PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Wednesday, 21 October 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair)

Mr Mark Hendrick Sir Peter Bottomley

Mr Henry Bellingham Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Mr David Crausby _____________

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Mr Andrew Boniface

Mr Charlie Clare Ms Belinda Naylor Ms Natalie Merry Ms Edi Smockum

Mr Joe Hodges

Mr Tim Smart, International Director for High Speed Rail, CH2M Hill

_____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

2

INDEX

Subject Page Presentation by the Promoter 3 Andrew John Boniface Submissions by Mr Boniface 7 Response by Mr Mould 17 Belinda Naylor, Charlie Clare, et al. Submissions by Mr Clare 22 Evidence of Ms Merry 26 Ms Merry, cross-examined by Mr Mould 27 Further submissions by Ms Clare 28 Submissions by Ms Naylor 30 Further submissions by Ms Clare 31 Response from Mr Mould 32 Mr Smart, examined by Mr Mould 38 Mr Smart, cross-examined by Mr Mould 47 Closing submissions by Ms Clare 55 Steeple Claydon Parish Council Submissions by Ms Smockum 56 Evidence of Mr Hodges 59 Response from Mr Mould 61

3

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome. Good morning to the HS2 Select Committee.

Before we start on you, Mr Boniface, I think we’ll have another go with the fly-through

since the Department for Transport spent a fortune on doing it. Roughly where are we

now?

2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Five minutes in. Right, so we’re coming in to

Buckinghamshire from the north.

3. CHAIR: Right. Good.

4. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Could someone tell me when it gets to Chetwode? I’ll

start speaking when we get to Chetwode. We’re now over Chetwode. If we can just

stop here. The main elements of the settlement of Chetwode are off to the left, that is to

say to the east or the north of the railway line, depending on your favoured point of

orientation. And we can see Manthorn Farm. The buildings of that farmstead are being

pointed at now. The hermitage, which is a listed building that features in the petitions,

is being pointed at now. That’s Mrs Wiltshire’s property, I believe. And you can see

clearly the line of the former Great Central Railway running at this point just to the

south of the HS2 trace, which is, as you will be hearing and may already know, an area

that is being brought into Bill limits in order to enable significant landscape screen

planting to be provided within that area. So if we carry on.

5. MR BELLINGHAM: Where’s the church?

6. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Oh, we’ll have to go back a little bit.

7. MR BELLINGHAM: Okay.

8. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The church is off to the left. I’m not sure we’ll pick it

up very clearly. If we just carry on a touch further. You can’t really see it very clearly

but if you just stop there it’s broadly in this area here, the church. And there are

premises along this road here. You can just see to the south of this belt of trees, those

are premises that are affected by noise. And then, as you will recall from your visit to

Chetwode, there are some scattered properties in and around the hamlet which we’ll be

hearing about later. So that’s essentially the Chetwode area. And, as you will recall,

4

there are some even further scattered properties to the south of the railway line. I’ve

pointed out Manthorn Farm but there are other properties which are mentioned in

dispatches, as it were, to the south of the line.

9. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: What are those white lines by the side of the trace?

10. MR MOULD QC (DfT): These lines here?

11. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes.

12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think they’re probably a cartographical feature so they

won’t actually appear on the ground when the railway has been constructed.

13. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Presumably there’s a barrier somewhere.

14. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There’s a barrier running, as you can see, starting at this

point running eastwards along the north side of the trace. And the proposal, following

the noise mitigation review which you’ll be hearing about later which was reported

publically at the end of last week, the noise barrier on the north side of the railway as it

passes beyond Chetwode is going to be increased and lengthened to a 5 metre barrier so

as to increase the noise mitigation as the line passes through this area. But more of that

later on.

15. CHAIR: Shall we go a little bit further? I think some of the lines are Bill limits.

16. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There are fence lines as well, aren’t there? We come

towards Twyford which is coming into view on the south side of the railway. You can

clearly see the line of the old Great Central Railway all the way through here. I should

perhaps just point out that if we stop now that we can see the settlement of Twyford to

the south. As you’ll be hearing later, the alignment here was… during the development

of the scheme prior to the deposit of the Bill, the line was moved away from Twyford.

One of the issues raised, I think, was whether it was moved far enough. But, just for

information, this represents the maximum curvature consistent with a 360 mph

operational speed. So that’s just worth pointing that out, what you see in front of you. I

think it was always going to be to the north of the old railway alignment but it was

closer to the settlement than is currently shown. That was part of the route development

prior to the deposit of the Bill.

5

17. And you can see here, as we saw with Chetwode, there’s quite a substantial series

of false cuttings of earthworks that are proposed on the south side of the line between

the HS2 trace and the planted former line of the Great Central Railway which is where

the cursor is pointing now.

18. And then if we carry on to the now relatively familiar sight of the infrastructure

maintenance depot just in the quadrant to the north-east of the railway and the East West

Line. The former sustainable placement area. The Grebe Lake to the south. School

Hill just up there.

19. Can I just go back actually? Sorry, there is one feature I ought to just point out to

you. If you just go back a bit further. As we approach the depot, you’ll see, if we stop

now, this crossing, this bridge, is West Street. That’s one of three existing roads

connecting Twyford and other lands to the south with Steeple Claydon and, further

afield, Buckingham to the north. So West Street. And, just beyond it, Perry Hill which

you’ll recall from yesterday. And then beyond the East West Line where we stopped a

few moments ago, School Hill.

20. And the sequence of works to these bridges under the Bill scheme is as follows.

The Bill provides that two of the three crossings will remain open to vehicles throughout

the construction. But what we do is we close West Street for about 18 months, early in

the construction phase, so that we can take a bridge over the new railway there.

Perry Hill and School Hill remain open during that period. And then, having completed

the works to reconnect West Street, we then close School Hill. So that’s the sequence.

So Perry Hill remains open throughout. West Street is closed initially for a period of

18 months. Once that’s been completed and re-opened then we close School Hill so that

the bridge over School Hill can be constructed. So that’s relevant to later on today.

21. So if we carry on then. Calvert Green coming into view to the south of the line

here. And you’ll recall our proposal for the FCC sidings under the AP4 scheme just to

east or to the north of the trace. And then we have the old brickworks areas, the landfill

sites to the south. Sheephouse Wood just to the north of the east of the line here. And

the alternative FCC’s proposal for the relocation of the sidings just broadly in the area

beyond the balancing pond on the eastern side. There’s the energy for waste plant site

coming in to view. And then we carry on through the countryside down towards

6

Aylesbury.

22. We’re now coming through the area with Waddesdon to the south; Quainton to the

north. I think those two parish councils are programmed to be before the Committee

next week, if I remember rightly.

23. CHAIR: Okay.

24. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And here just a foretaste: you can see Quainton just to

the east here and this is the area which is the subject of a debate about taking Station

Road over the railway line which you’ll hear more about next week.

25. And Aylesbury is just now coming into view. And I’m conscious that

Mr Boniface lives in Aylesbury, so I’ll just take you up to that.

26. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you spot the Thame Viaduct you might just point

it out to us.

27. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yeah, it’s just being pointed out to you now. So

Aylesbury off to the left and the viaduct, just about to pass over it. And if we stop here.

Mr Boniface lives I think – he’ll correct me if I’m wrong – in the north-western sector

of Aylesbury just beyond the existing railway line.

28. CHAIR: Are you more Stoke Mandeville or Aylesbury?

29. MR BONIFACE: Sorry?

30. CHAIR: Are you more Stoke Mandeville or Aylesbury?

31. MR BONIFACE: No, Aylesbury. North-west of Aylesbury.

32. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Stoke Mandeville is this area here. And I won’t go on

any further because you saw this last week, but you’ll remember right at the top of the

view is the Princes Risborough line coming at an angle across the floodplain into the

south-eastern corner of Aylesbury. But we probably don’t need to go that far.

33. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s probably worth putting a pen pretty close to

where you are, Mr Boniface, please, can you?

7

34. MR BONIFACE: I think I’m probably just off the left edge of this view.

35. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Actually, if we just pull back a bit. Yeah, you’re just

beyond the railway line here, aren’t you?

36. MR BONIFACE: The Chiltern railway line, yeah.

37. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So here’s the Chiltern line and Mr Boniface is just in

here.

38. MR HENDRICK: How far is that from the line?

39. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Have you got the petition?

40. MR BONIFACE: It ranges from, I believe, the nearest approach is just under a

kilometre to the furthest approach at the northern tip is about 1.4.

41. CHAIR: Okay.

Andrew John Boniface

42. CHAIR: Sorry to delay you, Mr Boniface. Let’s crack on with 1613. Welcome.

43. MR BONIFACE: I’m glad to say good morning and thank you to the Committee

for hearing my petition. I’ll introduce myself. My name is Andrew Boniface. I live in

the neighbourhood of Heydon Hill which is on the north-west fringe of Aylesbury. I

mention this because I think I’m slightly out of sequence with some of the other

petitioners, most of which are further north from me.

44. My neighbourhood is bounded on the north-east by the A41; on the south-west by

the Chiltern Line Railway; to the north-west by the Thame Floodplain; and to the

south-east by the rest of Aylesbury. It’s slightly elevated from the local terrain and the

terrain drops towards the Thame floodplain and towards the Fairbrook watercourse to

the south-west which is along the axis of the planned route.

45. It’s a private residential neighbourhood with no through routes. It’s a very quiet

location where I have lived since the 1980s. And our property value forms a large part

of our pension provision. We are planning to realise some of this value either by

downsizing or some kind of equity release some time in the next five years. So any

8

depreciation or property blight may affect that pension planning.

46. I’m an independent IT consultant. I often work from home and I’m able to make

use of very high speed broadband which has been a huge change over the last 10 years

where my own business mileage has probably dropped by 75%. And in my career –

there’s a reason for mentioning all these points – I’ve worked across many subject areas

in IT including military systems for air defence and electronic warfare and I have

personal involvement in developing complex numerical algorithms for calculating radar

and radio coverage envelopes against terrain data in order to calculate potential

opportunities for jamming that radar. I’ve worked on public sector applications

including local government building and development control and environment health

with links and interfaces into geographical information systems. And I’ve worked on

commercial applications, mainly to do with document and content management.

47. So I have some technical appreciation of some of the detailed aspects of HS2’s

plans but I don’t claim any special expertise in sound or acoustics and I don’t intend to

cover detailed technical matters, which I’m sure you’re already well acquainted with,

and you might be pleased that I won’t be discussing decibels, NOAEL, LOAEL,

SOAEL and LAMax. And I hope I’ve submitted this petition as a layman, albeit a

reasonably well-educated one.

48. So I want to explain how my personal experience with HS2 and my own

knowledge has helped me form certain conclusions that is the basis of my petition. I do

broadly sympathise with opposition to HS2 and I’ve got many other objections

including noise, traffic, pollution during construction given the proximity of my

neighbourhood to the A41. But I trust others have already raised this with the

Committee. I believe recently you heard from Martin Tett from Bucks County Council

on that topic. I have decided I want to focus on one particular point and the point I’m

focusing on are the plans for the Thame Viaduct and its impact on my local area during

operation. And I hope I’ll raise the points in a concise manner; I don’t want to take up

any more time than need be. And I hope you’ll agree at the end that my points are

rational and justified and understandable.

49. Can I go back to slide 3 please? So my journey with HS2 began at their

consultation roadshow back in 2011. I attended quite early in the morning while it was

9

still quiet and I was rather disappointed with some of the content that was on view,

especially some of the visual representations which mainly seemed to consist of

standing on a distant hillside with a wide angle lens and then noticing that the line was

not very obtrusive on that basis. But I think I was on the day the first person to use the

sound demonstration booth. And I found the simulation unbelievably quiet. There was

even a second part of the simulation where they light up a visual display of where the

train actually is because it’s so quiet you might otherwise not realise that there’s a train

passing.

50. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Was it supposed to give the sound if you’re standing

by the viaduct or the sound as it is from your home?

51. MR BONIFACE: No, this was actually the sound to the south of Aylesbury. I

will touch on that in a moment. So it wasn’t my exact location. But at my location I’ve

got the Chiltern line running on a single track in a deep cutting and the trains there

seldom exceed 25 miles an hour. It’s very local and it’s a track that’s only recently

come into more use with the opening of the Aylesbury Vale Park Station. Now, I hear

that. That’s quite audible especially if I’m outside my house when those trains go past.

And the sound simulation suggested that a 225 mph train would be less audible. So I

did take exception at the time.

52. I also noted that my MP, Mr David Lidington, was about to go into the sound

booth. But I was pressed for time so rather than discuss my concerns at that time I took

them up with the HS2 representative who was at the event. And he told me first that the

sound simulation was based on some kind of earthworks topped by a three metre sound

protection barrier. So that was what the simulation was based on. And my retort was:

‘What will it sound like near the Thame Viaduct?’ And he told me categorically that it

would make no more noise than in the sound demonstration, which I didn’t believe. I

couldn’t believe that. But that’s what he stated.

53. Next slide please. Slide 4. So because I didn’t believe these points, and because

my MP had been at the event, I wrote to him by email that day. And some weeks later,

while reviewing my consultation response to the road show, I complained to HS2 by

email with the subject line ‘Consultation Complaint’. They pretty much ignored it. I got

a reply but it wasn’t dealt with as a complaint. They’d downgraded it to an ‘enquiry’

10

and attached for me a copy of the Arup methodology report and a link in the email to the

assessment of sustainability, appendix 5. Arup methodology report pretty much stopped

me in my tracks because it states in section 5.8, ‘Viaducts would not be noisier than

embankment surface section of line.’ So what am I, as a layman, supposed to do with

this information? I didn’t believe it but there it was categorically in black and white.

