EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOC/00174 Petitioner: Yarlet Trust Published to Collaboration Area: Thursday 14-Jun-2018

Page 1 of 41

No Exhibit Name Page

1 A167 Exhibits.pdf (A167) 2 - 41

HOC/00174/0001 Yarlet School (The Yarlet Trust) High Speed Rail ( – Crewe) Bill Presentation to House of Commons Select Committee

A167 (1) HOC/00174/0002 Summary of what Yarlet School wants from HS2: (a) New Access • AP to provide for a new access road from the school to Enson Lane (plus maintenance contribution), and to include any consequential works/arrangements necessary in the view of HS2 and the highway authority, e.g.: • Upgrading the junction of Enson Lane and the A34 • Upgrading Enson Lane itself for cyclists/pedestrians • HS2 to provide Select Committee with report on any consequential works/arrangements (in consultation with the highway authority) before the summer recess.

A167 (2) HOC/00174/0003 Summary of what Yarlet School wants from HS2: (b) Other Issues • Meet detailed requirements as to noise and dust, including mitigation, monitoring and reimbursement of experts’ fees • Redesign Yarlet South cutting to minimise width on northern side • No haul route along the northern edge of the Yarlet South cutting • Change track alignment to avoid destruction of the Grove ancient woodland and loss of the veteran oak • Gas main work not to be during school holidays and locate main in an agreed position

A167 (3) HOC/00174/0004 A167 (4) HOC/00174/0005 A167 (5) HOC/00174/0006 A167 (6) HOC/00174/0007 Yarlet School Information

• No of Pupils: 157 • No of Boarders: 74 • No of children with special educational needs or disabilities: 35 • No of bursary pupils for disadvantaged children: 4 • “Relaxed Kids” and “Be Me” Programmes • Strong links to Marshlands Primary Special School

A167 (7) HOC/00174/0008 Approximate distance of school facilities from HS2 Works

School facility Metres

Southern border of campus 75

Outdoor study and play area 75-120

Outdoor swimming pool 125

Art School 175

Chapel 175

Main school building 225

Main sports grounds 250-450

Junior school building and play area 300

Northern border of campus 500-600

A167 (8) HOC/00174/0009 Option 3 Access: Why?

• Increased traffic on A34 • Concerns arising out of the ES exacerbated by: • Railhead and IMBR at Stone; • proposed new construction route on the A51 and A34 • HS2’s 90% spoil usability assumption (Mr Brereton: every 1% error would generate 250,000 more vehicle movements; and • threat of disruption of the M6 • Safety of U Turn on A34 at Enson Lane junction

A167 (9) HOC/00174/0010 A167 (10) HOC/00174/0011 A167 (11) HOC/00174/0012 A167 (12) HOC/00174/0013 A167 (13) HOC/00174/0014 A167 (14) HOC/00174/0015 EXTRACT FROM ASSURANCES GIVEN TO COUNTY COUNCIL

Additional construction traffic route to reduce the impact upon Beaconside

Staffordshire County Council has requested that an additional HS2 lorry construction route be assumed to allow some of the HS2 traffic currently identified to use roads in the Beaconside area to be redirected.

Given that both Staffordshire County Council and the Promoter accept that the A34 Stone Road has sufficient link traffic capacity to accommodate additional HS2 construction traffic the Promoter is willing to offer the following assurance:

15. (a) The Promoter will, subject to the conditions in paragraph (b), require the nominated undertaker to undertake an environmental assessment of a construction route for Large Goods Vehicles between the Yarlet South Cutting Satellite Compound and the junction of the A51 and the A518 via the A34 Stone Road and the A51 as shown in green for indicative purposes on the attached plan (the “Additional Construction Route”) to ensure that the use of the route creates no new significant adverse environmental effects.

