Response to the High Speed Two Ltd and Department for Transport Consultation – High Speed Rail Investing in Britain’s Future

Introduction

1. The National Trust and its wholly owned subsidiary Historic House Hotels Ltd welcome the opportunity to respond to the Government and HS2 Ltd’s consultation on the proposals for phase 1 of the high speed rail link that will run between London and Birmingham.

2. The National Trust is a registered charity that looks after special places ‘for ever, for everyone’. We were established in 1895 and recognising the important role that we play in protecting some of the most important natural and historic sites in the country Parliament granted the Trust special powers and duties through a series of Acts. The Acts confer on us the duty and powers to protect our sites in perpetuity for the benefit of the nation.

3. We now protect and manage, on behalf of the nation, over 270,000 ha of countryside and over 700 miles of unspoilt coastline and estuary. Our coast and countryside open spaces attract more than 100 million visits per year. We are also responsible for many hundreds of buildings and gardens of historic or cultural significance. We are a major provider of tourist facilities, and own Europe’s largest network of holiday cottages and gift shops. Over 3.8 million people are now members of the National Trust which is over 5% of the UK population.

4. Historic House Hotels Ltd was founded in 1979 to acquire and rescue country houses through restoring them and converting them to hotels. The company’s philosophy is to combine the highest standards of conservation with the provision of contemporary comfort for guests. The group consists of three hotels, Hartwell House, Bodysgallen Hall and Middlethorpe Hall. In September 2008 Historic House Hotels Ltd and its interest in all its properties were given to The National Trust to ensure their long term protection.

Summary of the National Trust and Historic House Hotels’ position

5. The National Trust and Historic House Hotels were both established to promote and protect the historic and natural environment and to care for some of the most important historic sites in the country. The Trust’s interest in the land affected by the proposals has been declared inalienable and is protected by the National Trust Act 1907 and subsequent acts of Parliament.

1 6. We are therefore opposed to a high speed rail line that runs through the nationally important designated landscape of the Chilterns and which damages directly or indirectly, our property at Hartwell House which is a grade I listed building in a grade II* garden and park.

7. If the project proceeds it will involve taking land in which the National Trust’s interest has been declared inalienable. If the scheme progresses we wish to see Hartwell House and its grounds protected by the highest levels of visual and noise mitigation possible. This means a fully bored tunnel and we remained committed to working with the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd in seeking a suitable solution to the impacts.

HS2 The impact on the Chilterns and its Nationally Protected Landscape.

8. The Chiltern Hills were designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in 1965. Such a national designation confers the highest level of protection. The National Trust is a significant landowner within the Chilterns AONB, including land at Ashridge (Berks/Herts borders), at Coombe Hill and Pulpit Hill (near Wendover), at Bradenham and West Wycombe, at Watlington Hill and at Hughenden (High Wycombe). We understand that one route option countenanced in 2009/2010 and at an earlier stage of this process, involved a high speed line via the Bradenham Valley, an open bowl of a landscape in the dip slope of the Chilterns. This option was dismissed, a decision which we welcome.

9. However, as well as the direct impact on our property at Hartwell it is clear that the proposed route will cause irreversible damage to the nationally protected landscape of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and this is further grounds for opposing the current route. The direct impact at Coombe Hill is difficult to assess fully, with noise being a key area of interest.

10. The visual impact here is less apparent due to the intervening distance, topography and the fact that a green tunnel is proposed at Wendover. That said, we are still very interested to know if the noise of the railway will transmit across the more open landscape running north-west of Wendover.

11. Given the absence of a full environmental impact assessment we are confining our comments to matters of principle, which address the fact that a major infrastructure project is proposed within a nationally protected landscape. By supporting the principle of a line running through the Chilterns, the Government would be endorsing a significant and dramatic departure from both legislation and policy. Legislation, in that section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a general duty on all public bodies to ‘have regard to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB’ when exercising any function of relevance.