54. Next slide please. Later on I realised that this assessment of sustainability

provided other documented reasons why viaduct noise may indeed be louder. So as

train speed increases, the predominant noise shifts from low speed where it’s mainly the

motors and the fans and the ancillary equipment. These are snapshots from the HS2

documents. As the speed increases further, the predominant noise is rolling noise from

the wheels passing along the rails. And as it exceeds 300 kilometres an hour, which is

planned for over the Thame Viaduct, aerodynamic noise becomes the more predominant

noise source.

55. And, in addition to the potential for extra noise by high speed trains running on the

viaduct, there is the potential for the viaduct itself to become a source of noise. It might

reverberate or resonate in some way. So it’s potential; I’m not saying it’s going to

happen but there’s potential for it and it could act as a sounding board.

56. So, clearly, reverberated noise or noise from the viaduct is more difficult to block

with low level noise barriers, which I believe are planned for 1.4 metres on the north

side of the viaduct for some of its distance, not all of it.

57. Next slide, please. This assessment of sustainability goes on to say that, ‘In

respect of aerodynamic noise wayside noise barriers are not likely to be as effective or

even feasible. You would have to increase the barrier height to provide shielding to the

entire train.’ Again, that’s a quote directly from the HS2 documents. So clearly there is

the potential for greater noise levels to be generated by elevated viaducts in

contradiction to what I was actually told at the roadshow in the first place.

58. Next slide, please. When the Draft Environmental Statement was issued, it was

quite an eye opener. And actually it even looks like an eye opening around the viaduct.

And you can see that there is increased noise at the viaduct. However, I was only

surprised that HS2 finally confirmed what I’d said. I wasn’t surprised by the fact that

there was increase in noise. And the noise contours do drift or swell in the direction of

11

my neighbourhood.

59. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you just again put your pen where your home

is?

60. MR BONIFACE: It’s actually up under the coloured key.

61. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

62. MR BONIFACE: It’s not helped by the orientation of some of this content

because it’s not in the north-south orientation that we’re used to seeing maps in.

63. So I complained again to HS2, this time with the subject line ‘Complaint on

Misleading HS2 Information’ and said I wanted to reinstate my earlier complaint that

they’d dismissed. And they responded that my ‘enquiry raised points best directed to

the Draft Environmental Statement consultation’. So I bounced it back, escalating it

with the subject line ‘FORMAL COMPLAINT’ in uppercase; and this time I got a reply

from the relevant business unit head. And he replied that they were only responsible

‘for the service you have received from HS2 Ltd’ and refused to take it any further.

Now, I thought that was exactly what I was complaining about; the information that I’d

been provided with by HS2 Ltd. But they disregarded it, which I found evasive and

actually deplorable. They failed to engage me on these topics repeatedly.

64. Next slide, please. The full Environment Statement, when it was issued, looked

slightly different. I think there were some changes either to the colours or the contours

on the map and/or some of the noise mitigation along the north and south side of the

route. However, I think even the latest promoter exhibit, P8920 which maybe we can

look at a little later, only shows a 1.4 metre noise barrier for the first 200 metres along

the south-east side of the viaduct which doesn’t actually agree with their statement on

noise mitigation in the promoter’s response document which claims that there will be

noise barriers for the entire length of the viaduct.

65. And, having reviewed the promoter’s response document, there are a few extra

points I would like to make. First off, the map. This was the map I was sent as part of

the response document. There’s my property. There is the start of the viaduct, not the

whole viaduct. And this map actually seems designed to illustrate the maximum

12

possible distance between the two places. What would I have to complain about living

that far away? So that’s in the promoter’s response documents.

66. CHAIR: What’s your reference for the document?

67. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P8916.

68. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Carry on, Mr Boniface.

69. MR BONIFACE: My petition relates to the Thame Viaduct in its entirety. I think

this is the hybrid area, the start, just there.

70. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes.

71. MR BONIFACE: And my property is just there.

72. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P8919 gives the position on a larger scale which was

also sent to the petitioner. P8919.

73. MR BONIFACE: Where are we now?

74. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m just pointing out that that shows the full extent of

the viaduct in the papers provided to you.

75. MR BONIFACE: Indeed. Again in this strange kind of not-north-up direction.

76. So my petition relates to the entire length of the viaduct. Moreover, I contend or

want to emphasise how difficult it would be for a layman to make sense out of the

promoter’s response document which is full of the acronyms that I previously said I

won’t mention again, but broadly seems to restate that HS2 have complied with the

various policy and compliance regimes in their noise assessments. They have had

plenty of opportunity to ensure or assure your petitioner that wind or weather driven

effects will have no part in increasing the noise nuisance across my neighbourhood and

could follow the example guaranteed to me that HS2 trains on the Thame Viaduct

would, for all intents and purposes, be inaudible at all times.

77. There is one other document I would like to reference. I don’t necessarily need it

to be brought up right now but the promoter’s exhibit P8921 on noise assessment

topography, the very last line states that the noise calculations are based on ‘light

13

downwind’ and I believe a ‘temperature inversion as a reasonable worst case

prediction’. Now, first off, I’m not quite sure that that’s proper English; it’s like saying

‘fairly best’ I think. ‘Reasonable worst’. But I don’t believe that even the man on the

Clapham omnibus would believe that light downwind could possibly be described as

‘worst case’. What happens when there’s a stiff breeze?

78. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You hear the breeze. If you want the answer.

79. MR BONIFACE: Well, I can hear some breeze.

80. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I once picked up some people in the middle of the

desert and said, ‘What’s the problem?’ and they said, ‘The wind.’ 35 mph wind kept

them awake. The sound of the wind above a light wind dominates the sound you hear.

Try sailing.

81. CHAIR: Carry on, Mr Boniface.

82. MR BONIFACE: I still don’t believe that a light downwind can be called a

reasonable worst case.

83. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, if I’m right in saying the sound of the wind

then dominates the sound from the noise creator, the light downwind is a condition

where you’re more likely to hear the originating sound.

84. MR BONIFACE: As a layman, I find their responses to be confusing and evasive.

They seemed determine and content to hide behind their veil of methodology and policy

compliance which in themselves are of no direct interest to me. To make an analogy, if

my doctor diagnoses me with a serious illness I don’t want or expect a long, probably

one-sided, dialogue about cellular microbiology and epidemiology. I want to know my

prognosis; what it means for me. Similarly, I want to know what the effects of this

noise will be at all times on my neighbourhood. I want to know about outcomes not

methods.

85. Sorry, next slide please. I’ve missed a slide. And the next one please. Sorry,

there was one thing I wanted to mention about maps generally. I found it quite difficult

to integrate the information that HS2 published. Some of it has the line going up and

down, some of it has the line going left and right; and neither of those correlate easily

14

with the normal north-south map style like we’ve got here.

86. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You can turn the page.

87. MR BONIFACE: Of course you can. That’s not the point I’m making, Sir Peter.

So these noise contour maps are necessary to prove that an area will definitely be

affected but I don’t believe they are sufficient to prove that other areas will not be.

88. Can I have the next slide please? Slide 11. So I turned the map sideways and I

actually superimposed it as well. So this is a superimposition of a noise contour map

onto a screenshot from the HS2 interactive map. The little red dot, that’s my house. So

the contours already extend about 50% of the way in some directions towards my

neighbourhood.

89. So, as I mentioned, I think these contour maps obviously are necessary. I’m not

saying there’s anything wrong with them. But I don’t think they’re sufficient to prove

that other areas will not be affected under different weather or climatic conditions.

90. Next slide please. So this is about as technical as I get. The upper diagram on the

left illustrates some of the methods of sound refraction. And on the lower left I have a

diagram of the prevailing winds. These are prevailing winds at 10 metres height I

believe from Cardington which is the adjacent county to Buckinghamshire.

91. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In Bedfordshire.

92. MR BONIFACE: Yes. So I know that you are very well acquainted with some of

these issues and I think you’ve been to an Arup sound laboratory presentation or visit.

However, I think I’m right in these assertions that thermal, pressure and wind speed

gradients can all act to refract sound as if it were a prism. Wind speeds are typically

faster at height than they are at lower levels owing to various obstructions. A wind

speed gradient can cause sound waves to be refracted down to the extent that even some

sound waves that start vertically, which would normally be lost into the atmosphere and

only bother the passing pigeons, may instead be refracted back to ground level.

93. HS2 trains will be running locally at speeds over 300 kph which results in

predominantly aerodynamic noise which is further up the train body towards the

pantograph. On the Thame Viaduct this will place the predominant sound source at still

15

greater heights into higher wind speeds. The 1.4 metre trackside noise barriers are

unlikely to be of very much use in this situation and, to paraphrase the Olympic motto,

higher, faster, noisier. Trains will be running from early morning to late at night with

the potential for nuisance during work, rest and sleep periods. The train noise, I

understand, will be relatively high pitched with a rapid onset given the speed, especially

when emerging from a well-protected surface level with 5 metre noise barriers onto the

viaduct with the resulting drop in the sound barriers; and the noise will be frequent and

spiky and up to, I think, 25 seconds in duration.

94. In terms of the prevailing winds, my neighbourhood is in the worst possible

alignment to the Thame Viaduct. And this looks like a perfect storm to me. So I hope

you can see that the concerns I’m expressing are rational and justified.

95. Next slide, please. Slide 13. So you won’t be surprised that I do have concerns

about the noise contour maps and I don’t think they provide me with very much

reassurance that I will not be bothered with noise nuisance. On any given date in time it

may vary greatly with atmospheric and rail traffic conditions.

96. I am concerned that I may suffer, or my neighbourhood may suffer, some noise

nuisance even if HS2 have complied with all of their policy guidelines on their noise

assessments. And I think this would impact the property value. I can’t understand why

anybody would choose to locate close to HS2 given the fear, uncertainty and doubt if

other properties will be available a few miles away.

97. And the compensation scheme doesn’t offer me very much either. The onus will

be on me to prove a need to sell or wait for many years until 12 months of operation.

And I don’t understand why this risk, this burden and the associated costs will fall upon

the residents in terms of bearing the adverse risk that there may be problems and

nuisance caused by the construction and operation of the line, and then needing to

mount a case for compensation with the time, cost and effort that that involves. It seems

unfair to me. I think any risks, burdens and costs should fall upon the promoter.

98. I do have some positive suggestions. I think the potential for blight could be

somewhat mitigated if HS2 drastically improves the information it provides and makes

it more meaningful and intelligible to the general public.

16

99. I looked to some of the resources. The HS2 interactive map consists of a coloured

line superimposed over a Google map. Useless. It offers to geolocate me. I used it

yesterday. It says ‘I can geolocate you’. I said ‘go on then’. It took me to Siberia.

Honestly. I have a picture of it. It placed me in Siberia because it couldn’t geolocate

me. Why it couldn’t put me on the line somewhere I don’t know. Not very

user-friendly to end up in Siberia. And I don’t understand how the campaign for the

protection of rural England can put out a more useful map than HS2 themselves? Their

own maps are much more useful in terms of understanding noise and viewpoint

intrusion.

100. We’ve just had a look at the flythrough animation. I’ve looked at that and I think

that is very useful and very accessible and intelligible. I like that it indicates the

land-take for HS2, especially compared with the earlier claims that the land-take would

be less than a motorway because the truck width is narrower. However, it’s got some

disingenuous information. Some local amenities are being destroyed but on the

fly- through they’re marked as ‘habitat creation’. Well, it used to be a perfectly good

playing field but not it’s a habitat.

101. What it does do is show how much detailed design work has already been done; so

why can’t that design work be expressed on a more meaningful platform? Something

like Google Earth. I can go to Google Earth and I can see 3D representations of all the

buildings in all the cities in all the world. Why can’t I see a 3D representation on the

development of the line? I could then inspect it from all directions, all locations, all

viewpoints, all elevations and it could include other information from some of the static

maps and documents in the appropriate orientations.

102. As an alternative, there are other commercially available digital mapping or

geographical information systems. There’s a company called Esri in the middle of

Aylesbury that offer these sorts of things. They give you lots of ways of visualising and

collaborating on map data.

103. So if this information was provided in a more detailed and user-friendly and more

intelligible manner then maybe potential property buyers may be able to allay some of

their concerns.

104. Now, my petition asked really for three things: better consideration of the

17

nuisance; better mitigation including potentially rerouting the line either by moving it

side to side or up and down or otherwise ensuring the noise nuisance and visual

intrusion is minimised for instance by reducing the speed; and the third thing I asked for

was more comprehensive compensation plans because I don’t think the current

compensation arrangements are fair and equitable.

105. The final point I would like to make is if HS2 Ltd is so confident of its case, so

adamant that it has adequately dealt with all the negative consequences, why can’t we

get some kind of property value indemnity? If I buy a car, the guy I’m buying it from

doesn’t know if it’s going to break down next week. He’ll send me an indemnity so if it

does break down next week the cost is covered. So if HS2 are correct that property

values will not be blighted and will not be diminished then the indemnity will cost them

nothing.

106. And why can’t we get agreed performance levels in advance so we understand

what tests will be made during construction and operation and understand the

compensation that might be payable if and when those tests fail and nuisance is found to

occur? I’d like to understand, for instance, how many times would my sleep need to be

interrupted per day, per week or per month and still be deemed reasonable.

107. I’ve run out of things to say. I’d like to thank you for your patience in hearing my

petition. I hope you have some sympathy and agree that I’ve at least got justifiable

concerns. And I’m ready to answer any questions that I can answer or provide any

further information that I may be able to furnish you with.

108. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Mr Boniface. Mr Mould

109. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’d just like to put up P8920, if I may. The railway line

is running to the south of Aylesbury, as you will recall. It comes on to the viaduct that

the petitioner expressed concerns about. There is a 1.4 metre absorptive barrier

proposed on the northern side of the viaduct to the point shown by the cursor.

