/S2

HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAIL

PETITION

Against the Bill - Praying to be heard by counsel, &c.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF DISTRICT COUNCIL

SHEWETH as follows :-

1. A Bill (hereinafter called "the Bill") has been introduced into and is now pending in your Honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for a railway transport system running from , in the County of , and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through central London to Shenfield, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes".

2. Clauses 1 to 20 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway transport system mentioned in paragraph 1 above. They include provision for compulsory acquisition, planning permission, heritage issues, trees, and noise. Clauses 21 to 44 of the Bill establish a regulatory regime for the railway transport system and clauses 45 to 59 of the Bill deal with miscellaneous and general provisions.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 3. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill and the scheduled works are defined in the Bill as the works specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill which are works authorised to be constructed by the nominated undertaker (defined in the Bill and hereinafter referred to as "the nominated undertaker").

4. Your petitioners are South Bucks District Council. The Bill would authorise the compulsory acquisition of their land to which they object. Furthermore your petitioners object to the proposals in the Bill insofar as they affect your petitioners' interests, for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Introductory

5. Your petitioners were established as a result of local government reorganisation in 1974, by the merger of Urban District Council and part of , becoming Beaconsfield District Council. Your petitioners adopted their present name in 1980.

6. Numerous enactments have added to your petitioners' statutory powers and duties. Your petitioners are also the local planning authority, and are thus responsible for general planning and the preparation of development plans and local development schemes. Your petitioners have a statutory duty to investigate the existence of and to control nuisances within their District. Amongst the responsibilities of your petitioners is that of the provision of off-street parking.

7. Your petitioners support the proposed Bill and welcome the decision to construct Crossrail, so long as the works are carried out so as to ensure that the burdens on your petitioners and residents within their District are justified by a genuine improved rail service into London. There are, however, many matters which cause great concern to your petitioners arising from the proposals in the Bill. Some of these points apply generally to the whole length of the line within your petitioners' District and some of the points are specific to particular sites. Your petitioners are hopeful that many of their concerns can be met by agreement with the promoter.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition flnal.doc 8. Your petitioners have serious concerns over the provision of information by the promoter, both prior to the deposit of the Bill and up to the date of the deposit of this petition. This has meant that thorough and detailed assessments of the proposed project, its impacts and benefits have been impossible to compile. Your petitioners are concerned that requests for further information and responses to specific requests remain outstanding. In particular, your petitioners are still to be satisfied about the adequacy of the Environmental Statement and its Supplement. Baseline assumptions made over a number of generic issues have still to be substantiated. Ancillary documentation is either unacceptable in principle, or in its presumptions, proposals and extent of detail.

9. Your petitioners are concerned that the appendices to the Environmental Statement, the plans and Book of Reference submitted with the Bill wrongly identify the boundaries of your petitioners' District in relation to the ownership of some of your petitioners' land. For example, on map W17(iv) in Volume 8c of the Appendices to the Environmental Statement, the boundary between the County of and the Borough of is marked so that the description of the Borough of Slough is situated in the County of Buckinghamshire and thus wrongly identifies your petitioners' land, which in turn makes it more difficult to identify where the impacts of traffic movement in this area will fall within your petitioners' District. Your petitioners submit that the map should be amended so that the words "Borough of Slough" are moved to a position south of the District boundary line and correctly identify your petitioners' lands.

Work Sites - General

10. Your petitioners note that there will be site preparation and construction activities at some ten work and construction sites within your petitioners' District. The matters with which your petitioners are particularly concerned are the problems of noise, vibration, dust and dirt, hours of working, visual impact and disruption to the safety of road traffic and pedestrians. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be subject to suitable standards in respect of each of these matters and that there should be a provision for a noise insulation policy

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc and for compensation to be paid where these standards and policy are breached, or other suitable mitigation or remedy put in place.

11. Your petitioners note that the Bill and the supporting documents adopt similar regimes to those which were established for the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Your petitioners would prefer the regime to include the agreement of codes of construction practice consisting of general conditions relevant to all worksites, and site-specific conditions for each individual site. Your petitioners will wish to ensure that the codes of construction practice are complied with properly, and in that respect, your petitioners will incur a great deal of expenditure. Your petitioners wish to ensure that all of their reasonable expenses in monitoring construction sites are met by the nominated undertaker, together with expenditure incurred by your petitioners in planning and programming activities related to the codes of construction practice.

12. Your petitioners are also concerned to ensure that the nominated undertaker is required to adopt the very highest standards in respect of mitigation of the effects of noise, dust and vibration caused during the construction period and in particular that the code of construction practice replicates your petitioners' best practice requirements imposed on other major construction project in their District. There should also be a guarantee that any future changes to industry standards will also be complied with. The nominated undertaker should be required to carry out noise sensitive property surveys in advance of any construction works and notify your petitioners and seek their agreement to any proposed changes to uniform hours of working.