12. Policy in that all Local Development Plans covering the route support this legislative objective in their respective Core Strategies and Local Plans. To go further still, the Chilterns Conservation Board, a statutory independent corporate body set up by Parliamentary Order (under provisions of section 86 of the CROW Act), is vested with a legal purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and to increase understanding and enjoyment by the public (under section 87). The Chilterns Conservation Board have in place a comprehensive Management Plan (2008 to 2013), itself the subject of a Strategic Environmental Assessment, under EU law. This document guides and shapes decision-making. It

2 is a material planning consideration for purposes of land-use decisions. It deals, comprehensively, with what is special and distinctive about the Chilterns. This deals with the landscape, with farming, biodiversity, development and with climate change. One constituent part of the vision for the Management Plan seeks that "The tranquillity of the Chilterns is maintained with peace and quiet restored where noise is a problem and visual intrusion removed".

13. Indeed, taking this part of the vision for the AONB, the CPRE national study of tranquillity began with a pilot study in the Chilterns in 2004 (see CPRE and University of Northumbria. Tranquillity Mapping. Developing a Robust Methodology for Planning Support. Technical Report on Research in England. January 2008).

14. Tranquillity was viewed at paragraph 3.1 of the report as "something in common with terms such as wildness, remoteness and naturalness but it is distinctively different from and more than all of these". Paragraph 3.4.3.2 of the study states that "Whilst the many interrelated aspects of ‘nature’ were highly valued by many respondents during the research, another key aspect of tranquillity related to ‘internal’ as opposed to ‘external’ influences. Much of this reasoning was seemingly related to the ambiguous notion of (achieving) ‘peace’. As was noted in the northeast work, ‘peace’ can be used to refer to a complete lack of noise; alternatively, it could mean a lack of noise so that ‘natural sounds can be heard’, or and moving beyond simple aural aspects, the notion of being ‘at peace’ – a mental or psychological feeling of well-being. Many respondents noted the importance of ‘no noise’, stressing the need for ‘peaceful quiet spacious and natural surroundings’. However, a large number and range of other responses were made that could be considered to infer meaning beyond an absence of noise – as something ‘in the mind’, as being ‘good for the soul’, of being ‘in balance’, or being related to a ‘state of being’. Other responses linked tranquillity to a sense of ‘calm’, to the ability to ‘de-stress’, ‘forget about your troubles’ and ‘get away from hassles’, to ‘happiness’ and ‘mental health’. For some respondents ‘peace of mind’ and ‘peacefulness’ was key to ‘relaxation’ and/or spiritual renewal".

15. The Buckinghamshire tranquillity map (produced by CPRE in 2007) is noteworthy in showing how the central belt of land that forms the Chilterns is tangibly more tranquil than the situation that prevails beyond its borders. We are aware of the work undertaken by HS2 in seeking to mitigate and ameliorate this impact, for example the deployment of green bridges and tunnels. Yet, what remains, in principle, is a design solution to what is otherwise fundamentally counter to the legislative rationale behind Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) within the UK. Indeed the very foundation legislation that established AONBs (The National Park and Access to the Countryside Act 1949) conferred new powers that set out to increase the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty. While large parts of the 1949 Act no longer apply in respect of AONBs, that central objective has been successively transferred into other statutes, including today the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

16. It is difficult to conceive why such a major incursion into the tranquillity and character of the landscape can be acceptable in principle.

17. We would encourage the Secretary of State and HS2 Ltd to reflect on this in relation to the Government’s desire to focus on measuring the success of society through a broad based set of well being indicators. Indeed the Office for National Statistics issues a statement on the 25th July 2011 which highlighted just how important the public felt this was and it highlighted future environmental conditions as one area which was of interest to the public.

3

“The national debate on ‘what matters to you?’ which was launched in November last year, generated over 34,000 responses, online and via events. People across the UK gave their views on the things that matter to them most in life, for their individual well-being and for measuring the well- being of the UK. Common themes to be reflected in the design of measurement indicators are: health; good connections with friends and family; job satisfaction and economic security; present and future conditions of the environment; and education and training. (ONS 2011)

18. Other policy objectives are equally thwarted by the route via the Chilterns, notably national planning policy in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, which supports the above stated objectives for AONBs at its paragraph 21, which states that "Nationally designated areas comprising National Parks, the Broads, the New Forest Heritage Area and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas"