Thereafter the barrier will have parapet walls on either side we expect to be 1.4 metres.

At the moment they’re not proposed to be absorptive because if you just look to the area

to the north you will see that that area is largely occupied by industrial facilities and

therefore –

18

110. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the sewage works.

111. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the sewage works, yes. You can see the effect of

that in terms of the predicted spread of noise by the contours in the familiar way. The

petitioner’s property is, as he said, about 1.1 kilometres distance from the HS2 line

beyond the south-western corner of Aylesbury, beyond the existing railway line.

112. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you see over the Rabans Lane industrial estate

to where the viaduct will be?

113. MR BONIFACE: Not quite from my property. But I am on the peak of a low

hill. There’s a low hill and my property is kind of on the peak of it. So I’ve got clear

line of sight across the Vale of Aylesbury to the north either side but not to the site.

114. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you aren’t actually going to be able to see the

viaduct from your house?

115. MR BONIFACE: No, there will be houses in the way.

116. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the industrial estate and the factories.

117. MR BONIFACE: No, because the viaduct extends way off this map. And that’s

more the area I’m concerned about. It’s slightly more distant but it’s across the

floodplain. And my neighbourhood drops down into that floodplain and I have a

concern that that floodplain will not reverberate with the noise but there will be

opportunity –

118. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That big factory or depot or whatever it is, the very

long one, if you go from your house past the corner of that you’re some way along,

aren’t you?

119. MR BONIFACE: Sorry, I’m not quite sure –

120. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If I draw a line from your house –

121. MR BONIFACE: If you draw a line perpendicular to the line I will not see that –

122. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, no, we’ve accepted that. If I draw a line from

your house through the… If I look at P8916.

19

123. MR BONIFACE: No, I will look round that at the other end of the borough. You

can’t see it there either.

124. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So I go from your house to the top corner of that big

warehouse or factory and I’m then about 1.5 kilometres / 1.7 kilometres. Can you see

that?

125. MR BONIFACE: To the furthest extent of the viaduct, I will not have line of

sight because there are other houses in this neighbourhood.

126. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yeah. Scott End and the like.

127. MR BONIFACE: Yes.

128. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It looks like your house is one of a terrace. Or is it

semi-detached?

129. MR BONIFACE: Link-detached.

130. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Link-detached. The main frontage is facing in a

north-easterly alignment, isn’t it? Facing onto Hemmingway Road.

131. MR BONIFACE: The front of my frontage fronts north-west.

132. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Alright, north-west, facing onto Hemingway Road. And

on the other side of the road there are other link-detached properties?

133. MR BONIFACE: There are.

134. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And to the north-west there is Meredith Drive which has

dwellings on it. What have you got? Is it a two-storey dwelling?

135. MR BONIFACE: Yes.

136. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Are they two storey dwellings on Meredith Drive?

137. MR BONIFACE: They are.

138. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the height of the building, the large footprint of

which we can see beyond the railway line, is that a substantial building?

20

139. MR BONIFACE: It is.

140. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right. What do you think? Two or three storey?

141. MR BONIFACE: Yes. I’m not sure exactly.

142. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There’s quite a lot of physical features, aren’t there, on

any line of sight between your property and the railway line.

143. MR BONIFACE: They diminish as the viaduct continues to the north-west.

144. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the distance increases from your property to the

railway line.

145. MR BONIFACE: Yes.

146. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And seeing railway lines is not an unusual thing for you.

147. MR BONIFACE: I have a railway line adjacent to my house which I’m quite

pleased with because it allowed me to come here today. And will recently be expanded

so I’ll be able to go to Milton Keynes instead if I wish to.

148. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I’ve had a look at your position on the map,

Mr Boniface, and I’ve calculated that your house is about 140 metres from that railway

line.

149. MR BONIFACE: It is.

150. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Won’t you get more effects of noise from that,

particularly as you say –

151. MR BONIFACE: It’s in a very deep cutting at very low speed.

152. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Right. But you do say that the frequency of trains is

increasing.

153. MR BONIFACE: Yes.

154. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Thank you. So you haven’t measured the noise –

21

155. MR BONIFACE: I travel on that train. But, yes, you’re right, there may be

noises associated with that line –

156. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Simple question to you: are you likely to suffer more

noise consequence from that than you are from HS2?

157. MR BONIFACE: I don’t believe so.

158. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Right, okay. Thank you.

159. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just going back to P8920. I pointed out the extent of the

noise contour. As has been made clear repeatedly, and I think well understood by many

petitioners who have read their PRDs or appeared before the Committee, the logic of the

contour is to mark the extent of the spread of noise which also marks the limit of what is

predicted to be the lowest observed adverse effect level of noise; in other words beyond

the limit of the contour based on the evidence base drawn from World Health

Organisation Guidelines and so forth in the way that Mr Thornely-Taylor has explained.

160. We do not, based on experienced, predict there to be any observed adverse effects

either in terms of loss of amenity or health or any of those other factors for those

occupying properties beyond that limit. And, as you can see, Mr Boniface’s property is

very, very far beyond that limit. And so on the three asks that he puts to the Committee

which were predicated on him suffering a nuisance, our position is that on the basis of

our own evidence and our own predictions we do not predict that any nuisance will

arise; and therefore the need to remedy that nuisance by definition doesn’t arise either.

161. But in so far as he does unexpectedly experience some measureable degree of

blight in the value of his property and as a result of that is unable to sell when otherwise

he would have chosen to sell, there is a policy in existence, the Need to Sell policy,

which in principle at least he is able to call upon. I venture to suggest that, on the basis

of the evidence that the Committee has heard, he would struggle to succeed in such an

application. But that is a matter for him to pursue. The policy is in existence.

162. CHAIR: Thank you. Brief final comments, Mr Boniface. You’re allowed a final

comment.

163. MR BONIFACE: I would just be repeating myself. I believe there will be

22

opportunities or problems with noise nuisance at different times during operation of the

line.

164. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for your attendance

today. How long did the journey take for you to get in today?

165. MR BONIFACE: The Chiltern line takes an hour.

166. CHAIR: Right.

167. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could be longer.

168. MR BONIFACE: Not surprised. But of course, being equidistant, it would take

me an hour to reach the terminal for a high speed line.

Belinda Naylor, Charlie Clare, et al.

169. CHAIR: Right. We now move on to the next petitioners, Belinda Naylor and

Charlie Clare with petition 385, 386, 387, 389, 392, 393, 395, 396, 900, 1538, 1539,

1807, 1821, all to do with Chetwode.

170. Welcome. We had the Speaker in to see us yesterday afternoon who mentioned

your village which we visited memorably. Who’s going to start?

171. MR CLARE: I am.

172. CHAIR: Okay.

173. MR CLARE: Good morning, Mr Chairman and Committee. My name is Charlie

and this is my neighbour, Belinda. We’ve come to you today to represent our village of

Chetwode. Firstly, I’d like to thank you for listening to the concerns of so many people

affected by HS2.

174. Can I have our first slide up? You’ll remember your visit at the end of June.

Chetwode is a thriving and respectful community and many of the residents in

Chetwode have applied to petition this Select Committee. However, in the interests of

your time and for clarity, our community has come together to make one significant

request. Our presentation today is on behalf of all the petitioners listed on this slide,

many of whom are here today; although I must point out that 398, Fenella Brotherwood,

23

has been removed from the petition on the basis that her house has been bought by HS2

and she was under the understanding that she had to withdraw – but she does support

this presentation.

175. Next slide. I would like to thank our MP Mr Bercow’s kind words about

Chetwode when he met with you yesterday. I would also like to thank Mr Bellingham

for bringing up Chetwode’s case. He is right that a roof over an already deep cutting

would save Chetwode. I also agree with the tone of the Select Committee yesterday that

without a tunnel Chetwode will be decimated. And I thank Mr Bellingham for those

words.

176. Yesterday Mr Mould told this Committee that a green tunnel would cost

£70 million. Such a cost, I suspect, would make the majority of this presentation of this

futile. However, the cost of £70 million is for HS2’s proposal and is not the proposal

that we’ll be making today.

177. Yesterday it was apparent you wanted to help Chetwode. I could hear your heart

sink from my office in Milton Keynes when the figure of £70 million was mentioned.

Mr Mould was kind enough not to want to prejudice you anymore than he had before we

were able to make our presentation. Please bear with us while we present a different

and cheaper option.

178. The HS2 Environmental Statement makes it clear that Chetwode will be

significantly and adversely affected by the operation of HS2. To mitigate these effects,

Chetwode asks for approximately 1 kilometre of green tunnel which can also be referred

to as a ‘cut-and-cover’. We are aware that building this tunnel will create more local

disruption during the construction phase but this short-term pain for our residents is the

only way the future of Chetwode can be protected.

179. I’d like to point out that the pictures that you’re seeing here are all taken standing

on the central line of the proposed section of HS2.

180. Chetwode isn’t just a collection of old buildings. It’s a rural community as old as

England itself. The name ‘Chetwode’ comes from the Anglo-Saxon. We will show that

without a green tunnel it is not just houses that will become derelict but that a village, an

ancient community and a Grade I listed church at its centre will become unviable.

24

Chetwode will be a ghost village before the first train runs along the line.

181. I would also like to stress there’s been a misunderstanding in HS2 Ltd’s answer to

our request in the petition response documents. We are not suggesting that a tunnel is

created by lowering the line. We’ve always suggested that a rough to the existing

cuttings should be banked over the top and then landscaped to maintain as close a link to

the existing area as possible. We’re not resisting change; we’re just asking for effective

mitigation.

182. When you visited Chetwode at the end of June you saw many of Chetwode’s

residents. Chetwode has a population of 77 adults and 44 children. To give this some

comparison, at 121 inhabitants Chetwode is three times the size of our neighbours of

Radstone. Chetwode is bigger than it looks. Chetwode is an ancient farming landscape

where four separate farms will be hugely affected by HS2. When you visited you heard

about generations of children picnicking after the haymaking and flying their kites in the

fields next to the kite-shaped wood.

183. Next slide please. Sorry, can we go… I may have skipped a slide in which case

can we go to the next slide again? Apologies. We like these pictures. Much of the

farmland immediately next to Chetwode, including these fields and the kite-shaped

wood in this picture will be destroyed by HS2. And we know we’ve talked about the

kite-shaped wood but you can see it in the front of this picture here and you can see the

tail of the kite running off down to the road where the village drinking water fountain is.

184. Chetwode is an active, close and vibrant community which is obvious when you

see us together. However, on a map, Chetwode is easy to overlook.

185. Next slide please. Chetwode’s structure means that the houses are widely spaced.

As you can see from this map, you need to highlight the houses of our community to

really see it.

186. Next slide please. The original Great Central Line built by the Victorians in the

1890s has a gentle curve that was engineered to ensure that Chetwode wasn’t destroyed.

HS2 has straightened that curve for speed but we propose a way to maintain a high

speed line without destroying our village. We need a banked roof over the already

planned deep cutting.

25

187. Next slide please. This is how the current proposal will look through Chetwode.

You will see that the community will be cut in half and many of the homes will be too

close to the line to be comfortably habitable. 30 of the houses marked in this picture are

within 400 metres and 17 houses are within 100 metres of the line.

188. Next slide please? There are six reasons why HS2 will have such a severe effect

on Chetwode. Firstly, proximity. Because the proposed line runs largely parallel to the

village, almost every house in Chetwode is severely blighted.

189. Secondly, noise. As you will remember from your visit, Chetwode is incredibly

quiet. High noise levels have been predicted for Chetwode at every stage of the

planning process for HS2. The plans show that it is the worst affected village between

London and Birmingham. In the past couple of days, we have received HS2 Ltd’s latest

noise mitigation suggestions, which was also referenced by Mr Mould yesterday. Their

review analyses six options, none of which are a green tunnel. Their preferred solution

recommends higher noise barriers on just one side of the track; however, in their words,

‘This option does not remove the significant community effect at Chetwode. The report

makes it clear that this solution still leaves Chetwode with severe effects of noise, yet

HS2 are still recommending spending over £2.7 million on a solution that doesn’t work.

190. Thirdly, visual. The whole area will be dominated by the visual –

191. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: £2.7 million is the deep cutting or the…?

192. MR CLARE: No, the £2.7 million is for a raised sound barrier that runs alongside

the thing, in a deep tunnel cutting. I wish it was the tunnel.

193. Thirdly, visual. The whole area will be dominated by the visual impact of the

high-speed line. Chetwode is an ancient landscape, farmed for over 1,000 years, and

contains the remains of a historic priory. This map from 1638 shows farming

landscapes, hedge lines and field shapes haven’t changed for hundreds of years.

Chetwode Church itself is in a conservation area and is Grade I listed and will be

irreparably blighted by the line. Chetwode depends on the homes and families from

both sides of the proposed line to bond as a community. Finally, depopulation: HS2 will

sadly lead to the immediate, rapid and catastrophic depopulation of Chetwode.

26

194. Next slide please? We believe the depopulation of Chetwode will lead to the

closing of our church, as do the Church of England. We have submitted as evidence the

Church of England’s Environmental Statement response. On page 7, evidence

referenced A1477(7), Dr Joseph Elders, Church Buildings Council of the Church of

England writes about Chetwode and supports the green tunnel. As it is submitted

evidence, I won’t read it in full, but I would like to highlight his last paragraph: ‘We

urge HS2 to reconsider the option and to take it as a long-term investment

simultaneously preserving the landscape and the settlement of unusual high quality and

time depth embodied in its ancient church. The church is now vulnerable to closure and

to explain why, in more detail, and why it matters, I’d like to introduce Natalie Merry,

Senior Church Building Officer of the Diocese of Oxford.