13. Your petitioners are concerned about the potential effects on road traffic, pedestrians and property owners near and en route to worksites. Your petitioners are concerned to ensure that all of the residents, businesses and property owners in their District are properly compensated for damage caused by the construction and use of Crossrail and most importantly that they are consulted fully as regards the construction programme at worksites.

14. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should provide detailed plans, method statements, work programmes, and schedules of

P:\CROSSRAIUS Bucks\Petition final.doc /| deliveries (particularly abnormal deliveries) in relation to each work site, well in advance of the commencement of operations. Your petitioners should be notified well in advance of any alterations in methods of construction and construction operations, particularly in relation to site servicing and set up arrangements.

15. Your petitioners do not want to see the loss of any trees due to construction activity. In the event of site works leaving no alternative but to lose trees, a detailed mitigation strategy as regards tree loss should be provided by the nominated undertaker. Any trees lost should be replaced to the satisfaction of the District Council.

16. Your petitioners seek undertakings and assurances from the promoter as regards the management of construction worksites so as to prevent loss of amenity to your residents in your petitioners' District, including loss of open space during the construction period. The physical area of each proposed worksite should be kept to a minimum with the safety of the public, whether pedestrians or other road users, being of paramount importance. This should also apply to potential impacts on residents and businesses who reside close to worksites.

17. Your petitioners are concerned about the wider impact of construction related activities on the public realm, for example the impact that dust generated from worksites would have on properties in the vicinity. Frequency of property maintenance would need to be carried out on a more regular basis.

Construction Traffic

18. It is clear that each of the construction sites in your petitioners' District will be centres to and from which large quantities of construction materials and equipment will be transported, together with staff. There will also be the problem of removal of spoil from the work sites. The matters which your petitioners submit should be subject to their control in this respect are the routeing of lorries and other vehicles, access to work sites, hours of operation, number of vehicle movements and size of vehicles and miscellaneous related matters. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be required to use every endeavour to

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksXPetition final.doc utilise rail, river and canal for transport purposes, and note in this respect that the , the Jubilee River and the Grand Union Canal are situated close to various work sites within your petitioners' District. The nominated undertaker should also be required to minimise the cumulative impact of lorry movements by properly managing lorry movements, keeping the number of movements to a minimum, using the strategic road network and confining movements to normal worksite hours.

19. Two landfill sites within your petitioners' District have been identified as potential sites for the deposit of excavated material: Springfield Farm landfill site in Beaconsfield, and Wapseys Wood landfill site in . Access to the two sites should be within current permissions for infilling in these two sites. Your petitioners are concerned that there is no specification within the Crossrail scheme designating the route which heavy goods vehicles would have to use travelling to and from Wapsey Wood, and request that such a route be prescribed within the terms of the Bill, limiting access to Wapsey Wood to a route along the M40 to the Beaconsfield at junction 2, and then eastwards along the A40 to Wapseys Wood, with return journeys retracing the same route. This would ensure that heavy goods vehicles would avoid crossing the Gerrards Cross Common Conservation Area.

20. Your petitioners request further information on other routes which are shown on maps produced by the promoter detailing cumulative lorry movements in West London. Without such information, your petitioners consider that they are unable to make decisions as to how they can cater for increases in heavy traffic within their District, and request that the promoter should provide further detailed information as to the routes the promoter anticipates traffic will use within their District. Your petitioners note that plans in the appendices show heavy goods vehicles passing along a number of routes, including the A4 between Langley and Slough, on the A355 south of the A4, and at the Huntercombe junction at the M4. Your petitioners request that the promoter confirms that heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from Wapseys Wood and Springfield Farm will only use the routes along motorways and the A40 as described above, and will not use other routes within your petitioners' District.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc Highways

21. Your petitioners are anxious about the consequences of surface road working and temporary and permanent stopping up and alteration of highways. Your petitioners' anxieties relate to the impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows, safety aspects, and loss of parking. Your petitioners are particularly concerned for the mobility impaired. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be required to carry out such reasonable measures as your petitioners may specify, to allay their anxieties.

22. In particular, your petitioners require that they must be kept fully informed about all proposals to make temporary or permanent road closures and traffic diversions and changes to traffic flow and about any physical alterations to the highway, and be kept informed at all times upon the impact of the proposed works upon transport facilities within their District.

23. The powers under the Bill to close highways temporarily are very wide. The nominated undertaker would be able to close any street in your petitioners' area for the purpose of the works. The closure of most highways would require the consent of the highway authority, but for a number of highways only consultation with the highway authority is required. Your petitioners wish to secure that consultation is carried out properly, with your petitioners being kept fully informed of all consultations carried out between the highway authority and the promoter, and being given sufficient time to contribute to such consultations on the notification of intended closures (with exceptions for emergencies).

