Rt Hon John Bercow MP Response to the High Speed 2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement Any comments made in this response

are without prejudice to any comments I may subsequently make at any future stage as the Hybrid Bill progresses.

Page 1

Introduction In responding to this consultation, I should make clear that I am implacably opposed to High Speed 2. Since the proposals were first put forward for a High Speed Rail link between London and Birmingham in March 2010, it was abundantly clear to me and to my constituents that the Buckingham constituency would fare badly as a result. Little did we know at the time the sheer extent of devastation that this project would create; if the content of the Draft Environmental Statement were cause for concern, the grim reality as set out in the formal Environmental Statement gives many of my constituents very real fears. In my constituency alone 12 residential properties will be demolished, many more rendered obsolete and countless others will be irrevocably blighted. Communities will be destroyed, businesses will be displaced and the environment will be permanently ruined. In nearly 17 years as a Member of Parliament, HS2 is the single biggest issue I have had to deal with and one of the few subjects on which there is near unanimous opposition amongst my constituents. Once completed, up to 18 400m long trains will run through the area every hour all day, well into the night. For rural Buckinghamshire, an area characterised by beautiful landscapes and bucolic tranquillity, HS2 is a disaster. The picturesque Buckinghamshire villages in my constituency are set to be cast into the shadow of high speed trains which will thunder past at speeds of up to 360 kilometres per hour. Though I have consistently fought for the project to be dropped and I continue to do so, I have turned my attention to ensuring my constituents get the best possible deal if the Government decide to proceed. It is now clearer than ever that the Government has every intention of pushing forward with High Speed 2 and it is only right that I stand with my constituents in their fight to protect their homes, communities and livelihoods as effectively as possible. Given the extent of the impact across my constituency, it would be impractical for me to go into great detail about every specific impact; rather, I have

Page 2

highlighted a number of key areas which deserve greater attention as well as a broad overview of the concerns held by my constituents. My response to this consultation incorporates correspondence I have received from individual constituents, local Councils and various stakeholders. I have attended as many Community Forum meetings as I have been able to do and listened very carefully to the concerns of those present; it is with deep regret that the Community Forums have been discontinued in recent times. A number of pragmatic suggestions have been put forward at these meetings which were deemed inappropriate in the Draft Environmental Statement (DES); I share my constituents disappointment that, in spite of reasoned responses to the DES consultation, these mitigation measures continue to be excluded from the Governments plans. Along with my constituents, I will continue the fight to secure better mitigation to protect affected communities for generations to come. To that end, I intend to support petitions lodged by my constituents against the Bill. The Chief Executive at HS2 Ltd claimed her organisation will promote high speed rail and balance community, environmental and economic issues 1. The areas affected in my constituency fall mid-way between London and Birmingham and will have no tangible benefits from the High Speed rail line. As you will note from my response, I firmly believe that too much attention has been paid to the economic implications of the project - which are themselves the subject of hot contention - and the importance of community and environment seems to have been relegated. The sheer volume of material to study as part of this consultation is quite simply overwhelming. I have not had the office resources to respond comprehensively to every aspect of the consultation which is a matter of deep regret. Considering the woefully inadequate time in which responses are expected to be submitted, I like many of my constituents feel seriously aggrieved that we simply cannot respond as comprehensively or effectively as we would like. Even in spite of significant errors being identified in the published material and an abundance of complaints about delays in receiving
1

Draft Environmental Statement Draft Code of Construction Practice, Appendix 3, p64.

