Appendix A WCC consultation response for the Draft ES; Phase 1 of HS2 May 2013 Introduction Warwickshire County Council (WCC) has tried where possible to approach the commentary in this response logically and methodically. Where possible, comments have been referenced to the volume and section of the documentation they relate to. This approach has not been possible throughout the whole consultation response because in some areas e.g. Health, the draft ES makes no reference to the impact on health or the possible effects on communities. There is also no clear indication at this stage what methodology may be adopted in the full ES. In this instance WCC has provided both an overarching commentary on the value of a Health Impact Assessment and copy of a pro forma used within Warwickshire to aid HS2 Ltd in the production of a more robust report for the full ES. A similar approach has been taken in the areas of Ecology, Heritage and Traffic Assessment because the current content of the information from HS2 Ltd in volumes, 1, 27 and the Community Forum Reports is considered to be of such poor quality and lacking in empirical data as to be impossible to comment meaningfully. Furthermore, there are a number of material inaccuracies and omissions in the documents, where these occur the Council have picked them up in their comments and requested clarification or amendment as required. The terminology use in the report is in parts at best unclear and in places misleading. The repeated use of terms such as “low”, “medium,” “high” and “only local impact” (see page 27 of this report for specific examples on PROW) without any quantitative explanation in either the text or an accompanying appendix can lead the reader to either down play the impact being described or give the impression that HS2 Ltd. attaches no importance to the point. Neither option is considered by the Council to be acceptable; it is the Council’s expectation that this fundamental point is addressed prior to the publication of the Full ES. Public Rights of Way (PROW) Broad Concerns. It is important that there is consistency in the way that PROW are described within the ES documents and they should be referred to at their correct status as per the WCC Definitive Map and Statement. In the current version, E roads have been variously described as both footpaths and bridleways. A1 All PROW that are affected by HS2 should be mentioned within the relevant Community Forum Area Report. Where routes are not mentioned it gives the impression that they are unaffected by HS2 and that there is no mitigation required or alternatively that these routes have been ignored by HS2 Ltd. When land is required on a temporary basis, it is imperative that the impact on PROW has been considered. For example, with temporary closures or alternative routes, it is vital to have clear and definite information on how long PROW are going to be shut for. It is of concern to WCC that the length of diversions and closure is being determined by an arbitrary figure of low usage (see Community Area Report section). HS2 Ltd need to ensure that where a route is re-opened after a long period of closure that the whole route is re-instated so that WCC does not incur any unnecessary maintenance costs. Many PROW within WCC boundaries are regularly used by the public, but there are concerns that this is not reflected in the survey results as much of this usage fell at times outside of the survey period. The survey methodology for determining use of a PROW is not satisfactory, relying on usage during only two survey days between set times. The use of a PROW is by its nature transitory and on some routes unpredictable. Some routes identified by the HS2 survey as having ‘no use’ are known to be popular routes with heavy usage. This disparity has had an impact on the provision of crossings of HS2 for the route and has resulted in inappropriate diversions being proposed as alternatives. HS2 maps accompanying the statement are known to be out of date. This makes it impossible to comment satisfactorily on any environmental or amenity impact of HS2 without knowing precisely what the actual impact is. On the maps as presented the routes shown for diversions (temporary during the construction phase or permanent) are indicative only and subject to change. It is impossible therefore to offer any comments about the suitability or otherwise of such diversions. There are inconsistencies within the plans with PROW diversions indicated on the construction phase drawing plans (plans prefixed CT-05-xxx) as being temporary, but in the Table of Footpath cycle and bridleway diversions found within the Community Forum Reports (possibly Table 6) are described as being permanent. The proposed scheme maps (prefixed CT-060xxx) show the permanent diversions of PROW. It is therefore not clear whether the prefixed CT-05-xxx plans show temporary or permanent PROW diversions. As a minimum, WCC expects that these mismatches are clarified and references corrected. Where a temporary diversion is shown in the (prefixeCT-05-xxx) maps as passing through construction sites and material stockpiles, it is the duty of HS2 Ltd to ensure A2 that adequate provision will be made for the safe crossing of these sites by users of the PROW. Within the ‘Glossary of terms and list of abbreviations’, the term ‘road used as a public path’ used as the definition for Public Rights Of Way no longer exists following the enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 s47(2). The term Restricted Byway should be used. A byway is more correctly known as a Byway Open to All Traffic. Volume 1: inc. Scope and methodology The commentary for this section deals with areas of concern where we are able to make useful and meaningful comments. As noted in the introductory paragraph of this documents, it is the Council’s view that much of the draft ES is deficient in detail which make a more forensic and consistent commentary impossible at this stage. The Council has previously responded to the Scope and Methodology consultation in the summer of 2012 http://wp.me/p1vWUo-ms It is apparent from the Draft ES that much of the commentary and recommendations we made has not been incorporated into this version. Please note that Appendix C& D on Heritage and Ecology reiterate the main issues in these fields in respect to the scope and methodology We believe that if HS2 Ltd. use the information previously supplied by ourselves and other statuary organisation the need to comment further on this section of the draft ES would be negated. The table below outlines the main observations and changes to the methodology Warwickshire County Council consider reasonable to expect: Document reference WCC comment/observation PROW Appendix A: Sustainable design aims Page 116 Design Aim 7: Protecting communities – One of the objectives of HS2 is to create The project would seek to maintain the sustainable communities with a health and amenity of residential sustainable design aim being to protect communities potentially affected by the communities. Proposed Scheme. This would include, where practicable, maintenance of It is unclear how separating communities access to services (such as health by severing PROW links between them facilities, schools and places of worship) and providing, in mitigation, a route and shops, and maintenance of alongside a busy road will enhance or environmental conditions such that protect a sustainable community. Even significant adverse effects on health and when there is suitable separation from amenity are mitigated. vehicular traffic the adverse effects of walking alongside a road are A3 Document reference WCC comment/observation considerable and would deter use of such diverted routes. Some of the proposed diversions sever direct access from a settlement out onto a wide network of PROW and will thus affect the amenity value of the countryside within those affected settlements. The proposed diverted route in many such instances is alongside a busy road and adds significant distance to those popular Rights of Way and is not regarded as being adequate mitigation. The usage of the wider network of PROW will be adversely affected by the building of HS2. No mention has been made that measures will be put in place to ensure that diverted Public Rights of Way can actually be provided on the ground and that there will be no additional maintenance liabilities placed upon the Highway Authority as a result. 3.5.54 page 39 It is imperative that appropriate PROW “would be constructed to the standards are used as those standards appropriate standard for each location”. applied to roads do not necessarily apply per se to Public Rights of Way and may not be appropriate. WCC expects reference to be made to BS5709:2006 – The British Standard for Gap, Gates and Stiles. It is necessary that WCC is consulted on the surfacing of a route and that there is clarity on whether there will be an individual standard for each location. Bridleway bridges need to be suitable for horses and HS2 needs to take into consideration that some bridges can spook horses by the noise underfoot etc. Main Activities – Site Clearance and Clarification is required as to when it is A4 Document reference WCC comment/observation Demolition page 40 expected that the alternative routes will be provided when physical work/site preparation affects public rights of way such that temporary diversions of PROW are implemented. It is the minimum expectation that, as the Highway Authority, we receive notice at timescales agreed between HS2 and WCC of any temporary diversion/stopping up/alternative route required for any physical work/site preparation.