24. Similar arrangements should be put in place for proposed diversions, changes to traffic flow and physical alterations to highways. Overall, procedures should be put in place to ensure proper highway management throughout the District. All such measures should take proper account of the safety of the public and ensuring adequate access and egress to and from premises.

25. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be required to carry out and fund all necessary remedial and repair works to the

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksVPetilion final.doc 7 highway and any necessary bridge strengthening in respect of all highways and bridges within your petitioners' District, and that your petitioners should be kept informed at all times of all proposals for such works. Your petitioners submit that the promoter should be required to carry out detailed condition surveys before and after the construction period on land in their District which is to be and is affected by the proposals, particularly on highways which are to be used as worksites or which will be heavily used by construction traffic.

26. A significant number of on-street parking places will be lost temporarily during the construction period and permanently on completion of construction. The nominated undertaker should ensure that alternative spaces (including bays for residents, pay and display, parking meters, taxis, motorcycles and coaches) should be made available nearby to replace lost spaces where this is practicable.

Acquisition of Council Land

27. Some land in the ownership of your petitioners is liable to compulsory acquisition under clause 6 of the Bill. The limits of deviation and of land to be acquired and used are drawn very widely in certain cases and your petitioners are unsure in every case as to why that is. Your petitioners may seek undertakings from the promoter that the extent of compulsory purchase should be limited in certain cases either geographically or so that acquisition and use of your petitioners' land is on a temporary basis only. Your petitioners also wish to ensure that they are properly compensated as respects the acquisition and use of their land.

Construction works

28. The proposed works, including work on bridges and construction of the railway and embankments, are likely to have an adverse impact which may cause damage to buildings and structures. Your petitioners have general concerns about those impacts on all buildings and structures in their District, but have particular concerns about listed buildings and structures on or near to the railway lines and stations. In your petitioners' respectful submission, the nominated undertaker should be required to provide, in advance of commencement of the works, details of the

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc expected impact on each listed building and structure, and buildings in conservation areas. This information should be supplied to your petitioners and to English Heritage and other landowners as appropriate, and should be accompanied by a statement of the method by which the impact is to be monitored before, during and after construction. Furthermore, the nominated undertaker should be required to carry out appropriate safeguarding works including full condition surveys and monitoring and the proposals for these works should be submitted to your petitioners and landowners and, in the case of listed buildings and structures, also to English Heritage and implemented in an agreed form.

29. Your petitioners are also concerned to ensure that the hours during which construction works and spoil removal takes place are programmed and minimised so as to prevent undue noise and vibration to residents and businesses during sensitive times.

Noise and Vibration/Track Design

30. Your petitioners are concerned about the impact of fixed plant and machinery operating at the worksites, particularly at and stations, and Dog Kennel bridge. They note that machinery used at the sites will include cranes, ground-breaking equipment, excavators, piling rigs, generators, compressors, concrete pumps, vibrating contractors and mechanical breakers. There are a number of buildings in your petitioners' District which are near to the proposed line of the railway and which are likely to be sensitive to noise and vibration during the construction period and when the railway comes into operation. These buildings include residential and commercial properties. Your petitioners respectfully submit that the promoter should be required to ensure that noise and vibration during the construction period is kept to an absolute minimum by the use of the most advanced technology and machinery. Your petitioners are concerned that noise and vibration, while meeting design standards put forward by the promoter, may still be radiated into buildings to an unacceptable extent. In your petitioners' submission the nominated undertaker should be subjected to stringent design standards and where the railway passes near to noise sensitive buildings the nominated undertaker should be required to install additional appropriate procedures and design methods to inhibit the transmission of noise and

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petilion final.doc Q vibration into such buildings. Those standards should adopt your petitioners' own best practice approach in relation to these matters. In your petitioners' submission, the Bill should also provide that the nominated undertaker should put in place a comprehensive consultation exercise with regard to noise and vibration monitoring. Such a scheme should be subjected to a compensation code where agreed noise and vibration standards are breached.

31. Your petitioners have already mentioned in paragraph 29 that the promoter should be required to use the best possible methods and equipment to minimise noise and vibration during operation of the railway. Your petitioners are also concerned to ensure that high standards are met in terms of the lifespan and maintenance of the running tracks. Appropriate standards should be incorporated in the contracts between the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker to ensure that the nominated undertaker meets those standards.