195. MS MERRY: May I continue?

196. CHAIR: Yes.

197. MS MERRY: Thank you, I’d just like to read a brief statement about the impact

on the church and then hand back over to the petitioners from the village. This is an

exceptionally significant, Grade I historic church, as you’ve heard, at the heart of the

Chetwode conservation area. It was founded as an abbey in the 13th Century and taken

into the care of the Parish in 1460. It’s remained at the hub of the community ever

since. The fine, early English architecture with elegant lancet windows is of rare quality

and it’s comparable to the work at Worcester and Salisbury Cathedrals. The interior is

filled with architectural and artistic treasures including 13th Century wall paintings, 17th

Century woodwork, as you’ll have seen on your visit. Most famously, the lancet

windows contain rare medieval stained glass, including figures of the saints and one of

the earliest known depictions of the three lions, the arms of England, as you can see on

the presentation.

198. It’s the only public building in the village, and as such is used for public events,

such as meetings and concerts as well as the usual services. It’s always open to the

public; it has symbolic as well as historic and community significance. It’s a symbol of

the time and depth of this ancient community as Dr Ells mentioned; and of the landscape

too. It’s where the parishioners of Chetwode have been baptised, married and buried for

over seven and a half centuries. The worshipping community is a small but healthy one,

27

with per capita attendance over the national average.

199. The current proposals will render this church redundant. The community that

serves it will disappear, leaving no one willing or able to perform the tasks that keeps

buildings like these alive. There will be no one to raise funds for repairs, there’ll be no

one to clear the gutters, no one to run events; there will be no community to welcome in.

The rural peace, which is such a valued feature of this place will be destroyed.

200. If these impacts are not mitigated by a cut and cover tunnel, the church will have

to be closed. In such circumstances, there would need to be a substantial endowment for

the future repair and maintenance of the building as a monument, just as the Church of

England would expect to see in any case, where developer blight is linked directly to the

closure of a historic church. Data provided to me by English Heritage, Historic England

and the Churches Conservation Trust on comparable Grade I churches under their own

care, indicates that annual cyclical maintenance would average around £30,000, and we

should allow an additional £7,000-£10,000 as a contingency – that’s for emergency

work and for grounds maintenance. In the absence of any community from which

voluntary labour can be drawn to do this work, we would expect these costs to be met

by HS2, and at a generous return of 4%, a lump sum endowment of £1 million would be

required to produce such an annuity.

201. A short cut and cover tunnel would, we argue, be a better investment of such a

sum, greatly mitigating the long-term impact to the proposals and retaining the village,

the local community, the natural historic landscape, the church and the much valued

tranquillity this place offers. I have no hesitation in recommending it to the Committee.

202. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould, do you wish to cross-examination the witness?

203. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I don’t challenge the merits of the church at all. I

just wanted to just confirm one thing if I may? Your concerns are predicated on the

church congregation being greatly depleted as a result of the HS2 line. I assume that

that in itself is principally based on your view that the noise environment in the village

is going to be so severely compromised by the railway, that people will no longer

choose to live there?

204. MS MERRY: It’s not for me to comment on whether or not villagers choose to

28

remain there. That’s for the main petitioners. But the point that I would make is that if

those villagers do leave, if they feel that your mitigation is not sufficient, then we are

left with a church that has no officers, and has no congregation, has no income. It’s a

nationally significant monument and it will require endowment.

205. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So effectively, the community will cease to function is

your concern?

206. MS MERRY: That’s correct.

207. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you.

208. CHAIR: Is that your evidence?

209. MS MERRY: That’s my evidence.

210. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.

211. MR CLARE: Chetwode’s residents past and present are proud guardians of the

church. The community is more than an endowment; with a green tunnel, we will

continue to maintain and look after the church, its window, its three lions. For us,

Chetwode Church and the Chetwode community contain the very essence of England.

212. Next slide please? HS2 has proposed some limited mitigation that they

themselves accept does not provide an adequate solution. Initially, our preferred

alternative was to move the line away from the houses and church of Chetwode. The

obvious solution was to revert HS2 back to the original course of the Great Central Line.

However, HS2 Ltd has made it clear that the 1890s cutting is too steep a curve and will

lead to a significant slowing of the line. Indeed, when talking about moving the line, we

were told by senior route engineer, John Castle, at a meeting at HS2 offices in London

in April 2011 that a cut and cover tunnel or green tunnel would be a better solution.

213. Perhaps we were guilty of being naïve, but at that time, we came away from the

meeting really believing that as the line couldn’t be moved, a tunnel would be included

in the plans. HS2 Ltd’s sift tables show the green tunnel was turned down on the basis

of cost, but that at every other level, they would be a benefit. However, HS2 is not

factoring in that Chetwode itself is unviable under their current plans. HS2 accountants

29

may see the green tunnel as an increased short-term cost that disrupts their spreadsheets,

but it is in fact an investment in hundreds of years of Chetwode’s future, at a tiny

fraction of the cost of the overall line.

214. Next slide please? We are not engineers, but we would not be presenting this

solution if HS2 themselves had not demonstrated that it is possible and would be

effective. Indeed, we can see from HS2 Ltd’s drawings, showing the depth of the

planned cutting that a green tunnel solution is a viable option. Shortly before Mr

Bercow met you yesterday, we received HS2’s comparison document for a green tunnel

through Chetwode. This shows that their suggested 1.4km tunnel would be a benefit for

Chetwode at every level. Their proposed solution would cost £69 million, and this is the

best solution for Chetwode.

215. However – next slide? – however, our proposal is for a shorter green tunnel which

would give Chetwode 90% of the benefits at a fraction of the cost. We are aware that

the cost of a green tunnel above 1km increase dramatically due to the safety regulations

that kick in at that length. Based on the costings of a green tunnel option at Radstone

and Wendover, we think that the costings of a 1km green tunnel at Chetwode would be

between £30-40 million; indeed, as all of this green tunnel would be inside the already

planned deep cutting, we hope that the additional cost could be even less. To show how

our 1km green tunnel would work, we asked Jonathan Beller from the Vale of

Aylesbury District Council to create some plans. Crucially these plans are to the exact

same ground level as the current cutting and there is no need to lower the line. You can

see in this slide the three transepts that will show across on the next slide, and obviously

you can see the replanting of the kite shaped wood; the field next to the kite shaped

wood; and then going on towards School End.

216. Next slide please? The section with the most banking is the area that could be

replanted with the kite shaped wood. The original hedgerows could be replanted,

returning field shapes and ancient farming landscapes to the configuration that dates

back to at least 1638. Jonathan Beller is here with us today to explain his drawings in

more detail if needed, and he supports our request. It is not too late to amend the current

plans; HS2 have told us that this part of the route is only currently 10% designed. A

green tunnel through Chetwode should not cause a delay. Furthermore, a green tunnel

would not result in any more demolitions than the current deep cutting and it would not

30

require the route to be lowered.

217. Next slide please? A green tunnel is the only option that protects Chetwode and

allows the line to maintain a high speed. We would like to highlight some of the

proposed mitigation on this slide that would no longer be needed if the line is placed in a

green tunnel. A green tunnel would go in a deep cutting that is already budgeted for;

two bridges that are budgeted for will no longer be needed; the proposed sound barriers

won’t be required, saving £2.7 million; and without a green tunnel, further noise

mitigation would be essential. Less earth spoil would be needed to be removed as it can

be stored on site and then used as banking on top of the tunnel. The church won’t

require a substantial endowment to protect its future.

218. Next slide please? Not only is a green tunnel the best solution for Chetwode, it

would fit both with HS2 Ltd’s landscape design approach and the Conservative Party

manifesto commitment, and I’d like to just – I won’t read all that but would like to

highlight, ‘Landscape is more fundamentally about the complex relationship between

people and place.’ At this point I’d like to hand over to Belinda?

219. MS NAYLOR: Next slide please? Inevitably, when representing so many

separate petitions, there are various additional issues relevant to specific individual

petitioners. But, we very much hope that these are being dealt with by HS2 Ltd without

the requirement to involve the Select Committee. We would like formal written

assurances from HS2 Ltd on the following. Sue Thornhill needs a guarantee of water

supply to her home as she is not on mains water; and also protection from potential

flooding. The planned balancing ponds near her house, Watergate, may disrupt the

water table, leaving her well dry and her house prone to flooding.

220. Where the line passes Casemore Farm, it is on an embankment and viaduct.

George Gulliver requests either earth bunding or noise barriers which should be planted

up with suitable foliage and trees to minimise noise and visual effects; and to enable the

continuation of the agricultural business and the diversification enterprises at Casemore

Farm.

221. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just ask you, these additional requests: would they be

relevant if the green tunnel went ahead?

31

222. MS NAYLOR: Yes –

223. MR BELLINGHAM: They are?

224. MS NAYLOR: Yes, except the last one, when I get there. Jennifer Collins

requires there to be fully access to Manor Farmyard during construction to enable the

continuation of the agricultural business; and also a structural survey of the farmyard

which is adjacent to the line.

225. The Hermitage is extremely close to the line; and Brian Wilshere is very

concerned about the effect of the deep cutting on the foundations of this listed building.

Around his home are medieval, spring fed moats. If these become dry, it may well

undermine the foundations of the house. He has asked HS2 Ltd to undertake to do a

survey. Hopefully we have persuaded you to instruct HS2 Ltd to look again at a green

tunnel for Chetwode which would make this last point null and void.

226. Amanda Sweeting would like an assurance that, should bridges be required,

parapets on the two bridges in Chetwode should be 2.5 metres high to ensure horses and

riders can cross safely. The Select Committee have already asked HS2 Ltd to improve

their proposals on bridal ways as a result of Mixbury’s presentation earlier this year.

Our local roads are frequently used by horses; both from a large, local horse enterprise

as well as leisure riders. But currently HS2 believes roads are used by cars and horses

use bridal ways. We week the Select Committee’s endorsement that HS2 Ltd engage

with the relevant petitioners and resolve these points.

227. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s a higher level than you normally have for the

Horse Society’s recommendations going over roads?

228. MS NAYLOR: Yes, 1.8 is their recommendation, but 2.5 is what the expert at

Mixbury said is the requirement.

229. MR CLARE: Next slide please? This isn’t a campaign against high speed

railway, but Chetwode isn’t being destroyed for speed; it’s being destroyed because of

cost. To the residents of Chetwode, it is clear that HS2 has no interest in community;

already our locality is being littered with houses that HS2 and closed up, often using

security fencing and padlocks. These homes have been shut down because they are

32

uneconomically viable as rentals. HS2 is turning off the lights up and down the line and

we are genuinely fearful that this is Chetwode’s future, and question if HS2 Ltd are

really trying their hardest to find a solution that does work for Chetwode. A small rural

community is just as rare and as important as Bechstein’s bats, great crested newts and

other protected species of England’s green and pleasant lands.

230. Next slide please? You will see from the evidence we submitted in advance, our

request for a 1km green tunnel for Chetwode is supported by our local MP,

John Bercow; by Bucks County Council, by the Vale of Aylesbury District Council; by

the Diocese of Oxford and by the Church of England. We’ve submitted letters in the

evidence, from them.

231. The village of Chetwode asks the Committee for a reconsideration of a green

tunnel through Chetwode and for a detailed costing for a shorter tunnel. The short

document submitted to us and to this Committee by HS2 for a green tunnel cannot be

enough to consign a village to the history books. As the alternative is the decimation of

Chetwode, we would like to see HS2 work harder to find a viable, cost-effective

solution. We hope that we have shown that a shortened tunnel might be an affordable

option, but I am sure that the promoter’s engineers could design an even better solution

based around a roof over our already deep cutting.

232. With the green tunnel, there is no reason why the village and church won’t thrive

for another millennium, but without a green tunnel, there will be no Chetwode in five

years’ time.

233. Next slide? Please, save Chetwode with a green tunnel.

234. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed; thank you to you both. Mr Mould?

235. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to ask Mr Smart to help you in a

moment with some of the technicalities of tunnelling but just to set the scene, it may be

helpful if I just try and summarise where the issue lies. As Mr Clare –

236. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Before you do that, just to help those of us who are

thinking as you speak, is there a sheet in the papers we’ve got which gives a comparison

of what they’re asking for now, what the full 1.4 would have been and what the present

33

proposals by HS2 are?

237. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The closest you’d get to that is by comparing the slide

that you were shown via the petitioner a few moments ago, which was slide A1476(13)

and if you can just orientate yourself. The northern end of this proposal is just beneath

School End, you see there, the road going across the top. Then the southern end, you

can see is passing over the line of the green – albeit as you know, the green is proposed

under both schemes to be diverted to the north and over the tunnel – so if you can just

keep in your minds those two end points for the proposed scheme –

238. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the 1km – or the 1.4?

239. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s the 1km, that’s the petitioner’s proposal.

240. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the 1.4 would’ve gone –

241. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I can show you that now, and that is –

242. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just again – what I think was, Ms Naylor, Cubitt

Manor – is that where it says Chetwode?

243. MS NAYLOR: That is further up but in that direction, off the top of the slide.

244. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So if we go to P9022, you can keep that in your mind’s

eye, as you can see, this is HS2’s working of what it understood to be the proposal, and

this is the basis upon which the costing of about £75 million was arrived at. If you look

at the northern end, you’ll see that we’ve added in tunnel portal – that’s a porous portal,

which as you’ve had evidence before, is required in relation to tunnels, on the

specification of the high-speed railway line that we are promoting here, to deal with

noise effects from the operation of the railway through the tunnel. At the southern end,

you’ll see that our costed tunnel extends somewhat beyond the point at which the green

in its current alignment passes across the trace – when we can get the cursor on that, I’m

just showing that now – so that, if you remember, broadly speaking, was the point at

which the petitioner’s tunnel southern portal was. So ours is extended somewhat further

to the south and then we have the tunnel portal.

