PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Wednesday, 18 November 2015 (Afternoon) In Committee Room 5 PRESENT: Mr David Crausby (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick _____________ IN ATTENDANCE Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Marcus Rogers WITN ESSES Mr Ne il Ta ylo r Mr Antony Pearce Mr Yazd i Batki Mr David Starr Mrs Eileen Stewart Mr Paul Walter Mr John Jakobi Mr Paul Gaisford Ms Ruth Ga is fo rd Ms Ama nia C la rk Mr John Vince Mr John Cooper and Mrs Christine Cooper Ms Trisha Woodcock _____________ IN PUBLIC SESSION INDEX Subject Page The Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement Introduction from Mr Mould 3 Submissions by Mr Taylor 4 Response from Mr Mould 6 Antony Pearce Introduction from Mr Mould 7 Submissions by Mr Pearce 8 Response from Mr Mould 13 Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, Stoke Mandeville Action Group and others Introduction from Mr Mould 17 Submissions by Mr Rogers 19 Evidence of Mr Starr 22 Evidence of Mrs Stewart 24 Evidence of Mr Rogers 26 Evidence of Mr Walter 27 Evidence of Mr Jakobi 28 Response from Mr Mould 30 Closing submissions by Mr Rogers 39 Michael Gaisford and others Introduction from Mr Mould 43 Submissions by Mr Gaisford 43 Submissions by Ms Gaisford 46 Response from Mr Mould 51 Closing submissions by Mr Gaisford 60 Ama nia C lark Introduction from Mr Mould 61 Submissions by Ms Clark 62 Response from Mr Mould 64 John Vince Introduction from Mr Mould 66 Submissions by Mr Vince 66 Response from Mr Mould 68 John and Christine Cooper Introduction from Mr Mould 70 Submissions by Mr Cooper 71 Response from Mr Mould 74 Tenants of Layby Farm Business Park Introduction from Mr Mould 75 Submissions by Mrs Woodcock 76 Response from Mr Mould 79 2 (at 14.00) 1. CHAIR: Order, Order. Welcome back. Petitioner number 1005, the Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement. Neil Taylor. Mr Mould, would you like to introduce this? The Lord Carrington’s 1963 Settlement 2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The petitioner has lands that fall within the Bill limits; they’re shown on the screen in front of you and the outline of the petitioner’s la nd s in red in the usual way. If we turn on to plan P10564, you’ll see that this is the construction phase. You’ll see that there are lands which lie to the eastern side of the railway; those, as I understand it, were the subject of the joint statement that I read out to you just before you broke this morning. Then there is a pylon run that is included within Bill limits to the west side of the railway that is included, so that the pylons can be restrung along that line. And there is also the line of a track included within Bill limits; that’s been included so that access can obtained to – over an accommodation overbridge, which is proposed here, carrying accommodation route and a footpath. 3. If we go to P10565, you’ll see the reason for that. That access provides a route through for maintenance purposes to the balancing pond which is located at this point here. 4. My understanding is that Mr Pearce, who is the next petitioner, wishes to explore with the project, the relocation of that balancing pond elsewhere within this area. And there’s also, as you know from previous petitioners, back in October, a proposal that, as part of the works to realign the Princes Risborough line, a vehicular route, future proof for a possible Aylesbury southern relief road, should be provided in this location. And if that were done, that should provide an alternative means of access to the balancing pond, and thus enable us to consider whether we need to secure access for vehicles along this route. 5. None of that can be dealt with conclusively today, but those are matters that are fo r further consideration. 6. It may be helpful if I just say that insofar as that issue of providing provision – 3 future proofing the realignment of the Princes Risborough line to allow for a possible Aylesbury southern relief road, as far as that issue is concerned, discussions with the interested parties, both the landowners and the local authorities, have been progressing in a positive way, in relation to that. They haven’t reached a position where the project is able to recommend a particular solution, but the moment is forward and I hope to be able to report back to the Committee on that within the near future. I think that’s a ll b y way of introduction. 7. CHAIR: My Taylor? 8. MR TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name’s Neil Taylor, I’m a chartered surveyor, I’ve been managing agent for the Carrington family since 2005. This is going to be very much an abridged version, a you’ve heard already that we’re delighted to have agreed heads of terms with the promoter only this morning, on two of our three significant issues. I wonder if we co uld have slide 16122 please? 9. Thank you. Just to set the scene, Standalls Farm is part of the Carrington family’s property. The family has owned it since 1802. It’s just over 570 acres of grade 3 land, mainly arable, but also with some permanent pasture land, which is home to a beef enterprise, and it’s farmed by a long term tenant. Can we have slide three? 10. At the heart of the farm, there’s a Grade II listed farmhouse. You can see, there’s a sort of white patch in the centre of the slide on your screen. Together with a range of traditional buildings, modern grain storage, and livestock housing. The access to the fa r m, both buildings and houses, is along a single farm driveway, which you can see running, sort of roughly north south and it’s about a quarter of a mile long. It has the status of a public footpath, I think it’s known as footpath 28 in the eyes of Buckinghamshire County Council, but it’s no more than a footpath. I’ve tried to mark on the slide the boundaries of Standalls Farm, such as they relate to HS2. 11. If we could jump now to slide 7. So, against this background, we now have one remaining concern with the promoter’s proposals and that is over their proposed use of the main farm driveway, as a permanent access to the balancing pond and pumping station which are to be built on the opposite side of HS2. That will involve a new accommodation bridge, which will, as we understand it, need to be robust enough for tanker lorries. We do appreciate that the route has been slightly amended already, so 4 that it now passes just to the east of our farm buildings, rather than running directly through the farmyard, which was originally the case. But we still believe that there’s a better alternative route. If we could have slide 8. 12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sorry, the system seems to have – 13. MR TAYLOR: So, on slide 8, again, our boundaries are show with a red line, and you can see a yellow line coming from the extreme right of this slide, which is the main farm driveway leading to Standalls Farm. It passes around the far side of the farmyard, and then joins up with footpath 16, which is on the boundary of the Pearce family’s land, and the crosses HS2 via a proposed new accommodation bridge. 14. For tanker access, that involves upgrading a track of about 1.3km from the public highway to the proposed balancing pond, as well as an expensive bridge. And, as you’ve already heard, in October, Bucks County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council petitioned for an underpass, under the existing Princes Risborough to Aylesbury railway line; that’s being raised anyway, to accommodate HS2 and we very much support that proposal and recently signed a joint statement, together with our neighbours, to that effect. As we as preserving both Buckinghamshire and Aylesbury Vale District Council’s long held ambitions for an Aylesbury relief road, the underpass would provide a much shorter route of only about 550 metres to the balancing pond, and it would allow the accommodation bridge to be downgraded to just a footbridge, which, according to Ridge and Partners, who have provided figures for us, would be significantly less expensive. 15. The underpass itself would be on our neighbour’s land; you can see there’s some white writing that says, ‘Existing Princes Risborough railway’, and there’s a hedge line running just to the right of it. It would be approximately at the end of that section of hedgerow. But we are affected by this, insofar as the present access is shown through our farm, and that wouldn’t be necessary if the shorter route under the existing railway line, from the Stoke Mandeville bypass were possible, and therefore, footpath 28, in yellow on this plan, could remain as a footpath. If we could have slide 9 please? 16. This is just view of the existing farm driveway; as you can see, it’s not a major highway, and a view of Standalls Farm, looking from the existing edge of Aylesbury across the fields. There are some significant pylons, and, looking into the distance, the 5 photograph is taken from Standalls farmland.