Operational Railways

32. Your petitioners welcome the construction of Crossrail as a means of providing a fast service facilitating quicker services to access central London, Heathrow Airport, the City of London and beyond. Your petitioners are, however, concerned to note that the Crossrail scheme as currently proposed does not provide information as to how the promoter envisages the increased number of passengers will access Crossrail stations, both from within and outside your petitioners' District. Your petitioners therefore request that the promoter should provide more information as to how commuters will travel to the stations which Crossrail will use within your petitioners' District, both in terms of public and private transport. Your petitioners wish the promoter to discuss with those providing public transport within your petitioners' District the means by which to improve bus and other public transport services to cope with any increased volume of commuters, particularly with reference to providing modes of sustainable transport, such as routes for cycles and pedestrians, security at stations for cycle parking, and links with bus services.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition fmal.doc 10 33. Your petitioners are concerned to ensure that, where there is increased use of private cars, the promoter should introduce incentives to ensure that pollution and traffic congestion are kept to a minimum. Your petitioners submit that measures such as car-sharing, car-parks constructed away from residential areas, reduced prices in car-parks, or reduced ticket prices should be considered by the promoter.

34. Your petitioners are particularly pleased to see that the Bill provides for the construction of an additional direct link to Heathrow Airport. Your petitioners believe that the Heathrow Airport link is a fundamental piece of the scheme, and that Crossrail should not be brought into operation without it. Your petitioners seek an undertaking that the Crossrail scheme should not be open to public traffic until the Heathrow link is constructed and operational, and that the Heathrow link will supplement and not replace the existing services.

35. Your petitioners have more general concerns about the re-modelling and capacity of all stations within their District. Your petitioners are particularly concerned to ensure that the promoter takes the opportunity to make the best possible provisions for interchange between Crossrail and other existing lines and that the stations are designed to cater for projected passenger growth in the future. They are also concerned about the impact of pedestrian movements of passengers entering and exiting the stations. Your petitioners require that the station designs should ensure that sufficient provision is made in relation to footway widths, pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian amenities. This must ensure safe transit without impinging on listed buildings and the surrounding environs.

36. Your petitioners note that there is no provision in the Bill as currently drafted for full access for people with disabilities to be provided at Taplow or Iver stations. Your petitioners request that the promoter should provide full access for people with disabilities to access Taplow and Iver stations, and that the Bill in its current form should not proceed without such provision being made.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksNPetition final.doc 11 37. Your petitioners wish to understand better the way in which Crossrail will link with other railways, including those of Network Rail, particularly where existing track layouts require alteration.

38. Your petitioners are concerned about the impact which the construction works will have on railway services running through your petitioners' District. Your petitioners note that, understandably, there will be times when the nominated undertaker will need to take possession of the existing tracks. This will inevitably cause disruption to passengers coming in and out of your petitioners' District and they therefore seek assurances and guarantees that such track possessions will be kept to a minimum and suitable compensatory measures employed in conjunction with the District Council's relevant responsibilities.

Listed buildings and structures, and buildings within conservation areas

39. Your petitioners are responsible for a number of important functions and are under certain duties as respects listed buildings under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A number of listed buildings and structures within your petitioners' District are liable to be adversely affected by the proposals under the Bill and your petitioners have particular concerns about Maidenhead Railway Bridge. Your petitioners are concerned to ensure that the impact on listed buildings and structures is minimised. Proper safeguarding measures should be carried out to listed buildings and structures, and buildings and structures within conservation areas, as the effect of construction activity may result in structural damage, having particular regard to their special attributes. Your petitioners are also concerned about the impact of construction works and permanent new buildings or structures on the setting of existing listed buildings or structures and their environs, and all such new buildings or structures should be designed sympathetically with special regard to their impact on the surrounding areas.

Archaeology

40. Your petitioners are particularly concerned about the impact of the works upon the archaeological remains within their District, especially given the importance of the Great Western Rail Line as the work of Isambard

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 12 Kingdom Brunei. They request assurance that the works should disturb such archaeological remains as little as possible, and, where works have to be carried out, that the sites should be fully preserved, preferably in situ, but, where that is not possible, by full records being taken.

41. Your petitioners have perceived a need for the nominated undertaker to provide adequate opportunity and funding for archaeological investigation in respect of each of the construction and work sites. In your petitioners' submission the appropriate authority should be required to agree a programme of such work with your petitioners, and English Heritage. Your petitioners also submit that the funding of this should be borne by the nominated undertaker.

Impact on conservation

42. Your petitioners are concerned that the planned works impact upon rural areas, riverside habitat and woodland. They request that tree loss should be kept to an absolute minimum, and that the petitioners should put into place a policy of mitigation for the loss of any trees. Those trees lost should be replaced to the satisfaction of your petitioners. They request that a full survey should be carried out before, during and after completion of the works, to measure the impact of the works upon local wildlife, and that all steps to mitigate loss of common land, scrub-land, river banks, and woods, and habitat for wildlife should be taken. Your petitioners further request that the promoter should provide financial assistance to the efforts which your petitioners will be required to make to provide alternative measures to preserve or maintain areas of conservation due to the impact of the Crossrail Scheme upon your petitioners' District, particularly in relation to riverside areas and the railway embankment at the works at Dog Kennel Bridge.