245. So if we were to imagine replacing this with the proposal that was outlined for you

34

by Mr Clare a few moments ago, one would need to build in – one would need to shift

the tunnel portal at the northern end to the south side of School End; and one would

need to shift the tunnel portal at the southern end, essentially just to the north of the

point at which the green passes across the trace. One would have a tunnel that I think

was about 1km in length overall, but to allow for the tunnel portals, it would be – the

actual green element if you like, would be substantially shorter than that; I think it

would probably reduce it by the order of 200-300 metres. Mr Smart will come in, in a

minute, just to explain the cost, but on our initial assessment of that, is that that proposal

is likely to reduce the costs by the order of about £20-25 million, over the £75 million

estimate. So you’re talking about a cost of about £50 million, as opposed to the cost of

about £75 million, which is included in the exhibits before you.

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The main shortening is to the south?

247. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. If you remember – I haven’t got a noise contour

map, I’m afraid, to show this, but if you remember from earlier cases, that the way in

which the noise of the operator of the railway tends to work, where you have these

relatively short lengths of tunnel, is that you get a fan out of noise at either end, at the

portal ends. So if you imagine the fan being drawn in, in the way that I’ve just

described, the fan would be, broadly speaking, over an area that passes over the green to

the north and then over the area which has got 1A – the cross-sectional point to the

south – which is the southern end. Then, at the northern end, it would fan out to extend

over the School End properties to the north and it would fan out over towards where the

Parish boundary is shown to the south. But obviously, there would be effective noise

mitigation for those properties to the north and south that lie within the main area of the

settlement to the north of the railway and those more scattered properties, including the

industrial units at Manthorn Farm, which I’m pointing out now, right at the midpoint of

the tunnel.

248. What I should just show you, because a question of visual impact was raised, was

to see to what degree there would be any appreciable difference in visual impact as

between the Bill scheme and the tunnel scheme. You can see that quite effectively from

the slides that we have. I doubt that this would be much affected by the change that I

mentioned, have just gone through. So if you look at the position, firstly, under the Bill

scheme. If we can turn to P9017? You notice – this is just to orientate you by reference

35

to the cross-sections. I think it would probably be helpful if I could ask you just to note

cross-section 5; and just to add a bit of flesh – a name that was mentioned during the

course of the presentation was the Hermitage. The Hermitage is the property that is just

about on the – just literally beyond the arrow at 5B. So you can see just where that is.

249. MR BELLINGHAM: Which houses have been bought by HS2?

250. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We have bought a property, Rosehill Farm, which is – if

the cursor can just go up beyond the new road works? My recollection is it’s just

around in this area here? Sunflower Farm, yes. It’s a little further south, then, to

Rosehill Farm. I will come back to those properties a little later, if I may, because I can

help you a little with what’s happening with those properties. Cross-section 5, if you

can just note that; and also cross-section 2, running on a diagonal, running northwest-

southeast across the line.

251. If we turn, then, to 9018? Cross-section 2A, you get a sense of the – you’re

looking southwards now, towards the section and you can see – so we have –

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is ‘A’ where the church is or is ‘B’ where the

church is?

253. MR MOULD QC (DfT): ‘A’ is where the church is, broadly speaking. So, you’re

looking southwards, through the village and through the line, and you can see that

there’s a substantial area of mounding on the northern side of the railway line, in order

to provide visual and aural screening to the railway; less so on the south, but that’s an

area which is, at that point, is pretty much rural countryside.

254. Then if you turn on to page 9020, and you can see here that here the Hermitage is

the building that is shown – you’re now looking northwards, so we’ve reversed the

angle of view. The Hermitage is the building just at the right-hand side of the cross-

section. You see then, the railway line, and the mounding here is largely to the south.

The reason for that is straightforward; instead of mounding here, we’ve proposed

landscape screening to the Hermitage. The Hermitage is a listed building, and the desire

was to avoid impinging, encroaching visually more than we needed to on the setting of

that building. I should say, straight away, if you assume that under either scheme – that

is to say, under the Bill scheme or under the proposed tunnel scheme, there would be a

36

choice to be made at that point as to whether you should sacrifice to some degree the

visual setting of that listed building to an improved noise performance. That, obviously,

would be particularly the case under the Bill scheme. You can see that if we turn back

to P9017. The Hermitage, as I pointed out to you, you can see there’s a gap in the bunds

to the north and south. Essentially, if it were felt that it were more desirable to fill in

that gap and to pay the price of greater visual impact on the setting of the building in

order to achieve greater noise mitigation then that could be done under the powers of the

Bill. We don’t believe that that would give rise to any additional significant

environmental effect.

255. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, you’re talking about the Hermitage, which is

‘5’ –

256. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 5, yes. 5B. I’d just point that out to you because it’s

something you will have noticed in what is otherwise a continuous and substantial noise

bund along the north side of the line here; there’s a gap in it at that point.

257. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes.

258. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And I’ve explained the reason for that. Then, coming

back to my comparison, let’s go to the slides which show the tunnel scheme, and at

P9022, we saw a few minutes ago, you’ll see that we have cross-sections 1 and 2 which

correspond to cross sections 2 and 5 that I showed you a few moments ago in relation to

the Bill scheme. If we turn to page 9023 we can see the corresponding –

259. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is yesterday’s proposal, the 1.4?

260. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, but as far as 5 is concerned, no change. In so far as

section 1 is concerned, the tunnel would be pulled back a little. So on 1A at the top,

instead of having the covered tunnel here, you’d have bunding on either side. Then the

approach, the porous portal, approaching the south side of the green tunnel. On 2,

which corresponds to our section 5, you can see that if you imagine the Hermitage at

about this point, where – it’s not been shown unfortunately, but you can imagine that –

261. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You stick a mound in?

262. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You stick a mound in. So visually, there’s not a great

37

deal of difference, actually, between the two. There would be quite a significant linear

feature along the western side of the settlement under either the Bill scheme or the

tunnel scheme. So what it comes down to, then, is a relatively straight choice between

improved noise mitigation which would flow from the tunnel to the centre of the village

– which comes at a cost of at least £50 million – and the –

263. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, not at least £50 million. £50 million is your

estimate?

264. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. That’s the only figure there is at the moment.

265. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It wasn’t the figure I was challenging; it was the

words you put in front of it.

266. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right, well I’m happy to say our estimate, yes. That, as

against the improved noise environment, albeit one that still leaves significant effects;

they are reduced with the application of the £2.7 million package of noise mitigation

measures that the petitioner kindly referred to during the course of their presentation.

267. Now, at that point, if I can ask Mr Smart to come in, just to add a few more details

on the tunnelling side, and then if I may, I’ll just conclude by showing you where the

residual impacts remain with the additional noise mitigation that we have put forward.

268. MS NAYLOR: Am I allowed to ask one question on that?

269. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Don’t ask; just ask the question.

270. MS NAYLOR: So, in the evidence that was submitted for the costings for

yesterday’s green tunnel, it was £69 million, apparently. Today, overnight, the inflation

seems to have taken it up to £75 million, and I just wondered where the £6 million had

come from, the difference?

271. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The figure I have, on P9021(7) is £75 million,

approximately?

272. MR CLARE: Can I ask when that was submitted as we haven’t got it?

273. MS NAYLOR: We were submitted £69 million, I’m afraid.

38

274. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Mr Smart is the man –

275. CHAIR: You do get the opportunity to ask Mr Smart some questions in a

moment.

276. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Smart, I think the first thing is just to make sure that

I’ve got things, I hope, broadly correct, with the technicalities. If we turn to A1476(13)?

277. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Back in the petitioner’s bundle?

278. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There we go, thank you. Just help us with the

components of a tunnel. This is your starting point, that you’re being asked to reduce

the tunnel to a length, so that the overall length of the tunnel as an engineering feature is

no more than 1km, I think?

279. MR SMART: Yes.

280. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What would that entail in terms of the main elements of

the tunnel in question?

281. MR SMART: Well, as the Committee have heard me give evidence on before,

one of the most important things for us in designing a tunnel which is an enclosed space

over the railway, is to deal with the aerodynamics and the air pressure. So if we were to

look at the petitioner’s proposal of saying, they only want a –

282. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What you’re going to say to us is the cost of the

portal remains the same, which is a significant part; and what you’re reducing is the bit

in between?

283. MR SMART: Correct, Sir Peter. So that you’d end up with, effectively, under the

petitioner’s proposal as I understand it, about a 600 metre length of fully enclosed

tunnel, with 200 metres either end where you would have to have some sort of venting

capability via the porous portal.

284. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you don’t reduce the costs of the whole thing by

the proportion you reduce the length, because you’ve got the two fixed elements, the

portals.

39

285. MR SMART: Yes. If we were to reduce to 1km for the whole of the

construction, which includes the portal, clearly there would be a saving on that. I think

Mr Mould has already mentioned that one, in the order of £50 million, etc. But of

course, the important thing is that when you are enclosing a railway in a tunnel – I think

I’ve mentioned before – you do need the free air space to deal with the train entering

that cell. So we know that we need 53 square metres of free air – which gives you a

minimum size of the cell that the train has to go in, of 7 metres wide, and 8 metres high.

And of course, you need two of those. Then, of course, because you’re in an enclosed

space, you’ve also head before about you need the central wall for the aerodynamics and

you also need to have walkways, etc. That pushes out the width of the trace by a couple

of metres. So the whole construction becomes more complicated; you of course then

introduce systems such as fans either end to deal with the smoke; and you have to have

access roads down at either end. So these are all things that you’ve heard me talk about

before, about how you accumulate cost when you start to enclose a rail in the form of a

tunnel.

286. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would this sort of tunnel, would it make much

difference if you did it with diaphragm walling or if you did it with a cutting?

287. MR SMART: Yes, the diaphragm walling has the advantage of reducing the land

take in the temporary state, because you don’t need to have the slide select cuttings.

You can possibly slide cuttings because they only have to stand for a shorter period of

time than the final slope, but nevertheless, you still need to do that. But of course, that

then is a more expensive construction solution, so we have costed this on the basis of the

more economic cost, of actually forming an open cut for a section; we then cast the

structure that forms the two cells of the tunnel and then you backfill and then you move

along, similar to evidence I think you heard at Wendover.

288. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And if I may ask one more question: were there to

be a cut and cover extended green tunnel or tunnel, being able to use earth on it, does

that make much difference to costing?

289. MR SMART: Well it would depend on the quality of that material and whether it

would have to be taken away and disposed of, or whether we could use it in mitigating

earthworks. Of course, to keep the cost down, we would aim to reuse that material

40

locally, and backfill. You would have to have some kind of drainage arrangement and

structural field directly around the structure, but certainly on the top and around it, you

would aim to use the material that you used to create the space for the tunnel.

290. MR BELLINGHAM: Mr Chairman, I was just going to ask about the savings that

you would make from having, obviously, forgoing the mitigation that’s planned. Have

you done any detailed analysis of that? Because Mr Mould did mention a number of

proposed mitigations?

291. MR SMART: Well I will check for you. But the assumption we have used here is

that we have not costed in taking the material away and disposing of it. We’re looking

at reusing it locally, and I will double-check that point on cost.

292. MR BELLINGHAM: But how about the sound barriers, for example? We’ve

heard that they were going to be around about £2.7 million, didn’t we, for a raised sound

barrier?

293. MR SMART: Right, the costs that we have calculated for the tunnel is basically

the civil engineering element. So, there would be potentially a further reduction if we

weren’t to do any enhancements to the noise barriers that are in the proposed scheme.

294. MR BELLINGHAM: With respect, that’s quite vague. Would it not make sense if

HS2 went away and had a look at this proposal? What I’d like to see would be a fully

costed, fully detailed analysis done, and that doesn’t appear to have happened?

295. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What I had planned to say, and Mr Smart will confirm

this, is that we have netted off the cost of the Chetwode cutting and the civils associated

with that; we’ve netted off the cost saved of providing a green overbridge to take the

route across the middle of the village; and also, netted off the cost of the School End

overbridge. The figures I have do not net off the £2.7 million of additional expenditure

on noise mitigation that had been mentioned. So if you allow for netting that off, let’s

say, for the sake of being robust, you net off £5 million for planting and so forth, you’re

still left with an additional net cost of some £45 million, assuming that you’ve been able

to reduce the cost by reducing the length of the tunnel. Of course, we can confirm those

costings in writing to the petitioners and to the Committee, but that’s the ‘order of’ that

you would be looking for. It might be said you’ll save some costs of holding property

41

that would otherwise not need to be acquired by the scheme – and that may very well be

right. But again, given that we’re talking about a very few properties which will have a

resale value, that cost is unlikely to be anything like approaching the sort of net overall

costs that we put before you today.

296. MR BELLINGHAM: I accept that, obviously, but it all adds up. You’ve got also

the cost of the endowment of the church that the Diocese of the Church of England, and

the Bishop have been very vocal in their support of the church. I would imagine that if

the proposals go ahead as they are, there would have to be some reasonable endowment

for the church. Has that been looked at and costed?

297. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The church – I mean, clearly, the concerns raised by the

witness who gave evidence on behalf of the church, if they were realised, then I can see

that there would be a case in the public interest for some intervention of that kind, not

least because, as we’ve heard from earlier petitioners, it’s important that this project

should not lead to the irreversible deterioration of a Grade I listed building, which is I

think the main point of concern that’s being raised. But the project’s position is that,

albeit there will be a residual noise impact on a few properties, and there will be a

residual impact on the community – because the noise environment will undoubtedly

change here – no one is denying that. That isn’t – we suggest that one can be more

sanguine about the prospect of the community surviving that change, as a thriving

settlement. The noise environment will be different; there will be a railway line running

to the south but it will still be a viable settlement.