Page 3

Environmental Statement documentation (and I found myself in this unfortunate position when trying to obtain hard copies), no dispensation has been offered in recognition of the errors made by the Government and HS2 Ltd. Running the consultation over the Christmas holiday period only compounds in the minds of many the view that little consideration or credit is attributed to the valuable contribution of those who wish to respond. Indeed, those who do not have internet access are reliant on access to consultation material available in public libraries, many of which were closed over the festive period. I have received many emails and letters from constituents who, though affected by HS2, have chosen not to submit their comments on the basis that their protestations to date have been simply ignored. timeframe serves only to embed this cynicism. I have been approached by constituents who, already concerned and anxious about the impact High Speed 2 will have on their properties and lives, feel completely overwhelmed by the Environmental Statement, not knowing what to read or how best to respond. I appreciate that, with a project of this magnitude and the nature of an Environmental Statement, much of the detail is complicated and technical. Very little has been done, however, either to assuage the concerns of my constituents or to make the documents comprehensible to them. Had Community Forum meetings been in place, or an adequate equivalent, those with concerns would have been able to discuss their concerns with representatives from HS2 Ltd, put their questions and learn more about the project. Instead, one-day information sessions in each Community Forum area, which were poorly advertised, fall far short of what is required to ensure that the consultation is accessible and understandable for vast numbers of my constituents. It is simply lamentable that my justifiably concerned constituents have been prevented from airing their concerns and asking questions. Yet in spite of the mass of information published as part of the Environmental Statement, I share the consternation of my constituents that some of the most important aspects of the project pertaining to mitigation remain undecided and will be decided The woefully inadequate response

Page 4

during the detailed design2; my constituents and I were under the impression that the Environmental Statement was, indeed, a detailed design of the project. It does raise the question, therefore, of why this information has been omitted. There is concern amongst many of my constituents that this project is being rushed through to meet an unrealistic timescale and incidents such as this do little to abate that concern. Many of the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement fail to meet the needs and expectations of my constituents and I simply do not accept that HS2 Ltd has any consideration for what impact this project will have on local communities. In May 2013, I wrote to both the Secretary of State at the Department for Transport and the Chief Executive at High Speed 2 Ltd asking that, in the Environmental Statement, the impact on communities of property demolitions be fairly represented. In the Draft Environmental Statement, the demolition of a home was described as having a minor adverse effect3, whereas in fact the impact locally is significantly greater. Small and close-knit neighbourhoods will be adversely affected by this loss of both property and community, a fact which should be apparent to High Speed 2 Ltd. To describe the impact as anything other than major is, quite simply, insulting. It is regrettable that the Environmental Statement has not taken note of my earlier representations. The Environmental Statement has raised yet more questions for my constituents about compensation arrangements. It is clear that the development of High Speed 2 will put extreme pressure on the road network in my constituency, roads which are already - in some cases in a state of disrepair or susceptible to damage as they simply are not suitable for the heavy vehicles which will be frequently used. Increased construction traffic will mean greater delays on the roads for my constituents or longer journeys owing to road closures: they are rightly concerned to know how if at all they will be compensated for the added travel costs they will incur. The recent compensation consultation did not include anything which recognised the impact the project will have

See, for example, Environmental Statement CFA Report 12 6.4.24, p93 See, for example, Draft Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 13 Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode. 5.5.3, p46
2 3

Page 5

on the private rented sector: properties close to the line will become less valuable and, as such, will attract a lower rent: how will this be compensated? In short, so far as my constituents and I are concerned, the HS2 project is all pain and no gain. I make this response in order to register the views and legitimate demands of my constituents but I reiterate that it would be far better if the Government were to discontinue the project altogether.

Page 6

Question 1: Comments on the Non-technical summary Approach to the environment The consultation document boasts that environmental assessment has been the foundation of route selection, design development, arrangement for construction and operation of the railway, and measures to mitigate the projects environmental impacts 4, and that since early 2012, HS2 Ltd has engaged closely with local communities along the proposed Phase One route and other stakeholders to identify and seek to resolve issues of concern5. My experiences suggest that HS2 Ltds engagement with affected communities has been limited and conducted largely through the Community Forums - widely seen by many of my constituents as a means by which information was communicated to them, but little scope was available for meaningful mitigation suggestions to be put forward and actively considered. Indeed, I received numerous reports from attendees at both Community Forum meetings and information events that the staff were generally unable to answer the technical questions put to them; given the importance of this issue to those living in the vicinity of the proposed route, I do question the suitability of this engagement proc ess. Without doubt, I am quite sure that many issues of concern were not resolved at Community Forum meetings; if anything, concerns were exacerbated. Though not within my constituency, Buckinghamshire is rightly proud of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is home to, and it is a matter of deep concern for my own constituents that the Proposed Route will ride roughshod over the landscape, leaving irreversible, irreparable damage. I support proposals put forward to extend the Chilterns Tunnel in order that Buckinghamshire can retain, to an extent at least, the rural splendour it has prided itself on for many, many years.