(b) The assurance in paragraph (a) is subject to: i. the Promoter being satisfied that the Additional Construction Route is deliverable within the existing powers of the Bill and without the need for any additional land from that identified on the deposited plans as within the limits of land to be acquired or used for the purposes of the Proposed Scheme; ii. the Additional Construction Route not requiring the protection of other assets and being capable of being used for Large Goods Vehicles or the condition of the highway not unreasonably deteriorating as a result of its use as an Additional Construction Route; and iii. the carrying out of a satisfactory environmental impact assessment of the effects of the Additional Construction Route and the inclusion of the Additional Construction Route in a Supplementary Environmental Statement to accompany the Bill iv. the approval of the route by the relevant planning authority under Schedule 17 as a lorry route, as required.

lon_lib1\18359265\8 7 8 May 2018 A167 (15) HOC/00174/0016 A167 (16) HOC/00174/0017 E62-B

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Environmental Statement Volume 5: Technical appendices Traffic and transport Transport Assessment (TR-001-000) Part 2

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited Two Snowhill Snow Hill Queensway Birmingham B4 6GA

08081 434 434 [email protected] E62-B July 2017 ES 3.5.0.16.2

A167 (17) HOC/00174/0018 Appendix TR-001-000

Construction HGV routes 8.3.8 Construction vehicle movements required to construct the Proposed Scheme will include the delivery of plant and materials, movement of excavated materials and site worker trips. Works will include utilities diversions, earthworks, underpass, viaduct, bridge and highway construction.

8.3.9 HGVs have been routed where reasonably practicable along the strategic or primary road network, although some access locations will be via secondary roads. In CA2, primary construction traffic routes from the SRN are as follows: the M6, the A51 Lichfield Road, the A34 Stone Road and the A518 Weston Road. Where reasonably practicable the use of the local road network has been limited to site set up, access for environmental surveys and on-going servicing (including refuse collection and general deliveries).

8.3.10 The location of the compound, and the associated access routes are shown on the TR- 08 Map Series (Volume 5: Traffic and Transport Map Book) that reflect the transport activity at each site during the busy period as summarised in Table 214.

8.3.11 Table 215 summarises the peak daily construction traffic flow, both in HGVs and total vehicles on each link within CA2 that is on a construction route.

Table 215: CA2 peak daily construction traffic flow

Location Direction Peak HGV Peak all vehicles M6 (between M6 Junction 14 and Junction 13) NB 1094 2344

SB 1094 2344

A34 From M6 Roundabout at Creswell SB 289 589

NB 289 589

A34 Stone Road (between Redhill Roundabout and Whitgreave Lane) NB 509 683

SB 509 683

A34 Stone Road (between Whitgreave Lane and Yarlet Lane) NB 509 683

SB 509 683

A34 Stone Road (between Yarlet Lane and Stone Road/north bound) NB 98 376

SB 98 376

A51 Lichfield Road (between Lichfield Road and Rugeley Eastern Bypass) WB 699 803

EB 699 803

A51 Lichfield Road (between Hoo Mill Lane and the Proposed Scheme) NB 631 1093

SB 631 1093

A51 Lichfield Road (between Little Lane and Tolldish Lane) NB 678 856

SB 678 856

A51 Lichfield Road (between Main Road and Little Tixall Lane) NB 678 856

SB 678 856

350

A167 (18) HOC/00174/0019 Compound type Location Access to/from Indicative start/set Estimated duration of Estimated duration Average daily combined two-way compound to main up date use (years and with busy vehicle vehicle trips during busy period road network months) movements (months) and within peak month of activity Satellite Hopton North cutting satellite B5066 Sandon Road January 2021 Three years and nine 3 48-66 99-117 compound and on to A513 months Beaconside

Satellite Sandon Road auto-transformer Off Mount Edge October 2024 One year and three 10 57-84 up to 10 station Diversion to B5066 months Sandon Road and on to A513 Beaconside

Satellite Marston South embankment Marston Lane for January 2021 Three years and nine 2 32-44 86-111 satellite compound initial site set up and months servicing and followed by site haul route thereafter to the A34 Stone Road

Satellite Marston North embankment A34 Stone Road January 2021 Three years and six 3 16-22 108-144 satellite compound months

Satellite Yarlet South cutting satellite A34 Stone Road January 2021 Three years and nine 1 32-44 120-120 compound months

Transfer node Transfer node associated with A34 Stone Road January 2021 Three years and nine 6 N/A 745-949 Yarlet South cutting satellite months compound

Satellite Yarlet express feeder auto- A34 Stone Road October 2024 One year and three 10 57-84 up to 10 transformer station months

A167 (19) HOC/00174/0020

Table 217: 2023 future baseline and with the Proposed Scheme construction traffic (vehicles) - AM peak hour (08:00 – 09:00)

Location Direction 2023 baseline 2023 with HS2 With HS2 % change from 2023 baseline Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV M6 (between M6 junction 14 and junction 13) NB 4751 736 5117 846 7.7% 14.9%