298. MR BELLINGHAM: That’s not what John Bercow said yesterday.

299. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well I know, but these are matters of judgement, aren’t

they, and we invite you to take a different view.

300. MR HENDRICK: Can I ask what the population is of Chetwode?

301. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 77 plus 44 isn’t it?

302. MR CLARE: Yes, 77, plus 44 children. But we’re working on increasing that!

So it’s 121 in total.

303. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Smart, I said that we’d done an estimate of around

42

£50 million, net subject to those points that I had a helpful exchange with Mr

Bellingham. Can you just help the Committee, have I got that about right?

304. MR SMART: That is about right; clearly we’ve always said to the Committee that

we would need to do a bottom-up estimate on the final design to get a better cost, but I

think that’s a very good indication of the kind of cost that we’re looking at.

305. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t know if there are any questions.

306. CHAIR: You also mentioned that £2.7 million of additional noise mitigation?

Would that include filling in the gap in the bund?

307. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, that’s not assumed as part of that; so that would be

an extra cost. So, £2.7 million, plus the cost of doing that.

308. CHAIR: And do you have any sound contours at all for this area or not?

309. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I can show you those.

310. CHAIR: Yes, can we have a look at the sound contours before we –

311. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If we compare – do you want me to do that now?

312. CHAIR: Yes please.

313. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If we can put up P9185(18)? If we can just blow that up

a bit? Can we go just a bit more? This is the sound contour for the Bill scheme, so this

is before you spend the £2.7 million. You can see – just a point to orientate yourself –

314. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: School End is –

315. MR MOULD QC (DfT): School End is here, the church is this property here. So

it’s just on the point of the LOAEL contour, you see there? You can see – if you can

just note that point – so the church is a useful point – the church marks the outward

extent of the LOAEL contour under the Bill scheme.

316. If we go then to P9185(21)? We can blow that up? This is the change in the

contour, assuming in the £2.7 million expenditure on enhanced noise mitigation. The

church, as you can see – I’m just pointing it out now – the church is now well outside

43

the LOAEL contour. So the LOAEL contour which is on the north side, is the key side I

think from the point of view of the village, has been drawn in quite significantly as a

result of the provision of that enhanced noise barrier.

317. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s a gradient so you could’ve gone from, say,

57 down to 53?

318. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, but it’s still –

319. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s a reduction.

320. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s a reduction, yes. And that translates into a reduction

for individual affected properties and you can see that by going back to page 16 of this

sequence, P9185(16), if you see option 1, Bill scheme, 13 major impacts; eight

moderate, minor nil, total 21. Dwellings above LOAEL, 21. Option 4, just down the

page, major impacts reduces from 13 to five; moderate remains at eight; minor and then

total of dwellings above LOAEL is reduced from 21 to 13. There you see the figure of

£2.697 million just in the box there. Of those properties which remain above LOAEL,

those which remain the most severely affected, one is Rosehill Farm which the project

has bought. One is the Hermitage which mentioned a few minutes ago, where there’s an

opportunity if it were felt appropriate to continue the noise bunding which would reduce

the scale of impact on that property. The properties at School End continue – are

predicted to continue to experience a moderate adverse impact.

321. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are those owner-occupiers or are those tenanted?

322. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that question.

323. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They’re owner-occupied.

324. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So they would be entitled to make a claim under Part 1

of the Land Compensation Act in due course.

325. Sunflower Farm is another of the most – one of the properties that remains most

severely affected which I think we have bought, haven’t we? Which again, is now

owned by the project. The church is now outside LOAEL, and although the noise

environment in the church would change, there would be an increase of 6dB by day, and

44

4dB by night, it would remain below the LOAEL contour at 48dB and 40dB

respectively.

326. So you can see that although it doesn’t – as Mr Clare rightly pointed out – it

doesn’t remove the significant effects and certainly it doesn’t remove the significant

community effect. At the price of £2.7 million you do get quite a significant reduction

in the scale of impact, over and above that which was reported in relation to the Bill

scheme. That does leave it, as I suggest to the Committee – it does leave one with really

a quite straightforward judgement. Should one spend the extra £40-45 million,

whatever it may be – but certainly of that order on our estimate – in order to remove

those remaining impacts; or is the right balance to leave matters as they are, knowing of

course that under our noise policy, under IPE20 – I’m afraid it’s becoming a bit of a

repetitive point from me – that the task of continuing to seek ways of improving the

performance of the railway is not one that finishes here. We continue, through the

detailed design, to see where we can provide further mitigation through design or,

indeed, through the provision of noise insulation and so forth.

327. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask one or two questions, and I don’t want

what I’m going to say to indicate that you’re going to get what you’re after. First of all,

just getting the ground clear: if we had, roughly, a kilometre covered area, tunnel,

bridge, does that include any roads or footpaths or is it just across working farms?

328. MS NAYLOR: It’s two roads and two footpaths.

329. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Now, switching to the promoters. I think what

we’ve heard is not just the noise, or other environmental impact; it’s the fact it cuts a

community and the impact of that on the community – including in that, the church – is

what’s the big worry. It’s a change in the nature of the Parish, in effect, and the Parish

Church in support for it. There are some things of immense family value which we have

to note, but may not be dominant like the happy wood, the memorial wood – the kite

wood. We’ve had from Mr Smart the clear reminder that if you go for an extended

tunnel, bridge, that some costs are fixed and some are variable. I think if we were to say

the promoter should be thinking more firmly about this, it would be quite useful both for

this place and for other areas where some of these things may be asked for, to ask how

the breakdown of an extended bridge/tunnel come up. I think that it would also be

45

pretty good for us, as an illustrative example, how the cost of spoil comes into the

calculation. At present, we’ve got a lot of earthworks to put the line so it doesn’t have

too much impact on the sound to those nearby.

330. So I think that we ought to ask, not for a completely detailed working up of a

scheme, and not only keeping it to 1km: saying if you went from, say, a green tunnel

which didn’t have to have portals – a green bridge which didn’t have portals, to extend

to the extent it becomes a tunnel, which does have portals, what the gradient of cost and

the gradient of benefit might be. Not going beyond the 1km that has been suggested by

the petitioners, but I’m wondering if it might be possible for the promoters to say they

could do some work. I think the issue has been put to us and has been put very clearly,

and if I may say, it’s been a model of bringing together the various people who could

have been enjoying their time here over the days! I think Mr Clare and Belinda Naylor

have given us the points that matter; I think what we might find helpful is to get

something back from the promoters on a pretty technical level as to what sort of – how

the costs do begin to change not for today, but I think it would be helpful to us in the

coming weeks. None of this should be taken as us saying we can get a green bridge, but

it would at least give us the opportunity of knowing what the issues are.

331. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We can certainly do that, and I’ll ask for that work to be

commissioned.

332. Can I just come back on a couple of things without wishing to prolong matters?

On the community impact, I very much understand that point. I have no doubt that,

equally, the petitioners will accept that the scheme proposes to reinstate the physical

connections between the main heart of the community to the north, and those parts of

the community to the south, through the provision of overbridges and so forth. We’ve

looked at the relatively comparable visual impact that would flow both from the Bill

scheme and from the tunnel scheme. So I think it does reduce down to the fact that,

clearly, there is more of a physical barrier – certainly in perception terms – if you have

the railway in quite substantial cutting, because there isn’t a lid on it; and the alternative,

current proposal. But it does very much focus one down onto the through that, really,

the key environmental factor one had to identify is the question of noise and I’ve made

my point about that.

46

333. The other thing I was just going to say; you were shown a slide of a property

which I think was Pheasant Cottage, A1476(17). That’s a property that was acquired by

the promoter in 2011; it isn’t presently let and the reason for that is there’s a water

supply problem with that property – those are my instructions, I’m assuming they’re

right, and that works are being undertaken by Anglian Water, and then it will be – the

intention is to put it back on the market. But as you know, our policy is to look to let

properties that do come within our ownership, so that they are being looked after and

indeed, four properties which have been acquired by the project in this settlement:

Bridal Cottage, Rosehill Farmhouse, Old Stable Cottage and 3 School End, those are all

currently let.

334. CHAIR: Okay. Yes?

335. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes, just a couple more points. Has any analysis been done

of the number of residents who might apply for Need to Sell? Obviously, it would

appear to me that the community has put a lot of effort behind this alternative proposal

and, if I may say so – this is not to indicate that the community will necessarily get what

they want – but I think that what they have done is come up with – a lot of communities

come to us and they’ve said, ‘We don’t want this, our whole community is against it’.

But they haven’t come up with an alternative, a costed alternative. This isn’t fully

costed yet, but it’s moving in that direction. I think that’s positive that the community

have done that. But has any analysis been done as to the number of people in the

village, who the community would try and apply for Need to Sell? Obviously, there’s

quite a few houses; we saw the stars on the map the number of houses within this

distance, and you could have – as well as the ones which obviously are going to be

immediately blighted and those that you’ve had to buy already – there may be others

who will come forward, if the alternative proposal doesn’t go through?

336. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I don’t think an analysis has been done at that

level of granularity, if you will excuse that term, precisely for the reason that the

government – the promoter is not looking to encourage people. What we do know, the

government certainly has a working budget for the likely exposure to compensation

under these projects but that’s on a route-wide basis. I don’t have that figure at my

fingertips. But what I can say is that one of the objectives of continuing to examine

ways in which we can improve the mitigation of the effect of the railway in operation,

47

such as the noise mitigation review that you’ve been shown today, is to encourage

people to feel that, actually, the effects of the railway are not likely to be as severe as

they may otherwise have imagined.

337. MR BELLINGHAM: That of course, is a subjective point of view. Take the case

of the owner of the house, it may be that they cannot sell. That’s a fact.

338. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The answer to your question is, I don’t have a figure;

there hasn’t been such a review at that level of specificity. I’d have thought that one

would need to think very carefully about conducting the kind of survey that might be

necessary because some people might regard that as quite intrusive to ask that question.

339. CHAIR: Mr Clare, do you have any questions of Mr Smart, the witness?

340. MR CLARE: Yes, we do. Is it acceptable to ask questions of Mr Mould and Mr

Smart simultaneously?

341. CHAIR: You can ask questions of the witness; Mr Mould doesn’t have to answer

your questions particularly but no doubt he will try and be helpful. But mainly, they’re

directed at the witness, please?

342. MR CLARE: So, Mr Smart, we were slightly caught out that yesterday, Mr

Mould mentioned that the price of this tunnel was £70 million – overnight, that has

inflated to £75 million. Can you tell us specifically what that £5 million that has

grown –

343. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I said yesterday, ‘About £70 million’ –

344. MR CLARE: And we were sent £69 million?

345. MR SMART: I didn’t prepare the slides so I can’t be precise but I think I

understand probably what the cause of that is. When, of course you’re doing tunnels, as

I’ve already mentioned and there is the civil engineering cost and then there is the

systems cost. Of course, that has to be assessed by different engineers, so I suspect that

what has happened, is when you were given the first cost, is was the cost of the civil

engineering work to actually create that tunnel; and it didn’t include the railway systems

that would also be required to be put in that tunnel. We can confirm that point, but I

48

would venture to suggest that is what that is.

346. MR CLARE: So, was the first proposal that was sent through to us, after we were

asked to submit our evidence, which we received on Monday morning, saying £70

million, was that a fully thought-through costing?

347. MR SMART: It’s fully thought-through in terms of how we understand the

scheme but of course, I think we did say, this was an approximate cost on the slide.

Clearly we can, you know, do further and more detailed costings and we can look at that

but I think what we were trying to do was give a sense of proportion and a cost that was

the order of a cost that would be attributable to a scheme such as this. And as we go

forward with a detailed design, we always that our costs will change, as we discover

things change. But, I think it was a very good indication of that sort of level of cost

increase for the scheme proposed.

348. MR CLARE: Is it possible that, as you think about this proposal more, and factor

in other mitigations, that the cost could start decreasing rather than just increasing as it

is currently?

349. MR SMART: Well, I think the costs would decrease if we just start to reduce the

length of tunnel of course. But one should say, and in a way it’s perhaps a precursor to

the question raised by Sir Peter, is that there are certain hard spots along a tunnel where

you actually fundamentally click into a different order of costs, for example under 500

metres, you don’t need so much equipment at either end of the tunnel. And there is as

an order of cost that accumulates on going from 500 metres and more. And of course,

the other thing is, I should just say that it isn’t always straight forward to reduce a tunnel

and do away with portals, because of course, you haven’t then got the distance to

mitigate the air pressure as you go into the enclosed space. It is quite a complicated

analysis and it does take some time to actually get to understand these things in the

detail that I know everybody would like us to get to. But that is an order of design that

is in our next stage. But I think what we have got, and we can certainly look at, by a

variation of length, to give you the kind of order of cost decreases that we might be able

to.

350. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the question, which may be in his mind to ask

next, is to say roughly what length does a green tunnel become something that needs a

49

portal?

351. MR SMART: Well, it’s probably substantially less than would satisfy the – we

are in a –

352. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, no we recognise that, one question is then, say

if you had a 100 metre green tunnel, you don’t need portals for that, or you don’t need

serious portals for that.

353. MR SMART: It does depend on the height of the structure. Because if it’s high

and it’s a very –

354. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Enclosed.

355. MR SMART: Yes, that free area, as I said, lower structures, even though they

might be shorter width, can still be problematic to deal with that air pressure. If it is

higher ridges do – so, if you were to say raise that up and create that free space it

becomes less of an issue. Where you do get, of course, is more of an intrusion above

what was the cutting, is now an enclosed space.

356. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And also, how close together can you have green

tunnels, green bridges I mean?

357. MR SMART: Well I think the distance is, if you’ve got under the European code,

if you’ve got a gap of I think it’s about less than 50 metres, you are regarded as one

tunnel. That is actually is – our problem with that is not so much compliance as with

any European code, it would be the aerodynamics.

358. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There’s a reason for it.

359. MR SMART: Yes.

360. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Clare.

361. MR CLARE: Can I just ask the Committee we are aware that the division bell has

gone and –

362. CHAIR: It’s prayers.

50

363. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s just people trying to escape, we haven’t lost

anybody else.

364. MR CLARE: Thank you. I will still keep it short. Is it possible to bring up either

of the maps will do, that show the proposed green tunnel, either us or HS2’s. So, when

Mr Mould was talking about this, he was keen to point out that obviously by shortening

it means that one or other of the portals will have to move. And we talked about the

south portal, which of course moving it away will reduce the protection.

365. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s the other side.

366. MR CLARE: The north, sorry, the other way round.

367. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which one are you talking about?

368. MR CLARE: The north, the one on the left. Sorry about that. So, we were

talking about potentially moving that portal, which would, of course, increase the effects

on the houses at School Road. It never occurred to us to move that portal. Is there any

reason why that portal will be the one that should move, and not one that is away from

residential areas on the site?

369. MR SMART: There is always an engineering solution I’m sure Mr Clare, the

question is how you achieve it and the cost. But I think you could probably – we could

configure a portal there and shorten it from the other end, I am sure.

370. MR CLARE: Just to reiterate, I think the Chetwode point of view, with no doubt

Mr Mould suggesting moving it that way, but of course that would increase the negative

blight within Chetwode. We were always suggesting moving the other side where there

is less population.

371. MR BELLINGHAM: On the map there is a row of houses in School Road, how

many houses are in that road there?

372. MR CLARE: There is eight.

373. MR BELLINGHAM: Eight houses?

374. MR CLARE: Yes.

51

375. MR BELLINGHAM: And looking in the other direction, you’ve got Sunflower

Farm and you’ve got Manthorn Farm.

376. MR CLARE: Yes, you’ve obviously got Manthorn Farm, Sunflower Farm is, as

obviously been mentioned by Mr Mould, has been bought and is currently empty. He

tends to mention that when these houses are owned by HS2 that kind of alleviated some

of the problem, but of course as a community, we would like those houses back. We

need people in them to support our community. And then obviously we have two

houses that are always going to be on the grain, that are always going to be under the

line; that’s unfortunate. And then further of we have Rose Hill, which under HS2’s

proposal is adjacent to the south portal, so again won’t benefit hugely from their tunnel

benefits; I think the tunnel will have to be even longer to give them significant benefits.

So, and I don’t know logistics of the engineering portal and how that would affect them,

but certainly moving it away from there won’t change things enormously for them.

377. Mr Mould, is it appropriate to talk about actually I will come back to that. I want

to go to that. Could I ask –

378. MS NAYLOR: Yes, that is P9023. Our witness pointed out that there doesn’t

appear that in the cross-sections that HS2 provided, showing the height of the buns, that

the track level appeared to be raised.

379. MR CLARE: Sir, it’s actually the diagram where we can see the banking of the

buns over it from HS2’s –

380. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Was it the one with the private sections?

381. MS NAYLOR: Sorry, 9023 is what we’re after, rather than 9020, sorry, that’s

diction.

382. MR CLARE: Mr Smart, the question is: are those cross-sections at the same

ground level as the proposed line in the Bill?

383. MR SMART: Yes, we’ve kept the alignment for track level the same so what

you’ve got there is how we can deal with that as a proposal with the covering over.

384. MR BELLERS: Sorry, to raise a point, it’s worth going to look over the sections

52

that were produced in the slide, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten the number.

385. MS NAYLOR: Slide A1476(12).

386. MR BELLERS: The middle section there, is essentially in the same position as I

understand it. And that’s the superimposition and you can actually just make it out, on

that central, you can see that actually what I’ve done is superimpose on top of the HS2

section, the box section actually taken from the Wendover green tunnel, so it’s exactly

the same level. And if you look at that box compared to the box that’s shown on the

section that you’ve just looked at, relative to the existing ground level, they look

completely different to me. So, I’m a little concerned that it seems to me to be an

inconsistency there.

387. MR SMART: It is your slide and I have to –

388. MR BELLERS: Yes, that is drawn on top of your section.

389. MR SMART: Yes well they may be, but they are your slides so –

390. MR BELLERS: They are your sections.

391. MR SMART: We would have to check what you’ve drawn on top etc. so I can’t

comment. I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making, notwithstanding the fact

that you’re saying there seems to be a level discrepancy.

392. MR BELLERS: But there was a point made earlier on that there was a height of

the ground level over the top of the box would be quite a lot higher, and if you looked at

the section that we looked at a moment ago, that wasn’t made at all.

393. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That wasn’t the point that was made at all, I think I said

that –

394. MR SMART: That the impact would be likely to be probably comparable.

395. MR CLARE: Where we are concerned and where we would like to have

clarification is that we’re worried that the cross-section supplied by HS2 may not be

where the tunnel is at ground level. And if we can go back to – and that increase, the

banking of the – above it, and we’re just nervous that as this report seems to be ever

53

changing, and frankly seems to have been slightly rushed; that there may be errors in

there.

396. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, it’s neither rushed nor ever changing, but I’m

anxious that people shouldn’t feel that information is not being accurately presented, so

we will check the accuracy of those cross-sections on P9023, and if there is anything

wrong with them we will report back. If there is no report back you can take it that we

are in fact satisfied that they are accurate.

397. MR CLARE: What I would say about this cross-section there is that there is

probably insufficient depth of material above the tunnel. I understand you are trying to

keep it low, but when I look at, certainly what you have got there, the scale, there is

probably insufficient depth to get the various –

398. MR BELLERS: The series is covered by HS2 that –

399. MR CLARE: What, on all of these?

400. MR SMART: We’ll check it anyway.

401. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And it sounds a rhetorical conversation, to hear

what people are actually saying, whether they actually agree or not or whether it is

necessary or not is a separate issue.

402. MR BELLERS: I think the other point to stress is that this is not a design, a

properly designed tunnel, it’s actually taking information that you’ve provided, and

we’re actually suggesting you’re perfectly capable of designing probably a much more

efficient structure than is being shown here we’re inviting you to do that. We don’t

have the expertise, and I’m sure you can come up with a much cheaper and more

effective solution that covers some of the problems that Mr Mould has been –

403. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Whilst it’s helpful for Aylesbury District Council to

come in again and make their case, but I –

404. MR BELLERS: We’re here –

405. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve made our position clear on this point.

54

406. CHAIR: Any questions Mr Clare, on this point?

407. MR CLARE: It may not be an issue but –

408. CHAIR: Okay then we will go to –

409. MR CLARE: Is it appropriate to talk about noise levels at this point Mr Smart?

410. MR SMART: I am not a noise expert, so I am not sure that I will be able to –

411. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Ask the questions if you want and we will take the

points and you can either respond or not, as you view this.

412. MR CLARE: But you’re not a noise expert.

413. MS NAYLOR: Okay, what we kind of like the tone that maybe you would ask

HS2 to go away and look at this again; and if they did would we then have the right to

come back and discuss it after they’ve looked at it, and come back.

414. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The answer is probably not.

415. CHAIR: Otherwise we would be going around in circles, hearing thousands of

other petitions. I think what we’re asking for a little bit more detail of costing, because

we don’t think HS2 has done enough costing. You’ve raised enough issues for us to

want to look at the costings, it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to do the tunnel,

but there seem to be a range of options here, which we may have to dwell on. Any more

questions on engineering really?

416. MS NAYLOR: No.

417. MR CLARE: No, thank you very much.

418. CHAIR: Okay, any final comments before we move towards the other –

419. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I should just touch on the other matters that were raised

regarding farm access and so forth. There have been exchanges, which I think have

been broadly positive in relation to that, between Ms Naylor and Ms Gillan in relation to

– in our petition management.

55

420. MS NAYLOR: There is a little further to go.

421. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There is a little further to go, but I am not going to take

time now because things have been moving in the right direction and hopefully we can

reach an accommodation without the need to trouble you with those matters, we

certainly don’t need to trouble you with them now.

422. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think, just to clear up before Ms Naylor winds up,

the issues are not just the straight noise contours, they are not just the straight

separations. It’s actually the effect on the community and whether it is somewhere in

between what the process is composed and what would have been the 1.4 or the 1

kilometre, which might make a difference and might be acceptable as – to this

Committee.

423. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I understand.

424. CHAIR: Brief final comments?

425. MR CLARE: Yes, I mean I would just like to sum up by saying we’ve looked at

the other noise mitigation slides, and the six options that were presented there. In the

right hand column of that slide, I don’t know if it’s worth bringing up, just whether there

are compares, and I can say briefly, and you’ve got it, I think, but –

426. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 918516 I think is probably the chart, 9185(16).

427. MR CLARE: Yes, so on the right-hand column there it clearly says, ‘significant

effect/removal?’ The options there presented don’t help Chetwode, and we appreciate

that noise mitigation is something that needs to be looked at, but unfortunately they’re

not going to help the community. We are sorry that we have to keep looking at a green

tunnel, but it is the only option that is going to hold us. Mr Mould clearly was talking

about visions of sight from the Hermitage, explaining how there is a gap there and you

wouldn’t be able to see the line from that point. Well, there will be lots of points in

Chetwode where you won’t see the line. But that is not the point of having a line going

straight through your village, and a green tunnel is the only solution, and we thank you

for being very receptive and we hope you can help.

428. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed to both of you. We now move on to – we

56

are going to have a break for five minutes. Order, order. Then we’re going to have

1341 Steeple Claydon Parish Council and Edi Smockum.

Sitting suspended

On resuming—

Steeple Claydon Parish Council

429. CHAIR: Order, order. We now hear petition 1341, Steeple Claydon Parish

Council and we have Edi Smockum and her witness.

430. MS SMOCKUM: Thank you very much and thank you again to the Committee.

You maybe remember I’ve already made an appearance on behalf of Bucks County

Council, today I’ve got with me a witness, Mr Joseph Hodges. Joseph is a third

generation farmer who is also on the Parish Council at Steeple Claydon, and he’s going

to assist me during the course of our chat. I’m going to make it very brief today,

because I know that you’ve already seen me and you have had some representation

about the station, which of course, is our chief ask from other people, including Bucks

County Council and ABDC.

431. To reiterate, our asks are for the station. We would like some reassurances on

construction traffic, because, as you realise, we are going to be inundated during the

build. We would like to talk a bit about the visual impact of the IMD. We’d like to

look at the noise and light pollution and we’d like to give our support to parishes like

Calvert Green and ask for safer cycle paths and walkways between the villages and

Steeple Claydon, because I think I made the point last time that Steeple Claydon is very

much a hub for surrounding villages. Could I have the next slide please?

432. If you remember the talk about the station. I think I’d like to reiterate that I think it

is a very good idea that we think that HS2 is asking a lot of us and so a station is, I

think, reasonable mitigation in an area that will be changed forever by HS2. One of the

reasons I’ve brought Jo here today is that Jo’s family is, I think, correct me if I’m wrong

Jo, but the IMD is going to take the largest bit of land from Jo’s farm. Jo has four sons,

the youngest of which was born in April and the landscape is definitely going to change

for them quite literally. And what is known as the Hodges Farm, is going to not be

anything like the same, but I think that could be saying as well for Steeple Claydon is

57

that our future is not going to look anything like it does now.

433. I noted that when we talked about Parsons Brinckerhoff pulling out the day before

we gave our evidence, that evidence I think had some backing to it, particularly for

things like the economic case, the business case for siting a station in Steeple Claydon.

And I just wanted to make a few notes about that, because I know you’ve heard it

already, and I don’t want to belabour the point. But I think that one point that wasn’t

made was that the Parsons Brinckerhoff report you were given, gave the station a benefit

cost ratio of 2.1.1 and I think that’s the adjusted rate. And I think that is better than

phase one of HS2 I believe, so I think that the business case is actually there for us to

have a station.

434. The other point that I would just like to raise, and it’s just because I keep seeing it,

is that East West Rail we believe, is still scheduled to be operational in the area in

March 2019, and HS2 keeps saying it will be the end of 2019. The last time I looked at

the website, which was yesterday, which was updated on 15 October, they still have that

bit of the line operational in March 2019, which I think would have a reasonable impact

on the large number of workers that will be working at the IMD and the railhead at that

point. So, I think there’s still an argument for those two things actually joining up more.

To say mothing of the fact that HS2, like many big projects, might slip itself so I think

that it’s not enough of an argument to say that it’s going to miss the start of

construction. I think it’s still going to in all likelihood, be there for the peak, which is

expecting 1,000 workers a day to arrive at the site.

435. I think that the other thing that I would say is that I think HS2 is arguing is that

we’ve had some reasonable news that ABDC would be able to put some money into a

station, and I think that is very welcome. But I still do think that this actually belongs to

HS2’s remit. I think Mr Mould asked last time whether we would be asking for this and

it should be in East West Rail’s basket and not HS2’s, but I would like to point out that

East West Rail isn’t putting a whacking great IMD in our back yard. And indeed, if

they were I hope that the Committee can be rest assured that I would be at their doorstep

asking them for similar mitigation.