Authorisation procedures

43. In line with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, the Bill contains provisions which provide outline planning permission for the development authorised by the Bill and disapply a number of other statutory regulation regimes which would normally apply in relation to the construction of works, including the listed buildings and conservation area controls in the

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 13 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Your petitioners wish to ensure that if those controls are to be removed or suspended then in their place there is a robust alternative approval mechanism in each case, in which your petitioners play a full part. Your petitioners will, in conjunction with other local authorities affected by the Bill, be seeking to ensure that such arrangements are put in place, but if that is not achieved then your petitioners would respectfully request that the promoter be required to accept satisfactory arrangements including realistic timescales for the consideration of applications.

44. As part of the alternative consent regimes mentioned above, your petitioners must be able to recover from the promoter or the nominated undertaker their full costs of processing applications. Your petitioners note that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to make an order relating to the payment of fees to the local planning authority in respect of requests for detailed planning consent. Your petitioners are pleased to note this, but seek assurances from the promoter about the level of those fees and the ability of the promoter to cover their costs.

Contamination

45. The promoter states in the Environmental Statement that there may be contamination in land affected by the works at Taplow station, , Chequer Bridge and Dog Kennel Bridge, and Iver station. In particular, the works at Chequer Bridge will be preceded by the diversion of two gas mains and an oil pipe. While Chequer Bridge is not within your petitioners' District, they are nevertheless concerned that there should be no risk to your petitioners' District as a result of any contamination resulting from the works at Chequer Bridge. Your petitioners are also concerned that Taplow Lake, and the rivers, canals, and other waterways which are situated close to some of the worksites within your petitioners' District, should also be protected from any risk of pollution. They require the nominated undertaker to carry out, at their own expense, full and careful monitoring of all the worksites in your petitioners' District prior to, during, and after completion of the construction works to ensure that no contamination or pollution occurs. The nominated undertaker should take all appropriate precautionary

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 14 measures to ensure that any contaminated material is identified and disposed of properly and is not allowed to contaminate or pollute the surrounding area, and should clean and decontaminate the sites thoroughly prior to the commencement of services at the sites. The nominated undertaker should also provide information to your petitioners prior to the commencement of the works of all the measures which they propose to take to ensure that no pollution affects Taplow Lake or any of the rivers, canals or other waterways close to the worksites.

46. As part of the authorisation process for the works, your petitioners will be required to follow Government guidance on contamination, such as that contained in CLR1 and PPS23, as well as generally under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Your petitioners note that there is no undertaking currently in the Environmental Statement or any accompanying documents for the promoter to provide to your petitioners all necessary information to enable your petitioners properly to check compliance with statutory reporting requirements, statutory investigation, and remediation requirements, and request that the promoter should be required to give such an undertaking.

Social. Economic and Community Impact

47. Your petitioners recognise and warmly welcome the fact that the Crossrail proposals will provide a large number of employment opportunities during both the construction and operation phase. Your petitioners are keen to ensure that the nominated undertaker takes steps to seek to promote employment of local residents both temporarily and permanently. They would also wish to advocate and promote contact with local businesses to provide goods and services. More information and assistance needs to be given to affected businesses to help them understand the impact of constructing and operating Crossrail, both through the process of obtaining consent, its construction and operation.

48. Your petitioners have been concerned that the consultation so far carried out by the promoter of the Bill with local residents and businesses has not met the standards which your petitioners would expect. They respectfully submit that the promoter should be required to ensure that the nominated undertaker will put in place a comprehensive public relations strategy

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 15 ensuring that information about the construction and operation of Crossrail is disseminated to those residents and businesses who will be most affected. This should include the setting up of local information centres during the construction period to be staffed at reasonable and accessible hours, given the size of the project and the nature of accommodation it provides.

Hours of working

49. Your petitioners respectfully suggest that they should be able to specify, in respect of any development authorised by the Bill, the hours and days of the week in which work may be carried out. Those hours should be a matter falling within the ambit of arrangements which are to be approved by your petitioners under clause 10 of and Schedule 7 to the Bill. The table set out in Paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Bill should, in your petitioners' respectful submission, be amended to include inappropriate proposed hours of working as a ground on which your petitioners may refuse to approve those arrangements. Hours of working are a crucial matter which your petitioners, as Local Planning Authority, need to be able to modify in order to preserve the local environment and local amenity.

50. Your petitioners would hope and expect that, through the process described above, uniform hours of operation for the different worksites will be agreed with the promoter. Your petitioners will be seeking to ensure that the promoter agrees to such requirements. If they do not, your petitioners submit that the promoter should be required to agree uniform hours.