SB 4136 776 4501 885 8.8% 14.1%

A34 From M6 Roundabout at Creswell SB 843 87 950 116 12.7% 33.3%

NB 1063 99 1170 128 10.1% 29.1%

A34 Stone Road (between Redhill Roundabout and Whitgreave Lane) NB 742 58 824 109 11.0% 88.1%

SB 1282 66 1364 117 6.4% 77.0%

A34 Stone Road (between Whitgreave Lane and Yarlet Lane) NB 742 58 824 109 11.0% 88.1%

SB 1282 66 1364 117 6.4% 77.0%

A34 Stone Road (between Yarlet Lane and Stone Road/north bound) NB 871 58 956 68 9.7% 17.0%

SB 1365 71 1450 81 6.2% 13.9%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Lichfield Road and Rugeley Eastern WB 1033 35 1128 105 9.2% 198.7% Bypass) EB 1042 45 1138 115 9.1% 155.3%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Hoo Mill Lane and the Proposed Scheme) NB 751 36 914 99 21.8% 173.8%

SB 722 46 886 109 22.7% 137.3%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Little Tixall Lane and Tolldish Lane) NB 739 33 843 101 14.1% 203.0%

SB 680 44 784 111 15.3% 155.5%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Main Road and Little Tixall Lane) NB 759 41 863 109 13.7% 164.6%

SB 683 45 787 113 15.2% 151.5%

A167 (20) HOC/00174/0021 Table 218: 2023 future baseline and with the Proposed Scheme construction traffic (vehicles) - PM peak hour (17:00 – 18:00)

Location Direction 2023 baseline 2023 with HS2 Phase 2a With HS2 % change from 2023 baseline

Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV M6 (between M6 Junction 14 and Junction 13) NB 4631 577 5180 687 11.9% 18.9%

SB 4767 750 5317 859 11.5% 14.6%

A34 From M6 Roundabout at Creswell SB 875 42 1033 71 18.0% 68.2%

NB 819 56 977 84 19.3% 52.1%

A34 Stone Road (between Redhill Roundabout and Whitgreave NB 1110 26 1217 77 9.6% 196.7% Lane) SB 799 28 906 79 13.4% 181.4%

A34 Stone Road (between Whitgreave Lane and Yarlet Lane) NB 1110 26 1217 77 9.6% 196.7%

SB 799 28 906 79 13.4% 181.4%

A34 Stone Road (between Yarlet Lane and Stone Road/north NB 1174 27 1278 37 8.9% 36.2% bound) SB 876 27 981 37 11.9% 36.2%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Lichfield Road and Rugeley Eastern WB 1015 20 1118 90 10.1% 342.1% Bypass) EB 1147 30 1249 100 8.9% 232.1%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Hoo Mill Lane and the Proposed NB 640 17 822 80 28.6% 373.3% Scheme) SB 898 28 1081 91 20.3% 223.4%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Little Tixall Lane and Tolldish Lane) NB 608 22 724 90 19.0% 305.0%

SB 807 24 922 92 14.3% 277.5%

A51 Lichfield Road (between Main Road and Little Tixall Lane) NB 617 22 733 90 18.7% 310.9%

SB 832 27 948 95 13.9% 248.7%

A167 (21) HOC/00174/0022 Appendix TR-001-000

Summary of highway impacts 8.4.58 The construction of the Proposed Scheme will result in substantial percentage increases in peak hour traffic flows (in relation to either total vehicles and/or HGVs) at the locations listed below.

8.4.59 This is often due to the future baseline traffic flows having a low baseline level of vehicles or HGVs, often resulting in large percentage increases following only a minor increase in actual vehicle/HGV numbers.

8.4.60 The assessment shows substantial percentage increases in peak hour traffic flows (in relation to either total vehicles and/or HGVs) at the following locations: • A51 Lichfield Road between the A518 Weston Road and the A460 Wolseley Road; • A518 Weston Road between the Proposed Scheme and the A51 London Road; • A518 Weston Road between the Proposed Scheme and the A513 Beaconside; • A513 Beaconside between the A518 Weston Road and the A34 Stone Road; • A34 Stone Road between the A513 Beaconside and the Whitgreave Lane; • A34 between M6 Junction 14 and the A513 Beaconside; • B5066 Sandon Road between the Proposed Scheme and the B513 Beaconside; • Great Haywood Road/Tixall Road between Blackheath Lane and the Proposed Scheme; • Hopton Lane between the Proposed Scheme and the B5066 Sandon Road; • Marston Lane between the Proposed Scheme and the B513 Beaconside; • Hanyards Lane between the Proposed Scheme and Tixall Road; and • Bellamour Lane between B5013 Uttoxeter Road and A51 Main Road.