4 5

HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 1.2, p4 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 1.2 p6

Page 7

Consultation and engagement Though the consultation documents claim that the establishment of Community Forums was to enable wider public engagement on the design of the project and its effects 6, I do not accept that they were effective in engaging with the wider public on the design of the project and its effects. For a start, only a select number of local representatives were invited to the Forum meetings by HS2 Ltd: this is far from a broad demographic. Forum meetings should have been open and widely advertised; indeed those residents affected by the project but who are not for example Councillors, should have been actively encouraged to attend to learn about the project and ask questions about how the project would affect them. The need for high speed rail I am yet to be convinced by the case for High Speed 2 which is primarily to ensure that the inter-urban rail network supports the economic development of the country by providing sufficient capacity and improved connectivity between urban centres 7. High Speed 2 will provide no additional rail capacity between London and Birmingham until 2026 at the very earliest; for urban hubs north of Birmingham, it will be of no benefit for a further number of years. If there is such a pressing need for additional capacity, this proposal is surely inadequate. Nor do I accept the claim that the need for additional capacity will become increasingly pressing on Britains key north-south inter-urban rail routes, particularly on the West Coast Mainline from the mid-2020s8. It is widely viewed that this claim is without an objective basis, and no independent review has been undertaken. 2011 figures published by Network Rail show that the West Coast mainline is the second least crowded train into and out of London (the least crowded being, ironically, High Speed 1)9. I remain sceptical as to the reliability of the claim that the West Coast Mainline is facing, or is likely to face,
HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 1.3, p4 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 2.1, p9 8 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 2.1, p9 9London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy, Network Rail (July 2011), Available at: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%2 0generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20 strategy.pdf
6 7

Page 8

a capacity crisis. At the Judicial Review hearing in December 2012, it became apparent that peak intercity departures from Euston in 2011 had an average load factor of 52.2%10. This, in spite of the Department for Transport claim that the West Coast Mainline has seen trip growth of 36% between 2006 and 200911 I do not accept the claim that ...further incremental upgrades to the existing north -south rail network will be insufficient to provide the necessary capacity and improved performance required to meet the countrys long-term economic needs12. In the Governments opinion, upgrading the existing infrastructure would result in prolonged and unacceptable disruption; in my opinion - and the opinion of my constituents - the destruction of homes, businesses, community facilities and land will be infinitely more profound in its disruption and I contend this is far more unacceptable than the upgrading of whats already there. Furthermore, there is an assumption that the development of HS2 will not lead to disruption to the existing network; this is in my opinion most misleading. Euston station, used by some of my constituents who commute from Milton Keynes station, will experience extreme disruption, with at least four platforms rendered obsolete and a number of peak services reduced. Generating growth High Speed 2 does very little if anything at all for those businesses which rely upon roads to access markets, whether locally, nationally or even internationally. So while the Government boasts that efficient movement of people and freight is essential for economic growth as enhanced capacity and good connectivity strengthen the links between business, workers and customers and remove geographical barriers to markets13, huge swathes of the economy will be excluded from any benefit that may materialise.

Better than HS2 The 51m Alternative Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Page 9. Available at http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Better-than-HS2-The-51m-Alternative-InfrastructureInvestment-Strategy.pdf 11 Department for Transport (2011), Economic Case for HS2, cited on p19 12 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 2.1, p9 13 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, 2.3, p10
10

Page 9

Furthermore, as set out in my response to the Draft Environmental Statement, I am supportive of an expansion of access to broadband technologies and should welcome an examination of the economic benefits of such a roll-out.