436. Next slide please. We have a few concerns over transportation still, Jo can attest

to the fact that we are a hub village, and as a result there is a lot of traffic coming in and

58

out of the village. We – HS2 has promised to reduce the impact of the workforce to

travel on local residents and businesses and I think what we still haven’t seen enough

detail of how that’s actually going to play out. When we met with HS2 in September,

one of the things that we asked was what was the access plans for workers getting to the

site, and around the site. And there weren’t any as of yet. So it would be quite useful

for us to understand, not just the road closures, that I think are quite important, and I

know that HS2 has kindly gone through – . Mr Mould has kindly gone through the three

closures at Perry Hill and School Hill and on West Street, but what I think is interesting

is that the length of time that they are going to be there, 18 months to two years. The

diversions are sort of 7 kilometres, 4.3 kilometres and although HS2 thinks they are

minor effects, we actually think they’re going to be quite major.

437. We are also sort of worried about the state of the roads in the area, and about how

much Steeple Claydon, as a hub, is going to be effected by workers coming into the

village and going around the village. I think I told you when I saw you last time, that

when the Committee so kindly visited Steeple Claydon the one thing that we did was

change the routes so that you wouldn’t have to come down Chandlers Hill and around

West Street, because it is almost impossible, on a good day, to get through there very

quickly. And Jo, who often brings his tractor through there, will attest that what is

known as Co-op corner, is not the easiest to get around. So, for us traffic concerns,

although they have been dealt with in some ways, by HS2, are still quite a worry.

438. We understand that a lot of material now is coming in by train, so we are hoping

that you know, the whole routes will, you know, if there are still issues to be resolved,

we would like their use to be monitored and we would really like to see some concrete

transport plans, if that was possible. And we would like to, as a parish, be able to input

into those, and I realise that Bucks County Council is coming back on transportation

issues and I think that would be useful for us as a parish, to be involved in those.

439. The third thing that, if we could move to the slide that – the next slide; and this is

where I will ask Joseph to help me out greatly. I think that you saw, in the flyover,

which is really useful, at the start of today. That there are lots of lovely green, lovely

green, lovely green, and then, when you get to Steeple Claydon, it suddenly becomes

awash with grey. And I think that the change in our landscape is going to be sort of

quite significant. And one of the things that we’re concerned about, and I would like Jo

59

to talk a bit about, is how the bund on the north side in particular, is actually going to

mask the view for people who are living on top of the hill. And I know that you all sort

of stood, or some of you stood in the bottom of the garden of The Phoenix, and you can

see how quickly that sort of drops away. It does become very flat but we are very

concerned that that you would have to build the bund quite high to actually not see the

IMD.

440. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s where they’re going to have the music

festival?

441. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, exactly, yes. And Joe, if maybe you could talk a bit about

that landscape.

442. MR HODGES: Yes, on the proposed IMD railhead there are buildings up to 13

metres high and we are really concerned about how that’s going to be screened from the

village of Steeple Claydon, which sits approximately 30 metres above the IMD, sorry 30

metres, 100 feet above the total area of the IMD railhead is almost 40 hectares, 100

acres in a very, very rural area. As Edi mentioned, on the flyover, it appears to be just a

mass of grey, which really doesn’t blend in to the area.

443. CHAIR: It won’t all be grey. I think we heard the other day that there would be

some effort, particularly with storage of materials and some spoil, to try and screen it as

much as possible.

444. MR HODGES: Yes, which leads me onto the next point, we’re not sure how the

bund is going to work, and that concern is particularly over the land take to produce this

bund and more land take means bringing it nearer to Steeple Claydon village all the

time. At its closest point, I believe it’s about 300 metres away, about 100 metres from

my door actually, but 300 metres from Steeple Claydon village, which is very close

when you bear in mind the elevation of Steeple Claydon. So that’s one issue.

445. And we are also concerned about lighting, and low level lighting and how that

would be masked, because I believe the site is to be 24 hours a day use. Whether we

have some more information on this, I am not sure.

446. MS SMOCKUM: Can we have the next slide please? The other thing, in terms of

60

the visual impact is that it would be very good to be able to have actually a framework

for engaging with HS2 about what the visual look is going to be talked about. And

Bucks County Council has talked about walkways and footpaths and how they were

changing these. I think that’s sort of a larger discussion, because I’m not sure how the

walkways are going to be used now, compared to what they – once the IMD is in place,

because I’m not sure how many people are going to want to walk down to see what is

largely an industrial piece of land, compared to when they walk down to enjoy nature

and to enjoy the countryside.

447. As far as noise and disturbance, we still question whether the IMD has to run

24 hours, is there any chance that we could have the loading, unloading time restricted?

You all know, because you were there, that dark skies are an integral part of the area,

both for human enjoyment and the wildlife. We are very concerned that the lighting be

as sophisticated and low impact as possible. We don’t – we question whether the whole

site has to be lit at any one time, could where they be working be lit. We are very

concerned that you will get the feeling of sort of driving through the countryside at night

and then coming across something that is massively over-lit. And we are concerned

about what the village will look like from the top houses that are along the roads that

back onto the IMD.

448. So, we would like some reassurance if possible, from HS2, about how that’s

actually going to work and how they’re going to work with the local communities to

actually make that as minimal as possible. I think, in terms of visual impact we would

like to support Calvert Green, he mentioned that on the south side of the IMD and the

railhead, that some screening should be put in and that some – and that is provided for

now. Because I think driving along that road, and the houses on Brackley Lane are

going to be affected by what that is going to look like, and we would support them in

that. If I could have the last slide please?

449. As you know we are very worried about the severance of our village from the

other villages that are dependent upon us, and that includes Twyford, that includes

Calvert Green, it includes Charndon Calvert itself, and we would like to see a dedicated

cycle walkway between Calvert and Steeple Claydon. We agree with the route

suggested by Bucks County Council, which was in their presentation last week.

61

450. And as a final request, we request that HS2 work closely with Bucks County

Council, and all the local parishes, to somehow maintain the rural nature of our parish.

We actually really do enjoy the surrounding land, and I hope we made that case, and for

us it’s quite important that somehow it doesn’t become an industrial site and that

somewhere, we sort of, you know, look forward to Jo’s children seeing something of a

semblance of an agricultural landscape, rather than what I think is being proposed by

HS2. Thank you.

451. CHAIR: Right, thank you very much. Mr Mould.

452. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Very quickly, I don’t need to say any more to you I

think, about the Steeple Claydon station question, I have set out an approach to that

yesterday which I commend to you. As regards to a comprehensive package of

transport and travel for people working on the construction of the IMD, I have already

mentioned that the project will be developing a travel plan in order to try and manage

the flow of traffic during that phase.

453. In terms of the road closures, the environmental statement certainly is supporting

major adverse effects on the travelling public in this locality, as a result of the road

closures. So we don’t seek to avoid that, and indeed the significant effect on the

community as a result of those. No doubt we will touch on that later on today.

454. The Schedule 16 process will provide the opportunity for public engagement on

the detailed design of bunts and the design of the depot as a whole, and indeed, under

our information paper D1, this would be classed as a key design element, on which the

promotor is committed to engaging with the public on the design development of that

key facility and the suggestion that the Parish Council should be at the heart of that

process is one that seems sensible and no doubt that can be taken on board in developing

that process.

455. CHAIR: And although the Secretary of State has backstop powers, it will be done

also with the normal planning powers of the District Council to do with all the lighting

and all those things, that will be the intent?

456. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On lighting yes, the Secretary of State has got that class

approval power, but I think I went through how he would approach that in a case such as

62

this last week and I won’t repeat that. As regards that phase, again I draw attention to

the commitment to develop local environmental management plans and Section 4.2 of

the Draft Code of Construction Practice, which indicates that in developing those plans

the nominated undertaker and contractors will engage with local communities, local

authorities and other stakeholders. In principle there is clearly a role for parish councils

there, but that’s something that needs to be considered as appropriate to the needs of the

individual area.

457. As regards noise, I made clear I think yesterday, or the day before, that the noise

from the depot is going to be controlled, designed and controlled under the egis of

information paper E22 for fixed installations and there is a very well established British

standard, BS4142, which provides an effective design criteria for facilities of that kind.

Essentially the idea is that the noise should be at a level which means that it blends into

the existing background noise, and it is – the effects therefore are controlled, effectively,

in that way. That is something, which has been applied, over many years, in relation to

a whole range of industrial and commercial development in this country, and it’s a

proven mechanism of maintaining an acceptable noise environment for those who live

in the vicinity of the facility in question. Unless there is anything else?

458. MS SMOCKUM: Could I just make a point about the travel plans?

459. CHAIR: Yes.

460. MS SMOCKUM: Could I just make a point about the travel plans? I think that

it’s quite important that the station be floated at the same time as the travel plans,

because it seems to me that if the travel plans included some public transport getting

there, then that would be reasonable. And my fear is that the station would be set to one

side, the travel plans would be done without thinking that there could be a stop, and I

would like to ask that the Committee ask HS2 to seriously consider the proposal of a

station there as a mechanism for getting the workers to the site, and that those two things

aren’t done separately.

461. CHAIR: There would probably need to be a travel plan without the station for

year one and year two, even on the assumption that a station appeared.

462. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, absolutely.

63

463. CHAIR: But I’m perfectly sure that will be swept up in the special –

464. MR HODGES: Yes, the peak of 1000 workers isn’t until after year two, which is

when the station would really be beneficial.

465. CHAIR: The other slight problem is you have to assume the workers are coming

from either one end of the line or the other end of the line, other than south or north or

whatever.

466. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, I have no doubt that not everybody who is going to be

working at the IMD and the railhead is going to take a train there, but I do think that it

would help take some of the cars off.

467. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: When the railway is operational, do we know

roughly, what the staffing of the IMD might be, in numbers?

468. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think we said 200.

469. MS SMOCKUM: Sir it’s 300 in documents.

470. CHAIR: So the peak of creating the railway, once the infrastructure’s – once the

civil engineering has been done, will get up to about 1000 and then it reduced to about

200, maybe –

471. MR HODGES: 300.

472. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 300.

473. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ll accept 300 for the sake of the debate, yes.

474. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Another word coming in your ear.

475. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 300 in three shifts I am told.

476. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And do we think – this is going beyond slightly the

effects.

477. MR HODGES: I’ll do my best.

478. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m looking at them but I’m just trying to

64

remember, you’re the one who is particularly interested long term, with your family;

whether the lighting that people have been talking about, will be particularly prominent

to many people, especially during the times when it will be operational?

479. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, the idea is that it shouldn’t be, the spillage is

controlled to be as limited as possible and there are, again this is a problem that has been

a feature of planning control for largescale industrial development, over many years

now. And there are techniques with regard to using low level light, lighting columns,

lighting – lumens, if that’s the right word, which are very, very controlled in the spread

of light. This is an obvious example, supermarket car parks; they often cause real

concern with people because people who live around about, because they are concerned

that the car park will remain very brightly lit throughout the night. And actually there

are quite successful techniques now, through a combination of the kit and also the size

of the height of the columns.

480. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you’re safe working without unnecessary

observation from outside?

481. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and as I said yesterday, this isn’t a rolling stock

maintenance depot, so we’re not having to work overnight on train sets and so forth, this

is an infrastructure maintenance depot. So a lot of the work is going to be done on the

track. What we do have to maintain is sufficient lighting, as you say, for 24 hour

working security, but also for the low level of activity that’s actually going to be going

on. Most of it will be in the sheds. So, you know, if that’s another factor that will limit

it. There’s going to be – you’re going to be, obviously the night time environment in

that sense, is going to change; that’s beyond doubt. And equally, it’s right to say that

Steeple Claydon is on higher ground and so clearly we are not going to be able to shield

views completely from Steeple Claydon to the depot, either by day or by night, but we

can go a long way to ameliorating those effects, as we have shown you.

482. MR BELLINGHAM: Is it likely that a significant proportion of the jobs of the

people at the depot will be from Steeple Claydon?

483. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am afraid I can’t give you a confident answer on that,

there is no reason to suppose that there won’t be some local people who will be able to

take jobs at the site, but equally, I suspect that a substantial number of the people who

65

work there will be coming from further afield, but you know, the project does have a

policy of seeking to encourage local employment opportunities, which is set out in the

social status information papers.

484. MS SMOCKUM: Could I just come back on the lighting? Just to say that I think

that the analogy of supermarket lighting, I can’t imagine any supermarket that would

locate in the middle of a very, very rural landscape. And I think that my worry is, and I

think the Parish Council’s worry is that you have something which is deeply rural and

no matter what, it’s going to be a surprise to see any amount of lighting. It’s not like –

very few people put supermarkets in the middle of nowhere, and I think that that is our

concern about it. I completely understand that it has to be lit, but I really do think a lot

of time and effort needs to be spent on this.

485. CHAIR: I think that both the District Council and a number of other people have

made the points about lighting, I think the point is well made and I am sure that HS2 are

listening, that in this particular spot, as you are halfway between London and

Birmingham, there isn’t much choice about where they put the place, but they will try

and do their best to blend it in.

486. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, it would be nice if they had found a brown field site rather

than our green field site but –

487. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: On the brickworks.

488. MS SMOCKUM: Yes, anywhere but – well, not anywhere but that, but I think it

is particularly green.

489. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is your farm mainly not clay then?

490. MR HODGES: Sorry?

491. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Why wasn’t your farm dug up for clay?

492. MR HODGES: Not the right type of clay. In fact, I think some of the land was

purchased from London Brick Company, who were the owners of the brickworks there,

but not the right type of clay, there we are.

493. CHAIR: Okay.

66

494. MS SMOCKUM: Okay, is there anything else that the Committee would like to –

495. CHAIR: No, no, thank you very much, and thank you very much for being –

496. MS SMOCKUM: Thank you very much for seeing us today.

497. CHAIR: We will be sitting in this afternoon for the last petitioner, at 2.45 p.m. I

am told. Hopefully that won’t be too long this afternoon, so order, order, if you could

withdraw from the room.