19. We fully acknowledge the following paragraph (22) and where it states that

Major developments should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. This policy includes major development proposals that raise issues of national significance. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. Major development proposals should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Consideration of such applications should therefore include an assessment of:

(i) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and

the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

(ii) the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or

meeting the need for it in some other way; and

(iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational

opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

20. A High Speed Rail link is, self evidently, major development. This policy guidance (as opposed to legislation), is clear that for the public interest to outweigh the intrinsic natural beauty of the AONB, requires at ii) that other alternative locations, outside the AONB, have been given rigorous examination and that at iii) that detrimental impacts can be moderated.

4 21. We believe this adds significant weight to the argument that alternative routes outside the AONB should have been more thoroughly examined and that the highest levels of mitigation possible should be applied to the scheme as it affects the AONB.

22. Whilst the route option that is being currently progressed by Government seeks to reduce impact on the Chilterns by dint of local mitigation, it cannot be viewed as a satisfactory application of these policy principles. Notwithstanding that, a major new route of infrastructure across a nationally protected landscape cannot serve to deliver the foundation legislation enshrined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (of 1949) and today in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

23. We would also draw your attention to the excellent assessments of the likely impact which are being provided by the Chilterns Conservation Board.

The history and significance of Hartwell House

24. Hartwell House is a grade I listed building which means it is in the top 2.5% of all listed buildings in terms of its significance. Hartwell has a remarkable international history and significance stretching back almost a thousand years to the reign of Edward the Confessor. It has been the seat of William Peveral the natural son of William the Conqueror; of John Earl of Mortaigne who succeeded his brother Richard the Lion Heart as King of England in 1199; and of Louis XVIII, the exiled King of France who held court there from 1809 to 1814.

25. From the seventeenth century the house was owned by the Lee family ancestors of General Robert E Lee of American Civil War fame. With the arrival of Dr John Lee, a teetotaler and amateur scientist who lived at Hartwell from 1829 to 1866, the building became a cross between a temperance hall, a museum and an astronomical observatory. Festivals of Peace and Temperance were held in the park, with the local inn-keeper being paid to close his doors to the public; geological specimens from the ancient world were put on show in the Long Gallery and the Strong Room, and powerful telescopes were trained on the stars through the open roof of a new observatory extension adjoining the Library (since demolished).

26. Like many country houses Hartwell suffered a decline during the 1930s and the contents were sold in 1938. However the house was purchased by millionaire recluse Ernest Cook, grandson and co-heir of the Victorian travel tycoon Thomas Cook, and subsequently vested in the Trust that bears his name. During the Second World War Hartwell served as an Army billet and training ground for British and American troops. Later, in 1956, Hartwell was let to The House of Citizenship, a finishing school and secretarial college which remained in occupation until 1983.

27. The grounds of Hartwell House are a Grade II* Registered Park & Garden designed by Richard Woods a follower of Capability Brown with the garden buildings being designed by architect James Gibbs. This means that Hartwell is one of the most historically significant parks and gardens in the country.

28. The landscaping of the park dates from the second half of the 18th century. Work is thought to have begun around 1757 when Sir William Lee commissioned the magnificent equestrian statue of Frederick, Prince of Wales which now stands in the centre of the entrance drive to the north of the house. The park boasts a fine collection of 18th century pavilions and monuments. Some of these date from the 1730’s when a magnificent topiary garden, planted in 1690, was finally brought to completion.

5 29. There is the Gothic Tower, a romantic crenellated turret; the Ionic Temple, an elegant exercise in Italianate classicism, flanked by four terms, figures from classical- mythology, now returned to their original position after 200 years in another part of the garden. There is the statue of Hercules, a fine copy after a famous antique original, the obelisk in Park meadow and the statues of Zeus and Juno in the gardens behind the arch.

30. The present bridge over the lake was erected at the end of the 19th century and is the central span of old Kew Bridge, built in the 18th century by James Paine, but dismantled in 1898 and divided up into lots and sold at auction. The Old Dairy is a relic of the 18th century, as is the Gothic bridge.

