Birmingham Birmingham Interchange Station

Respective Ownerships within the Triangle Site

PE Packington Estate BCC Birmingham City Council SMBC Metropolitan Council CE Coleshill Estate

National Exhibition Centre

Stonebridge Island

To Coventry Solihull A420 (13) HOC/00413/0017HC12 Birmingham Interchange Station

Topic 1 Optimum Land usage

Phase 3 Development

Phase 2 Development

Station Complex

Phase 1 Development

High Speed Rail Solihull MBC Value Engineering ( London to ) UK Central Vision Infrastructure Options Bill Scheme

A420 (20) HOC/00413/0024HC18 Birmingham Interchange Station

UK Central Garden City Approach

A420 (23) HOC/00413/0027HC21 Birmingham Interchange Additional Land Station Wasted space with acquisition required Impact on prominent frontage & listed park local access farm Topic 7/1 Wasted space with Impact of RSMD prominent frontage & local access Proposal Impact on Listed Loss of Packington development Hall and Park opportunity

Diversion of Access Hollywell Brook

Inadequate access to Diversion of Not included in station and Hollywell Brook Environmental development Statement A420 (34) HOC/00413/0038HC30 Comparison – Environment Topic 7 (2) Birmingham Interchange Station

Environmental Factor Washwood Birmingham Chelmsley Heath Interchange Wood

Uses Greenbelt land No Yes Yes Remediates significant contaminated land Yes No No Impact on traffic on surrounding roads Low Major Major worsening worsening Landscape and visual impacts Low Minor Major worsening worsening Cultural heritage impacts Low Major Low worsening Agricultural impacts None Major Major worsening worsening Sound, noise and vibration Medium Minor Minor improvement improvement Ecology impacts Low Minor Minor worsening worsening Water resources and flood risk Low Minor Minor worsening worsening

A420 (35) HOC/00413/0039HC31 Comparison – Employment Topic 7 (3) Birmingham Interchange Station

Factor Washwood Heath Birmingham Chelmsley Wood Interchange

Positive impact on 20% most Yes – RSMD creates 1,727 No – no direct effect on No – no direct effect on deprived LSOA jobs in top 20% LSOA. top 20% deprived LSOA. top 20% deprived LOSA.

Positive impact on local Yes. No – SMBC believes YES. employment undermines UKC.

Maximise use of available Yes – brings forward a No – site is not currently No – site is not currently employment land deliverable project. employment land. employment land.

Maximises employment Yes – will create both Yes, however will No – cannot co-locate potential in the shortest time construction jobs and RSMD significantly impact job NCC with RSMD. jobs two years prior to creation in the longer operation. term (undermines UKC). Matches employment to skills Yes – jobs create match skill No – less optimal skills Neutral. base and need profile sough by residents. matching.

Engine for growth locally Yes. No – undermines UKC. No – there is no further land to be developed at this site.

A420 (36) HOC/00413/0040HC32 High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill – proposal to relocate the Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot

Position Statement of the Packington Estate, Solihull Metropolitan Council, Birmingham City Council and the Trustees of the Wingfield Digby Settled Estate

This position statement represents the joint views of the four landowners, Packington Estate, Solihull Metropolitan Council, Birmingham City Council and the Trustees of the Wingfield Digby Settled Estate (‘the landowners’), who between them own all of the land around the proposed HS2 Interchange Station within Solihull.

On 14th March 2014 the landowners signed a memorandum of understanding in order to maximise the opportunity for economic growth and development around the Interchange Station and are committed to working together collectively and with HS2 Ltd to realise this opportunity.

The Bill identifies Washwood Heath within Birmingham as the proposed location for the Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot. However the landowners understand that one of the alternative proposals put forward by a third party petitioner is for the Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot to be located adjacent to the proposed Interchange Station. The landowners strongly object to this proposal.

Collectively the landowners are key stakeholders and supporters of Solihull’s UK Central proposals and the significant economic benefits that this initiative could bring to the region. The area is already home to the NEC, , Jaguar Land Rover and Birmingham Business Park, and as such is the location for over 30,000 jobs. It is estimated that, with in excess of 140 hectares of potential development, the Interchange area could accommodate a further 20,000 jobs and at least 2,000 homes. The proposal to use roughly 50% of the Interchange site for the Depot, resulting, effectively, in two thirds of the site being utilised for HS2 related infrastructure, would be completely at odds with the vision and proposals that are being developed for the area.

Other points which the landowners consider to be relevant include (but are not limited to) the following:

 The alternative proposal would appear to require the acquisition of yet more land at the site, not currently within the Bill limits;

 Running empty trains to and from Curzon Street to Birmingham Interchange for servicing and maintenance will reduce track capacity;

 There is a readily available workforce with the necessary skills in the Washwood Heath area which is not the case at or near the Interchange site;

 The Packington Estate points out that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the listed Packington Hall and its setting in the Capability Brown Park.

1

A514(1) For these reasons the landowners strongly object to the identification of the Interchange Station area as an alternative location for the Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot.

The landowners reserve their right to make further representations about the proposal to move the depot to the Interchange Station area, should it be necessary to do so, when the committee hears petitions relating to that area.

29th August 2014

2

A514(2)