51. Your petitioners note in addition that the promoter proposes that construction work should be undertaken between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and 7.00am to 2.00pm on Saturday. Your petitioners have adopted as standard certain hours for construction work if works become the subject of complaints. It is the standard practice of your petitioners to consider serving Control of Pollution Act section 60 notices limiting hours of operations and, where necessary, imposing noise limits within the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm on Mondays to Fridays, 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, with no work to be carried out at all on

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksVPetition final.doc 16 Sundays, or public holidays. Your petitioners note that the working hours proposed by the promoter are longer than those which have been adopted in other construction operations on this scale, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Line scheme, and greater than the hours applied to other construction works in your petitioners' District or any other local authority along the route of the railway. Your petitioners therefore request that the Bill should be amended to limit the nominated undertaker to work according to the standard hours which your petitioners have adopted. Should construction activities be required to take place outside the standard hours, your petitioners request that all such work should be agreed in advance with your petitioners where the nominated undertaker or its sub-contractors should make a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Any agreement relating to such work should be made in advance with your petitioners, so that as much notice can be given to residents and businesses within your petitioners' District by the nominated undertaker, and the nominated undertaker can make arrangements with your petitioners to mitigate the impact of any such works.

52. Your petitioners also note that the promoter is arranging that deliveries of material are to be made to the worksites outside the suggested periods of time for construction work, which could result in deliveries being made to worksites up to 10.00pm on weekdays. Your petitioners are always willing to consider carefully the movement of abnormal loads along the highway outside normal construction hours. The movement of loads along the highway up to 10.00pm at night would, however, be an increase well above normal construction hours, and could result in lorries moving heavy loads well into the evening, causing danger to pedestrians and other traffic, particularly in poor weather or during wintertime, and noise and inconvenience to the residential and business areas through which they would travel. Your petitioners therefore request that the delivery times should be limited to the adopted standard hours of construction work of your petitioners. The promoter should also put in place sufficient provisions to ensure the safety of the public, particularly pedestrians, at all times. Should it be necessary for deliveries to take place outside the normal hours of construction work, your petitioners request that all such deliveries should be agreed in advance with your

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition fmal.doc 17 petitioners, so that as much notice as possible can be given to residents and businesses within your petitioners' District by the nominated undertaker, and the nominated undertaker can make arrangements with your petitioners to mitigate the impact of any such deliveries. The promoter should also put in place sufficient provisions to ensure the safety of the public, particularly pedestrians, at all times.

Site Specific Concerns

53. Your petitioners have specific concerns about the proposals suggested by the promoter relating to the station sites at Taplow and Iver, Maidenhead Railway Bridge, Dog Kennel Bridge, and other sites within your petitioners' District.

Maidenhead Railway Bridge

54. Maidenhead railway bridge is a Grade II* listed bridge and carries the . As part of the Great Western Railway, the UN has placed the bridge in the UK tentative list for designation as a World Heritage site. Furthermore, the bridge is in the Taplow Riverside Conservation area. The Crossrail scheme requires that overhead lines are supported by posts founded on the bridge structure itself. Three sets of masts are to be fixed at the bridge supports and a further two sets at the far end of the bridge. The promoter states in the Environmental Statement that the masts used to hold suspended wires over the bridge will nevertheless have a significantly adverse impact upon the bridge, its settings both within the Taplow Riverside Conservation area and alongside the adjacent Grade 1 listed road-bridge.

55. Your petitioners are gravely concerned about the impact of the works upon Maidenhead Railway Bridge. They are particularly concerned to ensure that there should be no damage done to the bridge. While your petitioners have seen some initial documentation from the promoter relating to the proposed works to the bridge, they are anxious to ensure that the promoter should provide them with all such plans or designs as soon as possible, so that they can assess the proposed works in full, and the measures necessary to eliminate any prospect of damage to the

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 18 bridge. They seek reassurance from the promoter that the proposed works on the bridge have been considered and approved by those organisations responsible for taking forward the designation of the bridge as a World Heritage site. Your petitioners are concerned about the proposals as set out in the Environmental Statement, and submit that the promoter should consider alternative means of conveying the power supply across the River Thames at this point so as to avoid any impact upon the bridge. Should there be no other way of conveying the power supply across the river, your petitioners request that the promoter should work with your petitioners on considering alternative designs for the works to be carried out on the bridge. They require assurances from the promoter that no damage will be caused to the bridge, both during the works and in the long term, and that the nominated undertaker will ensure that the impacts of the works are minimised as much as possible.