31. The avenue of trees that crosses the Old Court Garden was planted around 1830, while the estate wall was completed in 1855, encrusted with fossils and rare stones from the grounds. Four years earlier an Egyptian style pavilion had been erected over the spring in Weir Lane. In 1900 a forecourt was created in front of the entrance, ringed by a ha-ha to the north. The Rock Walk and cobbled paths were laid out some time before 1901 and there are trees and plants dating from the Edwardian period.

32. The Church was built in 1753-6 and is generally recognized as one of the most important buildings of the Gothic Revival. Unfortunately it was allowed to collapse shortly after the last war but the West Tower and roof have recently been reinstated.

33. The creation of Hartwell House and its grounds has involved many distinguished architects and designers including James Gibbs (1682-1754), whose works include the Radcliffe Library, Oxford, the Senate House, Cambridge, and the London Churches of St. Martins in the Field and St, Mary- Le-Strand; Henry Keene (1726-1776), a pioneer of the Gothic Revival; James Wyatt (1746-1813) a master of neo-classical design; and Richard Woods a well- known follower of Capability Brown.

34. The National Trust and Historic House Hotels are very concerned that the proposed scheme will means the loss of land within the registered park, land which the National Trust has declared inalienable due to its exceptional quality and historic significance.

Government policy and the planning context

35. A key consideration for The National Trust and Historic House Hotels is whether the preferred route alignment through the grounds of Hartwell House can be justified through or is consistent with existing national and local policy safeguards preventing unacceptable development.

36. Whilst major infrastructure projects of this nature are not normally subject to many planning restrictions and policies we feel it is important to emphasise them because they demonstrate the degree to which in normal circumstances Hartwell would be protected to the highest possible degree. We would expect this to be taken into account when the Secretary of State decides on the whether the current proposal is appropriate in terms of the alignment and proposed mitigation measures. This is particularly pertinent to Hartwell House and grounds given that the supporting HS2 Appraisal of Sustainability states that 2 of the 4 principles in selecting the preferred route have been:

 ‘protecting natural and cultural resources and enhancing the environment;  creating sustainable consumption (including noise)’

In this context, the following background policy documents are relevant:

6 (i) The Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010 (No.305)

Section 3 (1), (2) and (3) deals with ‘Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Scheduled Monuments’. It states that:

(1) ‘When deciding an application which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision-maker (a) must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses;

(2) When deciding an application relating to a conservation area, the decision- maker must have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of that area’

(ii) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005

In light of the fact that Government policy gives priority to the protection of the historic environment, PPS1 states that:

‘…planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by (amongst other things) protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities’

(iii) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, 2010

In respect of ‘designated heritage assets’ Policy HE.9.1 states that substantial harm to or loss of Grade I & II* listed buildings and Grade I & II* Registered Parks and Gardens should be wholly exceptional. Its states that:

‘There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets can not be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional’

(iv) PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide), March 2010

This document highlights the fact that the way we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration. Para 114 states:

‘The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration’

7 (v) Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning & Noise, 2006

This states that noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. As a ‘General Principle’ Para 2 states that:

‘…the planning system should ensure that, wherever practicable, noise-sensitive developments are separated from major sources of noise (such as road, rail and air transport and certain types of industrial development). It is equally important that new development involving noise activities should, if possible, be sited away from noise- sensitive land uses’

(vi) AVDC: Environmental Character Assessment, 2006

In terms of landscape sensitivity, historic landscape sensitivity and overall sensitivity, the assessment confirms that the area around Hartwell House, represented by the Historic Park and Garden is the most sensitive around Aylesbury Town. It has an ‘ECA 6 (high) Category of sensitivity’. This accounts for only 3% of land within the ECA study area..

(vii) AVDC: Historic Environment Assessment, 2006

This document confirms that the landscape and setting of Hartwell House would be ‘highly sensitive to change’. Para 3.10 states that:

‘Any major development of the grounds would be detrimental to this nationally important park and should be avoided. Enhancement opportunities exist for the park to restore parts of the northern avenue. The impact of development on surrounding land on the park’s setting would need very careful assessment’

(viii) AVDC Local Plan, 2003

The Proposals Map identifies the full extent of Hartwell House Registered Park and Gardens. Policy GP.84 is applicable. It states:

‘Development that adversely affects the character, historical context or views within, into or from the Park and Garden of Historic Interest will not be permitted’

(NB: English Heritage’s Garden Register confirms that Hartwell House Park and Gardens is Grade 2*; namely of ‘particular importance, of more than special interest’. Only 432 Parks and Gardens have this status within the UK).