8.4.61 The increase in traffic described above does not result in substantial increases in capacity indicators such as RFC or DoS and queue lengths at the majority of junctions assessed, with the exception of the following locations – • M6 junction 14; • A513 Beaconside/A34 Stone Road signals; • A513 Beaconside/B5066 Sandon Road; • A513 Beaconside/B5066 Sandon Road signals; • A513 Beaconside/Marston Lane; • A518 Weston Road/Blackheath Lane Roundabout; • A518 Weston Road/A513 Beaconside Roundabout; • A518 Road/A51 London Road signals; 384

A167 (22) HOC/00174/0023 Appendix TR-001-000

• Blackheath Lane/Baswich Lane/Tixall Road signals; and • A51 Lichfield/Hoo Mill Lane/Church Lane. 8.4.62 It should be noted that many of these junctions are shown to operate either close to, or at capacity in the future baseline regardless of the Proposed Scheme and that the assessment considers the peak level of construction traffic and these conditions would not be present across the whole construction period. Accidents and safety 8.4.63 The impacts on accident and safety risks will not be substantial. At one junction, the A513 Beaconside/A34 Stone Road Roundabout, where there are existing highway safety issues, there will be an increase in congestion. However the overall change in traffic flow will not be sufficient to raise additional safety concerns. It is also noted that the junction has a committed transport improvement scheme which will signalise the Roundabout (Redhill Roundabout proposed signalisation). Although there will be increases in construction traffic on other links and junctions none have been identified in the baseline assessment as the location of a known safety concern. Parking and loading 8.4.64 The Proposed Scheme will impact on the parking provision at the Staffordshire County Showground during construction. As the loss of spaces is permanent, this is reported in the assessment of operational impacts.

8.4.65 Construction of the Proposed Scheme will impact on parking provision at the Great Haywood Marina. The construction works associated with the Great Haywood viaduct will require the temporary loss of up to approximately 20 informal parking spaces around the marina for a period of up to three years and three months.

8.4.66 HS2 Ltd is working with the business affected to seek to limit the loss of car parking and to identify opportunities, where reasonably practicable, to mitigate the temporary adverse impacts on parking. Public transport Rail network 8.4.67 Construction of the Great Haywood Viaduct will require interface with Network Rail in relation to safe operation of the existing railway. Works will typically be carried out in non-disruptive possessions3 and where this is not possible, possessions and blockades will be agreed through close working with Network Rail to ensure that disruption is reduced.

8.4.68 Rail possessions in the Colwich to Yarlet area will be required over a four year period between 2021 and 2025. While the majority of possessions will be non-disruptive, there will be the need in this area for one longer, 54-hour weekend possession. The

3 A non-disruptive possession is any possession of the operational railway which has no impact on the users of the railway. These possessions generally occur overnight, in existing maintenance or ‘engineering access’ periods which exist for the purposes of inspection, maintenance or renewal activities. i.e. a non-disruptive possession will allow passenger train services to operate as per their normal schedule.

385

A167 (23) HOC/00174/0024 A167 (24) HOC/00174/0025 A167 (25) HOC/00174/0026 A167 (26) HOC/00174/0027 A167 (27) HOC/00174/0028 A167 (28) HOC/00174/0029 Option / Change: Option 3 Title / Description New access to Yarlet School, off Enson Ln Qty unit Rate Cost

Enabling works Site clearance including vegetation clearance, removal and relocation of 1.00 item 20,000.00 20,000 equipment, posts and signs Break out existing lane/road 758.25 m3 43.30 32,832

Earthworks General Fill (Highway) - Cohesive High Plasticity (CL2) 16,675.88 m3 7.90 131,739

Bridges & viaducts Culverts offline 7.50 m 1,749.00 13,118

Roads Access and Landscaping New accommodation access road 5,197.50 m2 122.00 634,095

Unclassified road - relay of Enson Ln 1,853.50 m2 123.45 228,815 New roundabout; dual carriageway 1.00 nr 260,000.00 260,000

