brook, that’s the viewing point we looked at, the brook is just a bit around that corner. So there’s not much –

249. MR HILLARD: The bridge over the brook is about ten metres beyond that gashouse to the right hand side of the photo. And the view at the bottom right is the view that we saw outside flood. Roger Warren, who is petitioning tomorrow, is the house on the left hand side. On the left hand side there beyond the conifer. So, again, traffic there is a major, major concern for us. Moving onto the next slide, this was the draft DS and talks about the landscape viewpoints. And you can see that there is a view point circled, which is the point that we’ve just been looking at. We haven’t seen that one as yet. It would be useful to see that one in terms of a photo montage at that point of what the line would look like in terms of knowing what impact the line will have from that point.

250. MRS HILLARD: From that angle.

251. MR HILLARD: Next slide.

252. MRS HILLARD: This is really wanted to highlight this is what we are looking at at the moment. This is what the properties – Whatever is being put forward by the promoter this is what those houses, at least the bottom eight houses, look onto at different parts of the year. And that’s our two children feeding the cows, which we have to do every year.

253. CHAIR: Who has the copyright of the photo?

254. MRS HILLARD: You’ll like the last one, very much. So that’s what we’re faced with. That is going to be totally destroyed. Next slide. Just to highlight, this is the view from our back garden in the evening. I’ve read things that lighting is not going to be affected during the period of construction. I would question that. It’s quite highlighted. And that the edge I would say. The edge right at the back is the edge of Coventry. But that’s what we look out on. It’s quite spooky at night to be honest. And the lights on

there are the other side of the Crackley Gap. So the Cryfield Grange/Kenilworth Road side. Next slide. 255. MR HILLARD: Next slide, we’re just going to finish up on noise. And that’s what we’ve been provided. Again, we’ve alluded to this in the Crackley Residents’ Petition in terms of the apparent lack of impact on any of the housing in the Crackley area.

256. The next slide is HS1, which I believe to be a 4.5 metre noise barrier adjacent to HS1. 4.5-5 me tres. I believe the height of the train there is about 4 metres. So it’ s about 4.5-5 metres. If we look at the close up of the – If we look at the next slide, which points to the impact, the operations and contours maps. And then we hone in on the next slide. We’re looking at – remember that was 4.5-5 metres, HS1 – the noise barrier that we’re going to be facing from that viewpoint we’ve been talking about of 8 to 15 metres. So twice to three times the height of that noise acoustic barrier. So to glibly state that within year one the view will have been ameliorated by the growth in some of the plantings that have been made suggests a little bit of lack of consideration. Another point, I’m not an acoustic specialist but it would be interesting to confirm whether that operational sound impact actually does take into consideration the acoustic barrier that is being placed there. I take it it does, but that’s a point in clarification in terms of whether those sound contours are actually with the acoustic barriers in place rather than in their absence.

257. So in summary noise is a major concern. In summary, our asks are that the compensation process is speeded up and that there is a real incentive given to get these things through because it will act positively in terms of public relations if situation such as ours, which should be straightforward, are actually dealt with in an efficient manner. We would back up previous petitions around better ecological assessment in the area. We would suggest that the noise, light and air quality assessment need enhancing, and the flood risk assessment that has been – and I know the Promoter is going to point to the environmental statement, but we would suggest that the environmental statement is not adequate in terms of flood risk assessment. And our final slide asks the questions will life ever be the same for the residents of Crackley again.

258. MRS HILLARD: We thought you’d like that.

259. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Ball, do you want to come in the middle? And, Mr Mould, if you could respond to Crackley Crescent in generality and then specifically.

260. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we first put up P825, please? I just want to – As you say, sir, I’m going to see if I can begin with a bit of an overview. This is the scheme in its current form, which as the petitioners have acknowledged is subject to detailed design work and approval under the schedule 16 process by the Local Authority. But this is the conceptual build scheme as it stands at the moment. Now, you can find Crackley Crescent. It’s just above bridal way W. That’s exactly it.