(ix) Hartwell House Conservation Area, Designated 1991

The supporting character assessment states that:

‘The Estate is bounded by a rubblestone wall into which have been inserted numerous prehistoric ammonite fossils. The enclosure which this wall provides is enhanced by the fine stand of mature woodland within and around the parkland with names such as Beech Walk, Hothouse Piece, Barnets Close and The Grove. Interspersed between the walls and trees are a great many Listed Buildings, chief amongst which is Hartwell House. Other notable buildings include the very prominent 3 storey Bailiffs Cottage and the Grade II Listed St Mary’s Church and former Stable Block and Coach House opposite. Other listed buildings in the area include the Old Rectory and Gardners Cottage, both of which are screened to varying degrees by the extensive tree planting in their vicinity’

8 (x) Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – Regional Tranquillity Maps

This confirms that one of the most tranquil areas potentially affected by the HS2 scheme is north-west of Aylesbury (Para 8.4.7 – Appraisal of Sustainability, Main Report, Volume 1).

The current review of planning regulations

37. We are aware that the Government is currently reviewing all planning regulations and intends to substitute the existing suite of PPS and PPG documents with a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

38. We have had direct discussions with the Minister for Decentralisation and have had assurances that within the planning reforms the Government intends to maintain the current levels of protection for the historic environment.

39. Whilst we recognise that developments such as High Speed 2 might not be subject to the provisions of the NPPF we believe it is helpful to reflect on and test the scheme against the latest Government thinking on sustainable development and general guidance associated with transport and the built and natural environment.

The draft NPPF

40. In assessing the scheme against the rationale put forward by the Government in the draft NPPF we are attempting to use the document in the way the Government has intended i.e. that it should be read as a whole.

41. In paragraphs 10 and 11 the draft NPPF makes clear that (our bold text):

10. For the planning system delivering sustainable development means:

• planning for prosperity (an economic role) – use the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type, and in the right places, is available to allow growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure

• planning for people (a social role) – use the planning system to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing an increased supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and supports its health and well-being; and

• planning for places (an environmental role) – use the planning system to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, to use natural resources prudently and to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low-carbon economy.

9 11. These three components should be pursued in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals. There is no necessary contradiction between increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment, as long as development is planned and undertaken responsibly. The planning system must play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.

42. Whilst the transport section makes clear that:

82. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives.

43. The historic environment section also states that (our bold text):

183. When considering the impact of a proposed development on a designated heritage asset, considerable importance and weight should be given to its conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

44. We recognise that the draft NPPF goes on to state that:

184. Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss

45. The Secretary of State may well conclude that the public benefit brought by a high speed rail line would outweigh the loss or impact on the heritage asset.

46. If this is the Secretary of State’s judgement we would argue in this case that the weight given to designated heritage assets in the draft NPPF should lead the Secretary of State to conclude that the course of action most consistent with the draft NPPF would be to insist on as high a level of mitigation as possible.

47. In essence we would argue that in order to pursue the three components of sustainability in an integrated way that delivers multiple goals, where no contradiction is met and where development takes place responsibly the Secretary of State should agree that:

I. A Grade II* listed park is not “land of the right type” II. The environmental impact of HS2 at Hartwell does not support the communities health and well being III. The scheme does not “enhance our natural, built and historic environment”

48. To overcome these issues we would argue that implementing much greater mitigation measures such as a tunnel could be seen to have addressed the

10 challenges presented at Hartwell in a truly sustainable way and if planned well could deliver the enhancement that the Government recognises as being possible.

National Policy Statement on transport / surface networks

49. We are aware that the Government is due to publish a draft National Policy Statement covering transport / surface networks within the period in which the Secretary of State will decide whether to progress with the scheme.

