PART F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 SSeeeekkiinngg tthhee bbeesstt,, iiff iitt ccoommeess ttoo tthhee wwoorrsstt Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright and Database Right. Buckinghamshire County Council Licence No. 100021529: 2014 February 2014 The Buckinghamshire Blueprint for HS2 Part 2 FOREWORD Buckinghamshire is experienced This second part of the Blueprint has been key, clear and reasonable expectations from the at championing the needs developed with communities, representative groups and Councils, communities and other stakeholders within of local communities whilst environmental organisations to build upon the detail set Buckinghamshire. We trust that Government and balancing the demands of out in the first Blueprint in order to specify key mitigation Parliament will engage with us on this. change and growth with the and compensation measures. The hallmark of both has preservation of our unique been solid and regular community engagement, to landscape and environment. shape proposals that have local support, negotiating This is testament to how where needed to reach strong consensus. This part also comprehensive and well reflects the many and varied responses to the draft endorsed the first part of Environmental Statement consultation. Buckinghamshire’s Mitigation Blueprint for High A measure of success for the first Blueprint is that some Speed 2 was. With the continued development of HS2, proposals now feature in the details of the formal Martin Tett the hybrid Bill deposit and publication of the formal Environmental Statement, a sign that this approach has Leader Environmental statement, a refined second part of the secured some change. It is hoped that this second part Buckinghamshire County Council Blueprint is an imperative for Buckinghamshire. will crystallise the further changes which are required, February 2014 The arguments against HS2 are well rehearsed, with should HS2 proceed. As stated in the first Blueprint, if the fundamental issues remaining; a flawed business the project proceeds it must reflect the very best of case, irreparable damage to high quality and innovative British design and provide mitigation designated environments and superior ways to invest in measures that protect local residents, businesses and the country’s infrastructure. As a consequence, the local the environment. authorities in Buckinghamshire maintain their principled The first Blueprint helped to inform the Government, opposition to the scheme. However, it is critical to secure the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd what the very best possible outcomes and mitigation for Buckinghamshire was (and was not) willing to accept. communities and businesses, should the scheme This second Blueprint builds upon this, setting out proceed. 1 ENDORSEMENTS Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire 2 The Buckinghamshire Blueprint for HS2 Part 2 Calvert Green Parish Council East Claydon Parish Council Great Missenden Parish Council Hogshaw Parish Meeting 3 Mantles Wood near Hyde Heath: an irreplaceable ancient woodland which will be destroyed by HS2 Chiltern Conservation Board 4 The Buckinghamshire Blueprint for HS2 Part 2 CONTENTS Foreword 1 Executive Summary 6 Strategic Mitigation and Compensation Priorities Map 7 Introduction 8 Mitigation and Compensation Expectations 9 Route-wide effects 10 Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) 19 CFA 7 - Colne Valley 22 CFA 8 - The Chalfonts and Amersham 24 CFA 9 - Central Chilterns 26 CFA 10 - Dunsmore, Wendover and Halton 30 CFA 11 - Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury 34 CFA 12 - Waddesdon and Quainton 38 CFA 13 - Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode 40 CFA 14 - Newton Purcell to Brackley 45 Socio-economic impacts of the construction phase on Buckinghamshire 47 Conclusion 48 Glossary 49 Appendix 1 - Buckinghamshire’s Mitigation Blueprint for HS2 50 (Part 1 – February 2013) Appendix 2 - Socio-economic impacts of the construction phase on Buckinghamshire 52 (Full report) 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Buckinghamshire Councils, groups, organisations and l A Chilterns AONB tunnel The Blueprint also summarises the socio-economic other stakeholders continue to oppose the HS2 project. l No spoil placement areas in the Chilterns AONB effects of HS2 on the Buckinghamshire economy during Our aim is to convince MPs that after the deposit of l Spoil placement outside the AONB to be used only the construction phase (page 47). the High Speed Rail – (London-West Midland) Hybrid as a last resort Our work on this Blueprint is far from finished. From Bill in November 2013, it should proceed no further. l Country Park provision in the northern Aylesbury Vale now until the time when petitions are deposited, and However, if