Page 10

Question 2 Introduction to the Environmental Statement As set out earlier in my response, much of the UK economy relies upon the increasingly disintegrating road infrastructure to transport goods and materials. For smaller businesses for which freight transport is simply not a possibility, the net benefit for them from High Speed 2 is negligible. As such, my constituents have great difficulty accepting the Governments view that by improving the links that help to move goods and people around, and by targeting investment in new projects that promote growth, transport can help to build the balanced, dynamic and low-carbon economy that is essential for future prosperity14. I believe the Government is far too ambitious in its vision that High Speed 2 ...changes the mode of choice for inter-city journeys and reinvigorates the rail network15. This is an arguable proposition for travel between London and Birmingham in 2026 and would come at huge financial and environmental cost; other major cities, however, will not be in a position to benefit until sometime after this date. Furthermore, a number of urban centres will not benefit from High Speed 2 at all, and may even lose out. Services catering to major towns in the country, including Milton Keynes, will not benefit from High Speed 2 and the investment in the renovation of this line (and similar such lines) is meagre in comparison. Particularly galling for my constituents is the claim that the Government will strive to limit the negative impacts through design, mitigation and by challenging industry standards and we will look for environmental enhancements and benefits 16. Very many design refinements and mitigation suggestions have been dismissed by HS2 Ltd, seemingly without thorough examination, and with a significant focus on the cost of such measures. I have repeatedly made clear that I do not accept that a proposal should be

HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 1.1.2, page 1 15 HS2 Sustainability policy, p12 16 Ibid
14

Page 11

rejected solely on cost grounds. The project has already entailed staggering levels of expenditure and I believe money can be found to fund mitigation measures which seek to protect communities. Conversely, if HS2 Ltd and the Government decide that it can affordably proceed only without such protection, plainly it is improper for it to proceed at all. Enhancing capacity and connectivity The consultation document claims that demand for inter-regional travel within the UK, including levels of rail patronage, has been increasing in recent years. The number of passenger miles travelled on the national rail network increased from 20 billion in 1992/93 to 26 billion in 2012/13. In terms of the number of rail passenger journeys, there has been an increase from 976 million in 2002/03 to 1,502 million in 2012/13. This represents a 54% increase in demand in a 10 year period and is equivalent to an annual year-on-year growth rate of 4.4%. Intercity journeys increased by 65% over the same period, with journeys increasing from 77 million to 128 million. This is a 5.2% annual year-on-year growth rate17. These statistics, however, conspicuously fail to identify the West Coast Mainline as a route which has experienced such growth in demand. As cited earlier, Network Rail figures show that the West Coast mainline is the second least crowded train into and out of London18. In my view, there is no substantive evidence to support the Governments claim that future incremental upgrades to the existing north-south rail network will be insufficient to provide the necessary capacity and improved performance required to meet the countrys long-term economic needs19. I note the Governments claim that further incremental upgrades would result in prolonged and unacceptable disruption to the existing network20, but I am of the view that the devastation caused to homes,
HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.3.2, pages 18-19 18http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus% 20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%2 0strategy.pdf 19 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.3.10, page 20 20 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.3.10, page 20
17