50. The National Trust and Historic House Hotels reserve the right to submit further comments following publication of the draft or final NPS which would indicate the Government’s intention relating to the treatment of designated landscape or heritage assets.

Summary of the impact at Hartwell House

51. The current proposals would involve the compulsory acquisition of a corridor of land which we assume to be no less than 75m functional width (line and mitigation) held by the National Trust on a long lease from the Ernest Cook Trust. This land falls within the boundary of the Grade II* listed park and garden which The National Trust has assessed as being of inalienable quality and has consequently declared our interest inalienable under the National Trust Acts.

52. In addition to the principle that we are opposed to the route taking land of inalienable quality the current proposals would also see further visual and very significant noise impacts on Hartwell House and grounds.

53. We have yet to be convinced that the proposals in terms of visual impact or noise is capable of resolution by means of tree screening, earth bunds or noise barriers and it is clear that in terms of noise the current proposals fall short of preserving the tranquil setting on which we rely and which is highly valued by the public.

54. This means we are opposed to the route and if the scheme progresses be believe the line should be placed in a bored tunnel in order to fully mitigate the impacts.

55. We also believe that tunnelling this section of the line will bring benefits to many people in Aylesbury, the surrounding villages and we believe it may also have a consequential benefit to the sensitive landscape of the Chilterns.

Detailed impact assessment of HS2 on Hartwell House and Grounds

56. In planning the HS2 scheme, it is evident that, as a matter of principle, Hartwell House and grounds should have been protected from the proposed route alignment. Instead, it is evident that very little consideration has been given to the prevailing policy framework when initially designing the route. Indeed, the supporting consultation documentation (Landscape / Townscape & Heritage Assessment) refers to the fact that the proposed route (assuming a 100 metre track width / 700 metre assessment corridor) would have a ‘double negative’ impact on Hartwell House and

11 grounds ( a property noted as being a ‘High’ cultural heritage receptor’) (Para 2.3.4). Further the consultation documentation (Appraisal of Sustainability – Main Report, Volume 2 – Plans and Appraisal Framework) confirms that

‘There would be direct impacts to the Hartwell Conservation Area which is located around Hartwell House, with sections of the Conservation Area being severed and the setting severely impacted’

57. It is noted that it is proposed to mitigate the impact of the HS2 route by means of ‘sensitive design and landscaping’. Indeed, in recognition of the proposed route’s severe impact, the consultation documentation (Appraisal of Sustainability – Main Report, Volume 2, Scheme Revisions past Aylesbury) (Para 3.8.2) confirms that the route has been moved eastwards by 75 to 85 metres to take the route further away from Hartwell House. It states:

‘This would take the route eastwards by 75 to 85 metres past Hartwell House to take the line further away from the house and associated grounds but through the edge of Aylesbury Park golf course. Although still passing through the registered park, the scheme would do so on ground that has already been remodelled and planted in recent years as part of the golf course development. This would maintain the integrity of the landscaped grounds associated with the house. The increased distance from the house would make earthworks and additional screen planting simpler and more effective and would avoid the need to remove the established planting on the boundary as well as taking less planting from within Rifle Spinney. A move eastwards would also place the line at the northern end of the avenue at a point where the existing ground level is generally higher and the avenue has been replanted in recent years. That would put the line in a deeper cutting and, with the removal of some newer avenue trees plus ground re-modelling, effective screening could be provided.

The realignment would bring the line slightly closer to the outskirts of Aylesbury, but not to such an extent that it would result in significant additional noise impact.’

58. It is noted that the above is reiterated at Para 8.5.9 (Historic Landscapes). It also states that:

‘The linear view from Hartwell House, which would have been significantly affected by the March 2010 preferred scheme, has now been largely avoided’

59. Whilst we welcome this movement and it is acknowledged that a number of discussions have taken place between Historic House Hotels, the National Trust and the Ernest Cook Trust, it is not possible to evaluate from the current consultation documentation whether the realignment of the proposed rail line would, in fact, remove views of HS2 trains from Hartwell House or from within the grounds (particularly in the vicinity of Rifle Spinney).