261. Can I deal with one point, first of all? There was reference to a field gate access being used for lorries going in and out of the construction site just to the north. That’s right. And the field gate is at about that point, I think. Perhaps just a little further to the east. In fact, the proposal is that construction traffic should get in and out of this area of construction on the other side, on the eastern side of the trace. So if you take the cursor over the trace, up the – that’s the realigned road, obviously. But just at that point that’s where the access is proposed to the construction site, the Kenilworth Road head site that will be the principle source of access for construction of this part of the scheme. Construction work traffic is not going to on our proposals is not going to penetrate either up to or beyond the point of Crackley Crescent. I made that clear on 26 November in response to the current petition. I am very happy to reiterate that point in response to these petitioners.

262. The lie of the land following completion is such that effectively you have a shallow cutting, which accommodate the realigned and diverted brook. Then you move to an area of earth bunding, if I you take the cursor up. That’s it. If you move eastwards, an area of bunding and then a false cutting. And then you have the railway line in its concrete box. Then on the other side you have a similar arrangement: false cutting, embankment and then in a shallow cutting that is the retained part of the Crackley Brook that we saw at an earlier stage in the afternoon proceedings.

263. If you can just see the cross-sections, there are two on this plan. One is broadly

east/west from cutting across the middle of Crackley Crescent and the other is on a more oblique south-easterly/north-westerly angle. We saw these earlier. We can perhaps just turn the page and we can get a sense in cross-section of the scheme moving eastwards on a direct line of site and journey as it were from the petitioners’ properties in Crackley Crescent. So that’s the top cross-section. And you can see Crackley Crescent is shown where the cursor is. You get a sense of the height AOD, it’s between 80 and 70 metres AOD. And then you can see that the works in the completed works will involve some mounding to provide a channel for the diverted brook. There will be some planting to provide screening and then a rather more substantial mound between the diverted channel of the brook and the line of the railway. And we can see some tree planting on top of that mound. Then we have the false cutting, and then the quaternary masks the railway line, then on the other side we have some mounding, the auto-transformation station and the balancing pond.

264. And a similar arrangement on that more oblique south-west/north-easterly section you can see if we take the same journey from the south-west as one gets towards the limits of the works we have tree planting. We have the shallow cutting to form the channel for the diverted brook with further planting, then more substantial mounding, and then the false cutting, which will carry the railway, and then the mounding on the northern side of the railway line with some tree planting as well.

265. So perhaps one point to note there is that perhaps at this conceptual stage we’re not a long way from a broad balance between cut and fill. I can tell you that the actual figures that I have on the current estimate for this part of the works are 500,000 cubic metres of excavated material and 96,000 cubic metres of fill. So there is obviously going to be on that basis some 400,000 cubic metres of material coming out of that site to be taken elsewhere. The figure that was given in the many millions should be compared with the overall estimate of the earthworks for the scheme as a whole, which is 54 million cubic metres of material. So that’s for the whole project. Those are the figures I have for this particular aspect of the works at the present time.

266. MR HILLARD: How many other rivers are being diverted?

267. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m not sure I know the answer to that question. We

will find that out for you and provide you with the answer.

268. SIR P ETER BO TTOMLEY: If the gantries are lower than the mound of the false cutting does that mean that before any trees have grown somebody in one of the properties won’t see the gantries on either section one or section two?

269. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, as you know I’m always slightly nervous of saying definitely not, but it does mean that views are likely to be pretty restricted I would have thought. And obviously if you want to be screened the position will improve as the planting takes hold.

270. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The other interesting thing just to put on record is that anyone who thinks that a tree would provide any screening in the first year I think has been seeing trees grow in Brazil rather than in this country.

271. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We don’t think that. For the first few years things are going to be pretty raw, I think. But obviously things will improve. And, indeed, you get a sense of that from one of the photomontages I showed earlier, which is P2804 I think. Yes. Now, this is looking from the eastside. So we’re sort of north of the A429. We’re looking, as you can see from the key, we’re just actually just on the A429 east of the trace looking west. Sorry. Northeast looking southeast on the realigned 429. Now, I made the point earlier that we’ve taken that prominent hedgerow off so that you can actually get a sense of the typography with the earthworks having been completed. In reality, the hedge would be largely or wholly retained for obvious reasons. But you do get a sense there of that point about the relative rawness because see a lot of planting on the other side of the road, which obviously would take time to take hold. But it does give you another useful perspective on the degree to which there is going to be a marked change in the openness of this obviously highly valued gap.