MPs refuse to listen to the objections of l A station on the East West Rail line close to the moving forward afterwards to the select committee individuals and organisations across the country and Infrastructure Maintenance Depot proceedings, consideration will be given to which matters the Hybrid Bill is passed at Second Reading, then all l Improved rail infrastructure and services in South Bucks require further work and discussion with others, in order efforts must turn to petitioning for amendments to the l Provision of a Waddesdon relief road to reach consensus on the detail and to develop the Bill. The fact that we have had to produce the Blueprint l A Community Compensation Fund evidence base. It is likely that there will be a number of further undermines the scheme and highlights what is l Creating accessible green spaces around Aylesbury individuals, groups and organisations who may wish to required to lessen some of the impacts. (i.e. a Linear Park) petition the Select Committee. Certain specific groups Building upon the Blueprint Part 1, introduced to l Local jobs, skills and education opportunities and individuals affected will be stronger advocates than Parliament by Cheryl Gillan MP on 28 February 2013 l High quality design and visual mitigation along the others for specific issues. It should be recognised that and published in March 2013, this Part 2 presents a whole route , overseen by an independent design inclusion of an issue or proposal in the Blueprint does refined picture – incorporating comments from an panel working closely with local communities not constitute an endorsement by the Councils or other even wider range of community groups - of what l Minimised impact on the County’s road network partners, nor will it necessarily result in the issue or Buckinghamshire needs to mitigate and compensate during construction proposal being included in any petitions that may be for the damage and disruption caused by the l Ecological mitigation and compensation to ensure submitted. Further issues not mentioned in the Blueprint proposed HS2 line. All of those stakeholders who that the government’s policy of “providing net gains may also be added to the petitions of the Councils and endorse Part 2, whether they oppose the scheme or in biodiversity where possible” is achieved. other participants. not, support this approach to mitigation. The l Mitigation for west Aylesbury and Hartwell House, Thanks to everyone who has provided opinions, Buckinghamshire Councils are proud to have worked including a land bridge, to avoid significant visual contributions, revisions, amendments and, most with communities and partners to develop this and noise intrusions for hundreds of homes and importantly, time to helping develop the Blueprint Part 2. Blueprint, comprised of both strategic and local designated heritage assets in this area. Support from individuals, groups and organisations expectations. These are non-negotiable strategic expectations because across the county and beyond, has ensured that we have The strategic mitigation and compensation they are concerned with tackling significant impacts from accurately captured and reflected the views and concerns expectations for Buckinghamshire, most of which are HS2, or focus on impacts in particularly sensitive of Buckinghamshire residents and businesses. illustrated on the following map, are: environmental areas. Non-negotiable local issues and expectations, shared with us by communities, groups and individuals, are split into Community Forum Areas and presented in the following tables (page 22 to 46). Route- wide expectations are also presented (page 10 – 21). 6 INTRODUCTION The Buckinghamshire Mitigation Blueprint for HS2 Part 1 Standing Order Committee. These extensions reflected was s ubmitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, that for stakeholders were originally without at least 800 the Prime Minister, HS2 Ltd and others in March 2013. of consultation pages in both electronic and hard copy Despite requesting a formal response to the document, formats, amongst other failings. Amongst the 50,000 one has not been forthcoming. Subsequently, HS2 Ltd pages, a report was included which acknowledged the published the draft Environmental Statement for 20,944 responses received to the draft ES but it is not consultation on May 16th 2013. With eight weeks to clear how this informed the formal ES. respond, communities, organisations and local Attention has now turned to the parliamentary process authorities up and down the line reviewed the materials and in particular the petitioning of the Select to provide constructive responses. The draft ES was Committee. This presents an opportunity for those who deficient in a number of ways, including the omission of are directly and specifically affected by the proposal