60. On the basis that the trains will largely be on a raised embankment of 3.9 metres and a viaduct of 4.5 metres (plus height of train at 4.7 metres) as they pass through the grounds, the scope to screen the trains from view fully seems unlikely – particularly during the winter months when trees are bare of leaves. Fast moving trains could therefore appear as an alien feature in an otherwise rural scene which has been protected from the encroachment of development for the last 300 years.

12 61. In addition to the visual impact of the proposals, we consider that a more serious threat to the quiet enjoyment of Hartwell House and grounds is the impact of noise (and vibration). It is noted from the consultation documentation that a noise appraisal has not been undertaken for non-residential areas, including Hartwell House and grounds.

62. Whilst we acknowledge that it is proposed to do this work as part of a future Environmental Impact Assessment, we consider that this is a serious omission as part of the current consultation exercise and, as such, means that the true impact of HS2 rail line on Hartwell House and grounds (and other sensitive locations) has not been properly addressed.

63. Whilst acknowledging that it is proposed to undertake a detailed noise assessment as part of a future Environmental Impact Assessment, we are yet to be convinced that the use of trackside noise barriers; low barriers close to the track on viaducts; or the treatment of the track itself (such as tuned absorbers) would reduce the resultant noise impact from the operation of HS2 trains to an acceptable level. The resulting noise levels would ultimately have a very detrimental effect on Hartwell House.

64. In addition to noise impact, other impacts resulting from the train’s operation which would impact on the quiet setting of Hartwell House and grounds include vibration, fumes, wind rush, loss of seclusion / privacy; and noise & disturbance during the construction phase. There is also the psychological impact of having a HS2 rail line running through the grounds which could put people off staying at the hotel or visiting the grounds – a matter which is highlighted at Para 4.6.13 of the Landscape / Townscape & Heritage Assessment which recognises that a future Environmental Impact Assessment will need to carry out a:

‘Detailed assessment of the non-physical aspects of the scheme upon historic buildings would also be required’

65. These impacts are of great concern, however, we remain committed to working with HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport in overcoming them should the scheme progress.

Noise impact assessment

66. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the tranquil nature of Hartwell. This is a critical aspect of both the public’s enjoyment of the place and it underpins the successful operation of the hotel. Any threat to this tranquillity puts the future operation and profitability of the site in doubt.

67. In order to fully understand the noise impacts of the proposed the National Trust and Historic House Hotels have commissioned Lee Cunningham Partnership to carry out an independent noise survey of Hartwell.

68. The survey has established the current background sound pressure levels internally and externally and has also modelled the predicted rail noise from HS2.

69. The findings of this survey are very clear and can be summarised as follows:

1. Hartwell House and grounds are currently an unusually tranquil place. The minimum LAeq level in a bedroom during train operating hours is only 18dB(A)

13 and during the day this figure only rises to an average of 27dB(A) which still indicates a very tranquil place.

2. The modelling indicates that if the scheme were to go ahead as proposed the peak noise level in a bedroom would be 42dB(A) and 72dB(A) on a balcony outside the bedroom. Expressed as an LAeq this is 28dB(A) and 58dB(A) respectively. The balcony level is a relevant factor because during the summer months, guests regularly choose to sleep with the windows open.

3. The peak noise levels for guests and the visiting public whilst walking in the grounds would be 81dB(A) and LAeq 67dB(A)compared to the ambient noise level of LAeq 38B(A)

70. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the level differential and the regular frequency of the trains which will lead to an even greater impact on guest and visitors than the LAeq figures indicate.

71. The levels indicated by the raw data demonstrate that the peak figure with windows closed would be above the recommendations of - BS8233: Sound Insulation and Noise reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice which generally mirrors World Health Organisation guidance in this issue.

72. With the added impact of the level differential and the regularity of the noise source (the effect of which is not disputed and has been adopted in regulations such as BS4142 associated with the assessment of neighbourhood noise) we believe that the current scheme would cause guests and resident staff to have disturbed sleep as well as a significantly reduced quality of visit. This would contribute to a very high or total loss of business. With the windows open the noise levels would far exceed these standards.