272. In fact the openness of the gap as this photomontage shows, and also if we can just scroll up, the one that you were shown earlier by the petitioners from the other side, so looking from – I think Mr Ball said from pretty much in front of his property. The openness. You can see the operation view. You can get a sense if you just compare – just look at the tree line on the horizon in the current baseline photograph and then look

at the corresponding tree line. You can see that there is mounding there. And so the tree line is partly obscured by the work. But you can see that the general sense of trying to retain this kind of undulating rolling open countryside and the openness that is obviously the key feature of the gap, the green belt in this location, we’re able by the works I showed on the cross-sections we think to a significant degree – well, we might even say largely, that’s the objective – to retain that characteristic.

Now, the other point about that is moving from proposals to process. Both of the petitioners understandably said that they felt that people should have an opportunity to see the detailed design proposals for the railway and to review them before the detail of the scheme is finally looked at. Although these wouldn’t be classed as structural elements of the scheme and therefore dealt with under the first paragraph of schedule 16, these are scheduled works and they would therefore require the approval of the qualifying local authority, which in this case I think would be the Warwick District Council. Warwick District Council would have the opportunity to consider whether they were prepared to approve the detailed design for these elements of the scheduled works before they could be brought into use. One is anticipating that the Council will be best placed to decide how they want to engage with their local communities as part of that process, but I have told you that’s an emerging part of the scheme, there’s nothing specific in the Bill about that, but we’re obviously open to further discussions, particularly with the local authorities, about how that could be achieved.

273. The experience with Crossrail, I think I have mentioned already, is that local authorities have been quite keen to operate their own local arrangements for consulting with local people before as part of that statutory approval process. The key point of referencing I’m making, the reason to mention that, is that the fears I think that these petitioners have that, as it were, there won’t be an opportunity for the local communities to see the detailed designs as they emerge, I can give some reassurance I hope in relation to that.

274. MRS HILLARD: Can I just ask, would you agree then that the view from their gardens on the Crescent will be changed forever, dramatically changed forever?

275. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I think the point I’m making, we may not necessarily agree with each other, but I think the point I’m making by showing the

Committee these photo montages, and also the cross-sections is that rather than contrary: that I don’t think it will be dramatically changed forever. I’m not at all suggesting it won’t be changed. Those who live there now will notice a change, I grant you that, but I don’t think that it would be right to describe it as a dramatic change, and I don’t think that it would be right to describe it as a change that will seriously and adversely affect the prevailing character; that is the point that we are making by reference to these.

276. MRS HILLARD: Yes, I think we’ll agree to disagree on that.

277. MR HILLARD: If you go back to the other though, would you agree that that doesn’t show a realigned A429; it doesn’t show an A429 flyover; it doesn’t show acoustic barriers? Would you agree with that?

278. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It does show the realigned—sorry?

279. MR HILLARD: The realigned A429 is further over.

280. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s off to the left. Yes, sorry, you’re right.

281. MR HILLARD: So this is the existing road that is left as a tarmac?

282. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No. This is the access to the pumping station I think, but because I want to give the Committee and yourselves a broad sense of the way in whic h the topography will change or remain the same and, as I say, you need to bear in mind that that hedge will not be removed in reality. You asked a question about barriers: there’s a misunderstanding here. There is not a proposal here to erect large fe nces of the kind that you expressed understandable concerns about a few minutes ago. Can we just show you P2834? I think that is the best way of just showing this point. I think you were concerned about what you read as a proposal for an eight to 15 metre fence immediately to the east of your property there. If you look at the key, that denotes landscaping and / or fence barriers and here, as I think was clear from the cross-section here, the proposal is to provide noise attenuation and mitigation through the use of earth mounding and earth works, rather than through the erection of a…

283. MR HILLARD: But on your cross section there’s a 75 metre distance between the mainline and the diverted Canley Brook, and at the point where the pinch is between the

Canle y Brook and coming back towards the railway line, there is not 75 metres on that line.

284. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I won’t claim that these are all precisely drawn to scale; these drawings are to a degree illustrative, but I think that broadly speaking the dimensions and what they show is fit for its purpose.

285. MR HILLARD: Would you agree though Mr Mould that actually by diverting the Canley Brook towards the Crescent you have compromised the acoustic bunding in the forms of bunds that could be provided to remedy the acoustic impact on the Crescent?

286. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will try and resist falling too into the trap of being cross-examined, but the position is that the noise mitigation arrangements that you see on this plan are those that have been modelled—I think that was another question you had? These are the arrangements that have been modelled for the purposes of the noise assessment, and so the figures that you see on I think the following page—no it’s the page after that, sorry—which show that for this particular assessment location on Crackley Crescent the proposed scheme in operation, this is the bottom table, is showing an ambient noise level of 49 in the day, 40 at night, and an LA max of 62 with the HS2 assuming the HS2 train specification. As compared to an existing daytime ambient of 60, a night time ambient of 52 and a highest night time measured max of just about 80. So this is a location where we’re not expecting any significant increase in airborne noise impacts due to the scheme. That’s in part due to the noise attenuation that I showed you on the last slide. So that’s the prediction and it’s achieved without the very large and you would say unsightly noise fences that you showed the Committee on the HS1 line.

287. MR HILLARD: Would you concur that where there is insufficient space to put in natural bunding then you would have to do something to prevent noise breakout from a cutting going across a viaduct into another cutting?

288. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’ve indicated that the treatment of noise attenuation is as much a matter of detailed design, as is the rest of the railway. If we found that on detailed design the ability to create earth mounding and so forth as we have shown in a sightly and acceptable fashion for visual and other purposes, meant that we had to resort to some form of noise fence, then that would be something that would have to be

considered as part of that process. We have got an output based approach to designing the railway in terms of noise, which is to achieve the lowest observed adverse effect level or, if that’s not achievable, which is the position with regard to this assessment point, but if that’s not achievable then to take all reasonably practical steps to get as close to it as we can. That is what Mr Thornely-Ta ylo r, our expert, has told the Committee. I do not think I can take the matter any further than that during today.

289. Turning to ecology, as you say, we were aware of your water feature, the pond, and it’s not proposed to carry out any works in the close vicinity to that; the works are some 50 or 60 metres distance in their fullest extent, and we’re not predicting any significant adverse effect. In terms of surveys, we have some idea, as you say, of the value of that pond, but, as Mr Miller has already indicated, survey work is an ongoing part of the process, and so if there is further information to be gleaned in relation to local ecological features for your property and other important ecological features in this location that is something that the project is able to and is seeking to discover. I think you made some comments about air quality. We don’t predict any significant adverse impacts from air quality here during construction operations; construction measures to control air quality, both in terms of vehicles, dust, as you will be familiar from your own work, all the other usual incidence of major construction work, those are proposed to be dealt with under the Code of Construction Practice. We have factored in assumptions for control of the dust and other emissions as part of our assessment of air quality. We don’t at the moment see the need to carry out further work at this stage in order to support that exercise.

290. In terms of construction traffic, I think I have dealt with that actually, I mentioned that a few minutes ago. I think that then brings me briefly to—flood risk, yes. The approach we’ve taken to flood risk is that we have taken a 1-in-100 year plus climate change criterion or 1-in-1,000 year, whichever is the greater, so our intention is to be robust to the more challenging of those two criteria. In this case I think you said you have seen the flood plain plans produced by the project, you will have noted that in relation to the Canley Brook and the other water courses locally there is a proposal for some reserve flood storage, just to the south of the A429. At the moment our predictions are that the railway and the project and the design will function within our assessment criteria that I’ve just set out to the Committee. That is subject obviously to

supervision by the Environment Agency, but also, in this case, as I’ve indicated in the case of Canley Brook, by the local lead authority, which in this case is Warwickshire County Council. Sorry, you had a question?

291. MR HILLARD: Can we see P2866: that’s the model on flood levels that you alluded to. If we home in on the area down on the left hand side.

292. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You want your locality?

293. MR HILLARD: Yes, right into the…

294. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You can see your property shown there.

295. MR HILLARD: Yes, it’s just the detail of that, just home in on a bit further, there’s a slight amelioration, slight improvement in some areas to the right hand side of the Canley Brook existing channel at the moment, which seemed a little bit unusual. It is obviously only a rough model. We’re suggesting that that needs enhancing for this specific area.

296. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As I say, this work has been done with a view to supporting the build scheme and to enable environmental assessment. Plainly the performance of the railway and of the works in terms of impact on flood risk is an ongoing process, and the model will be developed, and no doubt under the aegis of the guidance we receive from those authorities I mentioned a minute ago. At the moment, the Environment Agency are satisfied with the performance of the build scheme in terms of flood risk in this area, and this is part of the supporting material that was the basis for that. We have also mentioned the arrangements for pumping water from the railway into the balancing pond we saw a few moments ago, which would then discharge under controlled conditions into that averted Canley Brook. I don’t, again, think I can—I am very conscious of the fact that I get to a point where I’m trying to exercise a degree of clairvoyance about what is actually going to happen in the future, which I’m afraid is of no value to anybody, so I’m not sure I can assist you.

297. MR HILLARD: All we’ve tried to allude to is the varying water levels over the course of the 12 years we’ve lived there, which have seen our pond completely dry up, groundwater levels in the area drop significantly, and we consider there to be a

hydrological and hydrogeological issue in the area that warrants attention prior to…

298. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, if you’re right about that, and it emerges over the course of the coming years it will have to be taken into account by the project.

299. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I add to hydrology and hydrogeology, hydroecology, which I think is the underlying point that Mr Hillard is making. If they leave, somebody else will come in, and you’ll still it will still be left within their property, or feature within your property, or mostly within your property that pond. I don’t know whether you get the whole of it, whether there’s anything in the system for the promoters, which will watch that pond. We know it matters, because of the great crested newt; I’m not sure how rare the smooth newt is. It does seem to me that it’s worth watching to see whether changes to the Brook, whether in Mr Hillard’s view it coming closer, would be a danger, or whether it being changed will vary, beyond normal variation, the water there.

300. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, as a sort of weather vane, if you like. I honestly don’t know. As things stand at the moment, of course, we expect, as you heard from Mr and Mrs Hillard, to own the property, at least for a period of time. I think probably that thought will be heard and taken away, yes, which brings me then just briefly to the conversation. I don’t—again, I hope Mr Ball will forgive me—I don’t propose, unless you wish me to, to respond in detail to his concerns about the soon to come into operation…

301. CHAIR: Can we just focus a little bit on those houses from the right of way, the last few houses there?

302. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Crackley Crescent itself?

303. CHAIR: We’ve heard one petitioner who clearly will have to reapply to the new scheme when it comes in need to sell, Mr and Mrs Kite who were here earlier on. Clearly that will cover some of the problems, but it may not cover Mr Ball unless he wants to divorce or go back to work in Boston or something like that, which might sort his situation out. What compensation is covered by these people? They would have to comply with need to sell; Mr Hillard express purchase has been accepted. Do we know where we are with that?

304. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Hillard’s position was that his land was included in the July 2013 safeguardings. It subsequently came out of that, but it was that fact that distinguished him in terms of the sche mes.

305. CHAIR: Mr Hillard’s property; any others were safeguarded or just Mr Hillard’s property?

306. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think it’s just Mr Hillard and I think it was because of his pond. I think the fact that he owned a pond, as you can see there.

307. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or the area where the pond is.

308. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. That’s right; it’s that part of land that brought him within.

309. CHAIR: So it’s likely that although there are maybe retired people who may have a legitimate area for accessing need to sell, there will be several people in that particular stretch of road who may not qualify?

310. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As you know, the Government has made it very clear in the decisions document, and in the literature that’s been disseminated about the need to sell policy, that although they have identified some sets of circumstances that are seen as, at least in principle, providing a strong case for sharing a compelling need to sell, they also make clear that they’re not intended to be exclusive criteria or categories. In principle, there may be many, many sets of circumstances as yet undefined or not yet considered, which might, on analysis, be found by the independent panel and by the Secretary of State to be circumstances that found a compelling reason to sell. So on that basis it’s difficult for me to say whether or not Mr Ball would in due time, depending on his and his family’s needs, whether or not they would have such a set of circumstances, but the policy is in principle available if such a situation arises.

311. CHAIR: After a period of time if in this particular group of houses you have one express purchase, and you have four or five which have access to need to sell scheme, for the other properties, would that not to some extent show that actually there was sufficient demand for that in this area? It may not meet the criteria, but it would be a pity for Mr Ball to be the last one in the Crescent, as it were.