Page 12

businesses and community facilities will be more severe in its disruption: an option I believe to be far more undesirable than the upgrade of the existing infrastructure. I also question the assertion that the development of HS2 will not lead to disruption to the existing network. The anticipated disruption at Euston station is just one example; the eventual reduction in other services which service smaller stations being another. Throughout the consultation, the Government makes an assumption that those who use the existing line between London and Birmingham will make use of the High Speed rail lines, ambitiously claiming that ...a new dedicated high speed line would release capacity on existing routes, which could be redeployed to the benefit of services such as commuters or freight21. The only problem, however, is that London and Birmingham represent only two of the areas serviced by the West Coast Mainline; commuters travelling from Milton Keynes, Northampton, Coventry and Nuneaton will find themselves with fewer services and if they find themselves in a position whereby they have to use High Speed 2 potentially higher ticket prices. Much capital is invested in evidence which claims to show that people place a premium on being able to get to places quickly22. Business commuters, however, represent only one group of passengers utilising the West Coast Main Line. Recreational visitors and tourists also value being able to access other parts of the country, but may not be in a position to afford the rumoured premium on rail fares by using High Speed 2; furthermore, those travelling on business from smaller and medium sized businesses may not be in a position to afford hiked prices. An ongoing argument has been put forward that, instead of investing in high speed rail, the Government should consider expediting and expanding its rollout of high-speed broadband which will benefit people far beyond those who need to commute. Businesses operating from rural areas, such as my constituency, are severely hampered by the slow broadband speeds and with no tangible benefits from High Speed 2, would far prefer investment in technological infrastructure which will benefit many more people.
21HS2

Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.3.14, page 20 22 Wardman M, Batley R et al (2013), Valuation of Travel time Savings for Business Passengers, ITS Leeds. Cited in ES, p21.

Page 13

Generating growth The Environmental Statement claims the efficient movement of people and goods is fundamental to the productive potential of an economy23. Consideration must, however, be given to the extent to which an upgrading of the road infrastructure will benefit the economy. A huge number of businesses are reliant upon the road network to access customers and markets. The 2012 Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance survey found that a great many Local Authorities have had to cope with a significant reduction of resources. The survey also found that nearly 20% of all roads which fall under the auspices of local authorities are in a poor structural condition. In 2011/12 alone, English local authorities spent some 1.63 billion on highways and road maintenance 24, and, on the basis that the majority of freight in the UK is carried by road, I believe a key way to improve the productivity of the economy in this way is to invest in the countrys roads. Approach to consultation and engagement As I go on to describe, though HS2 Ltd professes to have undertaken an extensive programme of consultation, that consolation has to my mind proved woefully inadequate. I see consultation as a dialogue with key stakeholders, listening to concerns and making a concerted effort to address them. The reality of the situation is that while HS2 Ltd has paid lip service to community engagement and consultation, many decisions have been taken behind closed doors, often without wider discussion, and the suggestions of those affected by the project have been discarded with little thorough examination. All too often, mitigation measures have been rejected on grounds of cost an argument which, when one considers the overall price tag attached to the project, I simply cannot accept. While the Government has been keen to advertise that consultation and engagement has been undertaken to encourage a dialogue and exchange of views between HS2 Ltd, local

HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.4.1, page 21 24 Roads: maintenance, repairs and street works, House of Commons library. SN739, updated 24 January 2013.
23

Page 14

and statutory authorities, individual members of the public and their representatives 25, the consultation processes have fallen way below the standard that my constituents are entitled to expect. Community Forum meetings have been attended by a select few local representatives and HS2 Ltd offered, to my knowledge, no notification of these meetings to individual members of the public26. As a Member of Parliament representing a constituency adversely affected by HS2 Ltd, I have been repeatedly approached by constituents who are either unhappy with the HS2 plans or and more worryingly affected residents who are not clear to what extent or when High Speed 2 will affect them. Approaches with mitigation suggestions have been discarded or left for consideration as part of a wider consultation: they have subsequently been discarded. Some HS2 Ltd staff attending information events have been poorly informed about the project and unable to answer sometimes very basic questions from affected residents. The notion that the public has been allowed to input to decision making through an exchange of views27 is simply laughable; some members of the public have been in a fortunate enough position to attend Community Forum meetings and to put their views forward; the idea that their suggestions have had a material impact on the final plans, even though they have been based on deep local knowledge and commitment, is disproved by the evidence. I accept that members of the public have been afforded the opportunity to respond to the HS2 proposals through the formal consultation processes. However, bar the incremental changes in road alignments, for example, many mitigation suggestions have been simply discarded. By way of example, 12 requests for tunnels in responses to the Draft Environmental Statement were refused on the basis of cost28, with no further explanation. I simply cannot accept that meaningful mitigation can be disregarded on the basis of cost alone: as the Government accepts, HS2 will be the biggest infrastructure project in

HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 3.1.1, page 25 26 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 3.1.1, page 25 27 HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 3.1.1, page 25 28Draft Environmental Statement Consultation Summary Report, 7.4.33, page 52
25

Page 15

Europe29; if this is the case, then sufficient funds should be made available to cover the cost of it, including accommodating route refinements and mitigation measures which will protect those residents and communities the project will adversely affect.

HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the Phase One of HS2, 2.4.4, page 22
29

Page 16

Question 3 Community Forum Area 11: Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury Parts of my constituency fall within this Community Forum area, specifically the Fleet Marston area, Dunsmore, Stone, Bishopstone, Marsh, Terrick, Hartwell, Upper Hartwell and Sedrup; the latter three being conservation areas. In my constituency, the HS2 line will pass within 1.1km of Bishopstone, 1km of Stone, 800m of Upper Hartwell and 330m of Lower Hartwell. The population within 1km of the route is approximately 15,700 people30. The area is largely rural and agricultural with key facilities based in Aylesbury. While the village of Stone is serviced by a local shop and The Bugle Horn public house, as well as housing Bartletts Residential Care Home, a village hall and two churches, Sedrup has no community facility at all and Hartwell is serviced only by a riding school. Given the rural nature of this area, it is important that easy access to facilities in surrounding villages and towns remains. The Environmental Statement states that the route will cross local access roads, bridleways and footpaths which provide important links between the scattered dwellings31 and every effort must be made to ensure that access is in no way hindered as a result of High Speed 2. Aylesbury Golf Course, which falls in my constituency, will endure major adverse effect32, and the consultation document acknowledges that the golf club will not be able to continue operating during construction...the worst case effect will be that the golf club will cease operating33. Given the importance of this key community asset, I fully expect the Government not only to compensate fully the owners for causing such harm to a very successful business, but to provide alternative recreational facilities for use by the community.
2011 national census data High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, page 6, 2.1.8 32 High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 115.4.16, page 89 33 High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, page 89, 5.4.15
30 31

Page 17

Earthworks associated with the construction of a cutting and an over-bridge on the A418 Oxford Road will result in the demolition of Glebe House, a residential property in the area. It is regrettable that the Government does not consider such a demolition as significant at community level: the displacement of community stakeholders is, in my view, a most significant adverse impact. Hartwell House Hartwell House is a Grade I listed National Trust building and is in the top 2.5% of significant listed buildings in the country. The Proposed Route runs hazardously close to Hartwell House and appropriate mitigation must be implemented to protect this national asset. The Environmental Statement consultation concedes that High Speed 2 will alter its character and the ability to understand its historical legibility, integrity and coherence34 and it is a matter of deep regret that this project will cause this level of damage to an asset of such great value. Any steps to ease the impact on Hartwell House, however, must take into consideration the impact of such mitigation on surrounding properties. As it stands, however, the proposed earthworks and planting do not sufficiently reduce the impact of High Speed 2 when considered against the historical and cultural significance of Hartwell House. Sedrup is earmarked to house an autotransformer station. If this is to go ahead, adequate and appropriate landscape mitigation is required for the benefit of the community, including the undergrounding of power lines which would otherwise run overhead. Replacement of viaduct at Sedrup with embankment and culvert On the basis that Option B (the replacement of a viaduct with embankments and culverts) will be less visually intrusive35, I welcome this change as I set out in my response to the Draft Environmental Statement.