Taplow Station

56. Your petitioners note that the works at Maidenhead station to the west of your petitioners' District, which entail the loss of some 114 car-park spaces, are likely to result in displaced traffic seeking to use Taplow station as an alternative car-park site. Your petitioners are concerned that this will result in extra pressure being put upon Taplow station in particular, resulting in more commuters seeking to use the station car- park and streets nearby for on-street parking. They are therefore further concerned that the works at Taplow will reduce the amount of car-parking space available, as those works will require the occupation of part of the car park, with the loss of some 10 parking spaces. There is already a considerable amount of commuter-generated on-street parking, and further loss of car-parking space at Taplow would exacerbate this situation. Your petitioners request that the promoter should use all endeavours to limit the amount of car-park spaces which will be lost. Given the increase in demand for parking during the works, and which should arise as a result of the improved services into London and Heathrow, your petitioners submit that the promoter should provide improvements to the car-parking sites at Taplow, including increased security measures, and extra spaces.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksVPetition final.doc 19 57. Your petitioners submit that the promoter should provide for increased services, frequency, and timing of bus services between locations in Burnham and Taplow station, to encourage greater use of buses by commuters and therefore reduce congestion and parking problems.

Dog Kennel Bridge

Demolition of the Bridge

58. Dog Kennel is a well-used footbridge, carrying pedestrians over the existing railway between Langley Station and Iver Station. Dog Kennel Bridge will be demolished as part of the works to construct the single- track relief line to the north of the existing track. The demolition of the bridge will lead to a diversion of 1.5 kilometres for pedestrians wishing to cross the railway, as well as inconvenience to those using public rights of way situated to the north and the south of the railway. This proposal is not acceptable to your petitioners, and they request that the promoter should present an alternative plan which will ensure that a public footway should be maintained over the railway line by the construction of a new footbridge in advance of the demolition of the existing bridge. Your petitioners are concerned at the potential for disruption to pedestrians within your petitioners' district, and request that pedestrian access to and over the bridge and other routes should be assured at all times.

59. Dog Kennel Bridge incorporates surviving elements of the original 1838 Brunei period structure. Your petitioners are concerned about the proposed demolition of the bridge, given the importance of the bridge within the context of the Brunei Great Western Rail Line, and its importance as a heritage site.

60. Your petitioners note that there is a potential of flooding arising out of the works under the new embankment, and the realignment of Horton Brook in the vicinity of the Horton Brook floodplain. They request that the promoter should provide them with further details of the proposed measures to prevent flooding within their District, and in the event flooding occurs, and that such measures should be agreed with your petitioners prior to the commencement of the works.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksxPetition fmal.doc 20 Construction impacts

61. Your petitioners note that the Environmental Statement states that noise levels arising from construction activities will be high at the Dog Kennel Bridge site. Your petitioners are concerned that noise, vibration, dust, and pollution from the demolition of the bridge may have a significant impact on residents of the area, and request assurances from the promoter that all possible means will be used to reduce any such impacts at this site.

Iver Station

62. Your petitioners welcome the proposed construction of the new ticket office at Iver station. They are concerned, however, that Iver station has no facilities for buses or taxis to stop at the station, nor are there any parking facilities available. Your petitioners note that, in the appendices to the Environmental Statement, the promoter draws attention to how safe the access to the station is for cyclists, and also to the poor facilities for pedestrian access to the station. Your petitioners are especially keen therefore to explore with the promoter the possibilities of adapting Iver station to cater for better access for commuters by bus, cycle, road and on foot. They are particularly concerned that sustainable forms of transport be given a far higher priority in the proposed adaptations to the station, and that, if no proper public transport facilities are provided to the station, there will be an increase in private transport to and from the station, resulting in increased parking, disruption and pollution in local residential areas. They request that the promoter should be required to liaise with local bus operators so that services to and from the station are improved. Such adaptations would be valuable for commuters within your petitioners' District. Your petitioners would like to have some reassurances that the promoter of the Bill will continue discussions about the possibility of such adaptations to the planned development of the station.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 21 Realignment of Thorney Lane Road Bridge

63. Your petitioners note that the realignment of Thorney Lane South is intended to move traffic away from existing residential communities on Bathurst Walk and Thorney Lane South, and that the existing junction of the Bison Concrete Works access road at Thorney Lane South will be relocated north and improved. They consider that the relocation of Thorney Lane Bridge could be used as an opportunity to help resolve problems associated with heavy goods vehicles in Iver. Your petitioners request that the opportunity should be taken to position a new bridge in such a location that vehicles gaining access to and from the industrial estates at Ridgeway, Bison and Court Lane would not have to travel through Iver High Street or through the residential area of Richings Park. Your petitioners also note that the Environmental Statement draws attention to the potential hazards caused by speeding at the site of the bridge. To that extent, your petitioners urge the promoter to work with Buckinghamshire County Council as the highway authority to ensure that the design and layout of the bridge and its surroundings include measures which calm traffic in order to address this issue.