312. MRS HILLARD: We still like him.

313. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I have to be frank with you, the fact that he was the last one in the Crescent, on the basis of the material that we have in the public domain at the moment I don’t think that that would necessarily be seen as a factor that would been seen as a compelling reason to sell. I honestly cannot say, because it would be for those who are considering evidence and making decisions to decide whether that would be a factor, for example, in combination with other factors that he put forward. That part of the policy is designed, as I read the policy documents, to be responsive to as many sets of circumstances as may arise.

314. The question is whether any given set of circumstances that are put forward amounts to a compelling reason to sell and, of course, the other factors such as marketing, and so forth, have been fulfilled. I think, on the basis of what we were told, the market does seem to have reacted quite significantly to the threat of the railway scheme in this particular location. Again, that’s a matter which would be considered when the application was made. I’m sorry to be so cagey, but I just don’t think that I can say more than the scheme is intended not to be geographically limited and is expressed not to be confined to a particular set of, you know, “Here are the five sets of circumstances and only these which will constitute a compelling reason to sell”. It says quite the opposite; there may be any number of circumstances that on consideration might satisfy that requirement.

315. MR BALL: I appreciate your acknowledgement that the market would appear to be reacting to the situation.

316. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On your evidence, certainly.

317. MR BALL: Just from what you have said, the key thing is you keep referring to compelling need to sell, and I do have an issue with having to come up with a compelling need, whether it is in your list already produced or it is something else. Frankly, if we would like to move, as you would anywhere else in the country, you would make that decision and do it. Obviously we fulfil the criteria of going through the process, and if we can’t we might sell it, who knows. That is the other point to that, but time will tell, I guess.

318. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is the touchstone, if you will, the Secretary of State has decided as a matter of policy should be the basis upon which the policy should operate, along with the other factors you mentioned. I think the position is that I’ve suggested to the Committee that the policy is about to come into operation, it would be sensible to see how the policy functions, whether it does actually provide support to the market, which is one of its key objectives in conjunction with the other elements of the discretionary package that has been mentioned. That is something that the Government will be keen to look at and to review in any event, because the policy is intended to be a successful one rather than an unsuccessful one.

319. CHAIR: Okay. Have you finished Mr Mould?

320. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think so. I don’t think it will assist the Committee if I come back on the…

321. CHAIR: I’m going to go back for brief comments from Mr and Mrs Hillard, and then Mr Ball, last but not least, as you started off. Do you want to say any final comments?

322. MR HILLARD: I think we’ve alluded to some of the indirect costs associated with the process that we’ve incurred, and used us as an example of that over the last almost two years now.

323. CHAIR: Sorry, remind me where you work?

324. MR HILLARD: The express purchase, we’re fully expecting a letter to be on the doorstep when Nicky arrives home tonight.

325. CHAIR: But you’re commuting; you’re commuting somewhere?

326. MR HILLARD: Sorry?

327. CHAIR: You’re commuting aren’t you?

328. MR HILLARD: No, I’m living during the week down in London, so with a seven and a six year old it’s not ideal. The painfully slow process, if there’s anything you can do to speed that process up in terms of the administration of those, irrespective of the schemes being in place. We reiterate that Crackley Gap is a special case, and we

consider that it needs that specific investigation at this stage to investigate those engineering and cost constraints that we’ve identified.

329. CHAIR: Okay. Mrs Hillard?

330. MRS HILLARD: No, thank you for your time it’s been very valuable.

331. CHAIR: No more photographs?

332. MRS HILLARD: I can get a few more if you want.

333. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Ball, any final comments?

334. MR BALL: No, I wanted to get the point across the reality of the situation. You’ve had more detail from other people, I’m not an expert in that area, but I think it’s important to know we’re good people, we’re trying to do our own life and everything on, and this has really thrown spanner in the works. I appreciate any scheme needs to evolve and mature, but this definitely highlights the case that we need to be looked at if we find that we are in a position that we just can’t do anything.

335. CHAIR: We will hear more from Crackley tomorrow?

336. MR BALL: You will have some people from Crackley tomorrow. There’s only 16 houses, but…

337. CHAIR: No, no. We’ve been walking up and down various streets in various constituencies, but anyway thank you very much for taking the time and for presenting your evidence to the Committee. Order, order. We will meet at 9.30 tomorrow. Thank you.