Traffic Management allowance 1.00 item 43,500.00 43,500

Other Structures

Environmental Mitigation Hedgerow planting 2,227 m 18.20 40,531

Diversions Communication diversion allowance 1.00 item 10,000.00 10,000

1,414,630

Contractor's Prelims 325,365 1,739,995

Main Contractors Design 87,000 1,826,995

Overheads and Profit 146,160

1,973,154

Indirect Costs 325,570

Total 2,298,725

A167 (29) HOC/00174/0030 Gordon Wilkinson’s conclusions on junction arrangements needed if Option 3 adopted

“…. with some minor amendments (not involving a roundabout or signalisation), this junction would enable parents to safely deliver and collect their children to the Yarlet School should the proposed new access lane between the school and Enson Lane be constructed….” “I have held initial discussions with Staffordshire County Council officers who have confirmed that, provided that the preliminary design shown on Drawing. No. 2 complies with current design practice and passes a safety audit, the highway authority has no objection, in principle, for a revised priority junction at the A34/Enson Lane to facilitate the safe access/egress to the Yarlet School car park.”

A167 (30) HOC/00174/0031 13 June 2018 The Yarlet Trust High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Report of Gordon Wilkinson Professional Background 1. I am a retired Chartered Transportation Engineer, with a Master’s Degree in Transportation Engineering and Planning. My career spans 41 years, of which 35 were spent in Local Government, of which, the last 15 were at Staffordshire County Council, where I was Head of Urban Transport Projects. 2. For the final 6 years of my career I was a Senior Consultant at TMS Consultancy, producing and delivering training courses, for both graduate and qualified engineers, primarily on Highway Junction Design, Safety Auditing and all aspects of Road Safety Engineering. 3. On behalf of the Petitioner, The Yarlet Trust, I have examined the most appropriate junction format to facilitate the safe movement of traffic to and from Yarlet School via Enson Lane to the A34 Trunk road. Background

4. HS2 are proposing to divert the A34 adjacent to Yarlet School in order to facilitate the construction of an overbridge to enable the HS2 mainline to pass under the trunk road. HS2 are also proposing to use the A34 as a route for construction traffic servicing worksites in the local area, including the Yarlet South Cutting compound. 5. It is my understanding that, due to concerns regarding the impact these proposals will have on maintaining vehicle access to the school, various design options for egress/access to the Yarlet School car park have been jointly explored by HS2 and The Yarlet Trust at a series of site meetings dating back to 2015. 6. The existing car park entrance from the A34 is via a left in/left out priority junction onto the dual carriageway trunk road. This arrangement is due to there being no central reserve gap adjacent to the car park entrance to facilitate a right turn access/egress from or to the northbound (n/b) carriageway. 7. This situation necessitates that parents, staff and visitors travelling north to the school from the Stafford area have to travel past the school further north to the A34/Enson Lane priority junction and complete a ‘U’ turn manoeuvre back along the A34 in order to access the school car park. Access onto the A34 travelling back from the school towards Stafford is then facilitated by a left turn out onto the southbound (s/b) carriageway. 8. Similarly, parents and others travelling south along the A34 from the Stone area access the school via the left turn off the A34. However, in order to return northwards back to Stone, parents and others have to turn left out onto the A34 s/b carriageway and travel a considerable distance to the A34//Whitgreave Lane priority junction in order to perform a similar ‘U’ turn manoeuvre to travel north back towards Stone. (See the Yarlet Trust’s Exhibit Slide 12). 9. Currently, there are approximately 150 vehicle trips (120 parents and 30 staff) to the school in the AM peak period, over a 45 minute period (8.15 – 9.00am) and similarly on leaving the school, but on a staggered basis, in the afternoon between 3.30 and 5.30 pm.

1

A167 (31) HOC/00174/0032 10. Due to the size of the relative catchment areas around the school it is assumed that two thirds of the pupils and staff come from the Stafford/south area and one third from the Stone/ north area. Numerically this results in approximately 50/100 vehicle trips arriving from the north and south respectively. 11. Thus in the morning and afternoon there are a total of around (240 parents and 30 staff) vehicle trips to and from the school in each of these periods. 12. Discussions about a possible alternative access with HS2 and the local highway authority, Staffordshire County Council (SCC) have focused primarily on gaining access/egress, to and from the A34 via Enson Lane, which has resulted in various options being examined for The Yarlet Trust to consider. The proposals looked at by HS2 include the provision of a roundabout or traffic signals at the junction of the A34 and Enson Lane. This report deals with the need for such a roundabout or signals.