73. These figures represent the minimum likely impact of the scheme and indicate that the proposed levels of mitigation for noise impacts are wholly inadequate. The National Trust and Historic House Hotels believe that the significance of Hartwell House and our operating model demand the highest levels of noise mitigation possible.

74. It is therefore our position that these impacts need to fully mitigated i.e. post the scheme the ambient noise levels should be no greater than they are now at any point on the property.

75. We believe that the mitigation measures required to achieve this would provide additional benefits in terms of mitigating the impacts on other residents and businesses in the area and in reducing significantly the potential compensation claims that will arise.

Construction phase

76. Even if the highest levels of mitigation were agreed we are also very concerned about the likely impacts on Hartwell and the surrounding area during the construction phase. This is likely to lead to a very significant impact on the quality of the environment around Hartwell, the quality of the visitor experience and the loss of business over a number of years.

14 77. We are particularly concerned that it would prove difficult to recover commercially and that the house could be effectively ‘stigmatised’ within the country house hotel market.

Commercial impact

78. We are extremely concerned that the proposed HS2 route alignment will have a severe negative impact on Hartwell House and grounds in terms of noise, vibration and dust and as a consequence of this have a severe negative impact on its operation as a hotel.

79. Our current assessment is that the hotel may have to close if the scheme were to go ahead with significant financial loss to the charity and to surrounding businesses and people relying on the hotel for employment.

80. Finding profitable uses of historic houses, particularly those with relatively small estates or grounds, is very difficult. Opening houses as visitor attractions is generally speaking not profitable unless large visitor numbers can be achieved and the scale of visit can justify a suitably high ticket price. The operation of the hotel and its position in the market place are therefore a result of very carefully balancing the commercial and conservation needs.

81. One of the key factors in this success is the hotel’s historic setting and tranquil environment. This will be destroyed by the proposed rail line which is located 350 metres to the east of the main house.

82. It is also important to remember that unlike many other businesses it is not possible to relocate Hartwell.

83. Because the tranquility of the house and grounds is at the centre of Hartwell’s appeal, we believe that the house may have to be closed as a hotel if the noise and visual impacts of the scheme are not fully mitigated. Should the house be closed and no other profitable use can be found the commercial impacts would therefore be significant.

84. There is also a degree of business which is transferred around the wider group through cross marketing. Although we have not at this stage attempted to quantify this we expect to see a reduction in turnover at the other hotels if Hartwell were to be affected or closed.

85. In addition to the potential losses to Historic House Hotels and the National Trust the closure of Hartwell would also result in the loss of 130 jobs and would impact on the 80 companies who currently supply to Hartwell.

86. Its operation as a high quality hotel, which is also open to the general public, is a particularly suitable use for Hartwell House. The house and contents are both significant and fragile and maintaining an appropriate use is critical in terms of its conservation as well as its commercial success.

15 Waddesdon Manor and Estate

87. We are aware that the current proposal has a direct impact on the Waddesdon estate. Whilst we do not believe there is an impact on the National Trust’s ownership at Waddesdon we would wish to have detailed discussions about potential impacts or benefits should the consultation result in any changes to the alignment of the route.

Conclusion and next steps

88. The National Trust and Historic House Hotels remain opposed to the proposed route due to its impact on the Chilterns and our property at Hartwell House.

89. We do not believe that the proposed route or mitigation measures adequately reflect the significance of Hartwell or that they will mitigate the visual or noise impacts sufficiently.

90. It is our view that if the scheme were to progress as planned there would be a significant impact on land of inalienable quality and that there are measures which could be put in place to address this.

91. We are also concerned that the use to which the lost land will be put will have other consequential impacts. In particular we are concerned that the noise impacts will lead to a sufficiently large loss of business to mean the closure of the hotel. Given the difficulty in finding profitable uses for small historic houses it is likely that this would result in significant financial to the National Trust over a long period and would also put the contents and fabric of the building at risk.

92. If the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the scheme it is our intention to continue our active engagement with HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport in delivering suitable alternative mitigation measures i.e. a bored tunnel. We will also wish to discuss potential compensation should this not materialise.

Ends

16