Construction impacts

64. Your petitioners note that the promoter estimates that there will be high noise levels at the works at Iver station, including at Thorney Lane Bridge. The promoter estimates that there will be some residential properties which will require noise insulation. Your petitioners are concerned that the criteria used by the promoter in assessing noise pollution are more relaxed than those applied to planning applications for commercial and industrial activities in your petitioners' District, or any other local authority along the Crossrail route, and request that the promoter should carry out further assessments using the criterion normally used by your petitioners. Your petitioners request that all possible means will be taken to ensure that noise and disruption arising from the works will be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, your petitioners wish to ensure that the promoter will take the Best Practicable Measures with reference to British Standard BS5228 to ensure that mitigation is sufficient so as to reduce noise impacts.

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition finai.doc 22 Traffic

65. Your petitioners note that up to 40 lorries per day will access the two northern worksites for Thorney Lane Bridge during the five-week construction period, and around 24 lorries at other times. Similar numbers of lorries will access the southern worksites. As noted above, the promoter has drawn attention to the use of the bridge by heavy goods vehicles, and to the potential problems caused by speeding and poor sightlines. To that extent, your petitioners would wish to work with the promoter to ensure that access to the worksites by lorries is attained with as little pollution and disruption as possible to the residents of your petitioners' District.

Feeder station and high voltage cables

66. Your petitioners note the construction of the 20 metre high lattice masts which will be used to raise the high voltage cables. Your petitioners request further details of these works, and their impact both during and after the installation. Your petitioners would wish to know what, if any, access will be required to the cables after the works have been completed, and how secure the cables will be, particularly in poor weather or high winds. Your petitioners would appreciate much more information from the promoter on these points.

67. Similarly, your petitioners, before they can be fully satisfied, wish to have further details of the new feed station which will supply power to the railway, particularly the design of the station, where it will be situated, and arrangements to provide access in case of emergency, and security around the site.

Archaeological remains

68. Your petitioners are concerned about the impact of the works on the scheduled ancient monument of crop marks of two possible Bronze Age ring ditches, situated close to Thorney Lane Bridge. The ring ditch is a scheduled ancient monument of national importance. Other associated

P:\CROSSRAIL\S BucksMPetition final.doc 23 linear ditches have been recorded nearby, while Neolithic and Iron Age pottery has been recovered from the vicinity. Although situated some 15 metres from the Thorney Lane works, your petitioners are nevertheless concerned that the sites should be preserved from any risk of damage during the works. They request that the promoter should provide measures to provide for their protection and security through the period of the works. In addition, your petitioners note the promoter considers that other archaeological and historic remains are likely to survive in the area, and request further information from the promoter as to any plans to preserve such remains.

Conservation of Roughland Opposite Iver Station

69. Your petitioners are concerned that the works will result in the permanent occupation of part of the Biological Notification Site designated in the 1980s on a non-statutory basis as Roughland Opposite Iver Station. Your petitioners note that there will be permanent loss of scrub, grassland and vegetation, particularly affecting nesting birds. Your petitioners therefore request that a survey is carried out as soon as possible by the promoter to ascertain the impact of the construction of the new track on the site, and upon the wildlife which it contains, so that your petitioners can be agree appropriate mitigation measures with the promoter.

70. Your petitioners note the measures which are to be taken in the eventuality that populations of reptiles are found in the vicinity of the works near Thorney Lane. They request that further details of these measures should be agreed with your petitioners prior to commencement of the works.

71. Your petitioners have installed some banks along the private road opposite Iver station leading to Bison estate and along part of Thorney Lane South. There have been in the past unlawful occupations of the Roughland Opposite Iver Station biological notification site, and your petitioners are anxious to avoid any further such occupations, or damage to it. Your petitioners therefore request the nominated undertaker to protect the banks for the duration of the works, or, if they need to be

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 24 removed to allow the works to proceed, to reinstall all the banks to your petitioners' satisfaction once the works at the Thorney Lane worksite are completed. In addition, your petitioners request that the promoter ensures that the Roughland Opposite Iver Station biological notification site is kept fully secure at all times during the period of the works, so that no opportunity arises for trespass upon, or damage to, this site.

General

72. There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand, will prejudicially affect the rights and interest of your petitioners and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY your Honourable House that the Bill may not pass into law as it now stands and that they be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this petition, against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights, and interests of your petitioners and in support of such other clauses and amendments as may be necessary and proper for their protection and benefit. AND YOUR PETITIONERS will ever pray, &c. SHARPE PRITCHARD

Agents for South Bucks District Council

P:\CROSSRAIL\S Bucks\Petition final.doc 25 HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAIL

PETITION

of

SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL

AGAINST,

BY COUNSEL, &c.

SHARPE PRITCHARD Elizabeth House Fulwood Place London WC1V6HG Parliamentary Agents