The Existing Enson Lane Junction

13. The existing priority junction at A34/Enson Lane, is shown on Drwg No 1. (See the Yarlet Trust’s Exhibit Slide 9). The junction is located approximately 1km north of Yarlet School. 14. It is a priority junction with a central reservation gap which facilitates all turning movements to and from the Enson Lane side road. The current layout has deceleration lanes on both the northbound and southbound approaches of the A34 to assist right and left turning traffic, respectively, into Enson Lane. 15. Whilst Enson Lane is predominantly a narrow road with passing places, the first 70m is wide enough to provide two way traffic. This section of road provides access/egress to the Stone Hockey Club whose entrance is just over 60m from the junction with the A34. 16. During the weekday peak periods, traffic to and from Enson Lane is very low. This narrow lane is around 4.0km in length and only provides access to approximately a dozen properties most of which are farms. Recent traffic counts show that in the AM peak period Enson Lane generated a maximum total of 17 trips (13 out and 4 in). In contrast the Hockey Club generates considerable traffic at weekends and evenings which is catered for with the current priority junction layout at the A34.

The Proposals for a new access track

17. Following discussions between HS2 and the Yarlet Trust, HS2 provided a document entitled “Design Technical Note: Yarlet School Access Review” (Reference no: C861- ARP-HW-REP-000-100193. This is slide number 24 in the Trust’s exhibits. The document set out 5 possible options for access arrangements to the school. Option 3 would involve the construction of a single track access road from a junction with Enson Lane. The route follows closely the boundary adjacent to Wood farm. It then runs parallel to the A34, crossing a watercourse to connect into the north end of the school’s car park.

Assessment of appropriate junction for A34/Enson Lane if Option 3 taken forward

18. Any traffic impact assessment of a junction, requires three elements to be considered:

2

A167 (32) HOC/00174/0033  What type of junction format is appropriate , eg signals, roundabout etc?  Will it have sufficient capacity?  Most importantly, how safe will it be? All three are inextricably linked. Junction Type and Compliance with DMRB

19. The A34 is a 60mph dual carriageway trunk road and therefore its main priority is to transfer traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible between primary destinations. This is done by minimising the delay to the trunk road traffic by the utilisation of roundabouts where it joins other Trunk or ‘A’ Class roads. 20. Side road access onto trunk roads should ideally be limited, particularly in rural areas, and restricted to priority junctions and not traffic signals thereby maintaining priority to the main flow of through traffic. 21. I am therefore surprised that, given such low traffic flows as mentioned above, HS2’s proposition of providing roundabouts or signals is even being considered. 22. Such junction formats are inappropriate for this level of flow to facilitate access to the Trunk road. This level of flow only justifies an appropriate priority junction that conforms to specification determined by DMRB Volume 6 Section 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 “Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions” 1995, (TD42/95). 23. Table 7/5b in TD 42/95 states that for a Dual 2 Lane All Purpose Rural road for a 100kph road a total deceleration length of 80m is required. 24. Allowing for an arrival rate of approximately 2 vehicles / minute entering this right turn lane from the south, will require an additional 12m of queueing length plus a standard 10m standard turning length. This equates to a total deceleration and storing length requirement of around 105m . 25. The current layout has a northbound right turn facility consisting of a deceleration length and turning/queueing length of approximately 110m and therefore appropriate for this scenario. 26. The A34 southbound approach to the Enson Lane junction also has a 60m diverging lane to facilitate the left turn into Enson Lane from the trunk road. Such a facility is usually only provided where high numbers of traffic are making such a turn or to assist slower moving HGVs to exit the main carriageway to avoid impeding the faster moving through traffic. 27. The provision of this facility is therefore an additional safety element over and above the requirements of TD42/95. 28. According to the suggested proposal, the Enson Lane approach to the junction will be widened from the link road connecting it to the school car park through to the A34. The current width of the lane from the A34 varies from 6.5m (10m from the give way line), through to 4.5m near the Hockey Club access before narrowing to an average width of 3.0m with regular passing places. This lane forms part of the National Cycle Network Route 5 and therefore in order to ensure that any widening is sympathetic to its Quiet Lane status a carriageway width of 5.5m would be appropriate. 29. The widening of Enson Lane will result in a modification to the left turn kerb radius onto the A34. It is envisaged that this will provide the opportunity to create a short merging lane onto the A34 for this traffic manoeuvre, which, whilst not required within TD42/95 for such low levels of traffic, would provide an added safety bonus.

3

A167 (33) HOC/00174/0034 30. The provision of this new kerb radii will not affect the operation of the existing southbound bus stop located just south on the junction in an existing lay by. 31. The corresponding bus stop on the northbound carriageway is also not affected by the proposed modifications to the central reserve. 32. The slight modifications to the junction referred to above are shown on Drawing No.2. (Exhibit Slide no 11) 33. The width and depth of the central reserve create the opportunity to formalise turning priority within this gap which assists the safe movement of right turning traffic from Enson Lane. Junction Capacity

34. The assessment of a junction’s capacity usually examines its capabilities for both the AM and PM peak periods. However, since a significant element of the main traffic movements to and from the school in the afternoon are outside the PM peak period, it is appropriate to consider the AM peak as the ‘worse case’ scenario.

35. Access/egress to the school via Enson Lane would result in up to approximately 270 vehicle trips through this junction in the AM peak period. However, up to 100 of these trips are already occurring at this location, ie. parents travelling from the Stafford/south area having to ‘U’ turn here in order to gain access to the existing school access on the southbound carriageway. 36. Therefore, the number of actual additional turning movements through the junction would be significantly lower than 270. The key element in capacity terms will be the ability for the 120 vehicles leaving the school having dropped the children off and then turning out onto the A34 at the junction. The actual capacity analysis will also include the existing traffic egressing from Enson lane (referred to above) which will result in total side road flow of less than 135 vehicles. 37. Since such junctions can easily cater for side road flows of up to 3000 vehicle trips per day (2 way) - ref TD42/95 para 2.26, it is not considered that such low flows on Enson Lane will in any way exceed the capacity of this junction. Junction Safety

38. It is interesting to note in HS2s assessment of access options in their Document No.;C861-ARP-HW-REP-000-100193, that in their ‘Traffic and Transport’ analysis sections, they focus primarily on the impact the various options have on the distance travelled, but make no reference to safety implications. 39. The fact that parents have to make 240 ‘U’ turn manoeuvres on a 60mph trunk road every day, frequently in a peak period, is a somewhat surprising statistic. This manoeuvre will be made more dangerous by a substantial increase in the risk of vehicle conflict due to the additional HS2 construction traffic utilising this section of the A34. 40. There is already a ‘U’ Turn Ban in operation on the 2 mile stretch of the A34 Trunk between Whitgreave Lane and Enson Lane to minimise risk at the farm access points in that stretch. 41. Analysis of HS2s traffic data in Table 215 of its Environmental Statement Volume 5 Transport Assessment (ES TA) shows a daily (2 way) increase in traffic near Whitgreave Lane on the A34 of over 2300 Passenger Car Units (pcus) including 1018

4

A167 (34) HOC/00174/0035 2 way HGV trips solely attributable to HS2 construction traffic1. This construction traffic is primarily supporting the Yarlet Cutting Compound and associated works. On the A34 section north of this compound the HS2 construction traffic level drops to just under 1000pcus, with only a total of 196 HGVs on the northbound and southbound carriageways, primarily serving the Stone area compounds. (Ref. Table 215 ES TA). It is appropriate to use PCUs as a measurement when considering traffic congestion because the length of the vehicle is a determining factor in the length of queues. 42. However, recent negotiations between HS2 and Staffordshire County Council have resulted in an assurance (Exhibit no. 15) under which an assessment is to be made of proposals to divert HS2 HGV construction traffic generated by the Yarlet Cutting compound away from Beaconside in Stafford and re-route it north along the A34 and onto the A51, via the section in which the school and the Enson Lane/A34 junction is situated. 43. The plan attached to the assurance shows HS2’s revised predicted daily 2 way HGV flow on the .A34 north of the Yarlet Cutting Compound to be 1020 HGVs. This compares with the original prediction, as referred to above, of only 196 HGVs (98 each way). This is an increase of over five times the number originally predicted in the ES TA. 44. Thus the increase in the total amount of all HS2 construction traffic (HGV + lgv/cars) on this section of the A34 will be nearly 3000 pcus per day. In terms of the impact in the peak periods, these figures translate into an increase in HGV traffic alone of over twice that currently encountered in the AM peak period. 45. It should be noted that all of the above traffic figures are HS2’s own assumptions regarding their construction traffic volumes. 46. However, their HGV estimations are based on re-using over 90% of any extracted material. This assumption, given that very little ground investigation work had been carried out at the time of producing the original ES TA, is considered by many in the construction industry to be overoptimistic. This issue was raised in the evidence to the select committee from Jack Brereton MP and in my own evidence for Stone and Parish Councils. 47. If HS2 are wrong about the assumptions they have made about reusing spoil, it is likely to necessitate the import of far greater volumes of suitable construction materials. As I have mentioned in previous evidence to the committee, I therefore consider that the actual increase in construction traffic levels will be far higher than those already predicted. 48. To re-iterate, the risk of vehicle conflict for parents making the ‘U’ turn manoeuvre at Enson Lane will be greatly increased due to this additional construction traffic on the A34. 49. The provision of an access via, a slightly modified priority junction at Enson Lane will eliminate the necessity to perform such a manoeuvre, and therefore increase safety. Conclusion

50. The above analysis of the A34/Enson Lane junction shows that, despite the considerable increase in HS2 construction traffic on this route, with some minor amendments (not involving a roundabout or signalisation), this junction would enable

1 Table 215 shows that between Whitgreave Lane and Yarlet Lane the peak HGV number each way is 509 and the peak for all vehicles is 683 each way (meaning a net of 174 non-HGVs). An HGV is equivalent to 2 PCUs, so the total two way in terms of PCUs comes to 2,384

5

A167 (35) HOC/00174/0036 parents to safely deliver and collect their children to the Yarlet School should the proposed new access lane between the school and Enson Lane be constructed. 51. I have held initial discussions with Staffordshire County Council officers who have confirmed that, provided that the preliminary design shown on Drawing. No. 2 complies with current design practice and passes a safety audit, the highway authority has no objection, in principle, for a revised priority junction at the A34/Enson Lane to facilitate the safe access/egress to the Yarlet School car park. 52. It should be noted that the modifications, particularly within the central reserve, are very similar to Diagram 7.10 referred to in section 7.43 of TD42/95 and therefore comply with current specifications. 53. Most of the adjustments to the junction on the A34 are primarily cosmetic and within the highway boundary and as such should incur only minimal costs. 54. Actual requirements for the dimensions on Enson Lane will be subject to detailed discussions with SCC.

13 June 2018

6

A167 (36) HOC/00174/0037 Noise and Dust Mitigation: Summary of Assurances requested CONSTRUCTION NOISE (Pt 1) • Promoter to recognise SEND and boarding noise sensitivities as well as normal educational operations • Promoter and school to collaborate and conduct a revised and more detailed assessment of construction noise closer to the start of works • School and its advisers to be included in the determination of: • Eventual construction methodologies with a view to reducing noise • Package of noise mitigation measures at the school to reduce construction noise effects (may include sound insulation and noise barriers) • Other measures specific to the needs of SEND students and visitors

A167 (37) HOC/00174/0038 Noise and Dust Mitigation: Summary of Assurances requested CONSTRUCTION NOISE (Pt 2) • A Risk Management Action Plan should be developed, and imposed on contractors, to include: • Roles and responsibilities for the management of construction noise affecting the school • Noise Trigger Action Levels (TALs) • Rectification protocols in response to exceedances of TALs • Reporting protocols • Advance information of noisy works • All measures to be in place and functional 3 months prior to the start of noisy works

A167 (38) HOC/00174/0039 Noise and Dust Mitigation: Summary of Assurances requested OPERATIONAL NOISE • Promoter to monitor sound at the school once the railway becomes operational • Monitored data to be used to identify any unexpected performance in accordance with its published commitments • Commitment to corrective measures where practicable

A167 (39) HOC/00174/0040 Noise and Dust Mitigation: Summary of Assurances requested CONSTRUCTION DUST • In response to concerns, the School should be classified as ‘medium’ dust risk (and not ‘low’) • As a result, the school should receive continuous automatic dust monitoring • The school will not unreasonably object to the scaling back of dust monitoring where it is demonstrated by the Promoter that it is no longer justified

A167 (40) HOC/00174/0041