High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, p103, 6.4.5 35 High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, p56, 2.6.67
34

Page 18

Replacement of viaduct at Lower Hartwell with embankment and culvert On the basis that Option B (the replacement of a viaduct with embankments and culverts) will be less visually intrusive36, I welcome this change as I set out in my response to the Draft Environmental Statement. Sound, noise and vibration concerns The ES makes clear that HS2 will have a lasting negative impact in parts of this CFA. In Hartwell, for example, the visibility of the scheme within a well -preserved historic landscape...will alter the historic integrity and coherence of [the areas] setting 37. Every effort must be made to ensure that the character of the area is in no way undermined or altered as a result of High Speed 2. I understand that the Dunsmore community has asked that sound barriers be installed on the viaducts passing the vicinity, but this option has been rejected by HS2 Ltd with a lesseffective alternative favoured instead. If the community wants sound barriers to protect their environment, they should be provided. Transport concerns A418 Oxford Road, Aylesbury There is support amongst some local residents to retain the A418 on its current alignment. A southerly diversion will create significant adverse impacts to residents in Mayflower Close and Meadoway on the Bugle Horn Estate, whereas a northerly realignment would be shorter and presumably cheaper. I broadly welcome the option which causes least disruption to the smallest number of properties.

High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, p56, 2.6.71 37 High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, p104, 6.4.12
36

Page 19

For Lower Hartwell, the A418 is the only access point and is set to be blighted by 6 years of construction traffic, creating travel chaos for all residents. It will lead to increased journey times, increased costs in fuel and increased stress to travellers. This must be recognised by the Government and residents should be offered some sort of compensation. Many minor roads will have to be used which are quite unsuitable for the high volume and heavy nature of the vehicles involved. I have received representations from residents as far away from the line as Princes Risborough, concerned that haulage traffic will add yet more pressure to already overcrowded, over used roads. Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line The alteration to the scheme as set out in the Draft Environmental Statement which means that the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line no longer needs to be closed 38 is to be welcomed, though I expect the additional loss of Grade 3 agricultural land to be recognised through appropriate compensation. Any closure to the line which does become necessary must trigger appropriate compensation.

High Speed 2 Phase One Environmental Statement, Community Forum Area Report Volume 2 CFA 11, p56, 2.6.76
38

Page 20

Question 3 Community Forum Area 12: Waddesdon and Quainton In this part of my constituency, HS2 runs for approximately 10km from the Aylesbury Road to Sheephouse Wood near Calvert. The area is primarily rural, notable for the wealth of agricultural land. The proposed route is just 600m south-west of Quainton and will pass the southern part of Quainton. HS2 Ltd proposes an auto-transformer feeder station and a National Grid sub-station at Quainton north-east of the HS2 line where the Edgcott Road intersects with the proposed route. The auto-transformer feeder station is a permanent compound containing equipment which facilitates the transfer of electrical power between the National Grid and the railway and is an unwelcome burden on this predominantly rural area. Waddesdon is widely seen as the hub of commercial activity and the base of many amenities used by those living in the area. The village is home to Waddesdon Manor, a popular visitor attraction which generates significant custom in the area. The Buckinghamshire Railway Centre is also a popular visitor attraction which sits uncomfortably close to the proposed High Speed 2 line. As well as two churches, a Methodist Hall and a village hall, Waddesdon has a number of schools and educational facilities, a doctors surgery, a dental practice, a convenience store, a restaurant and a hotel. In addition, there are a number of public houses in the village as well as a police and fire station. Community concerns Station Road, Quainton I note the proposed improvements which mitigate the impact on the Buckinghamshire Railway Station overflow car park and the properties adjacent to this site. The favoured

Page 21

option, as set out in the Environmental Statement, also allows large vehicles to retain access to the Railway Centre, essential for its continued operation. If, as the Environmental Statement suggests, the preferred route aligns the traffic priorities with the predominant local traffic flow and avoids incidence of headlights shining into residents windows, this is also to be welcomed. The fields along Station Road are owned by the Winwood Trust. The rents accrued from the lease of these fields help fund almshouses run by the Winwood Trust which home the elderly in the Quainton area, a very important social project in the community. High Speed 2 Ltd must actively engage with the Winwood Trust to mitigate against any adverse impact that may be experienced by the charity, and ensure that appropriate compensation is in place to allow the organisation to continue to flourish in the area. Doddershall The demolition of properties in this area is limited to one (The Lodge, Doddershall). While I appreciate that the damage could have been much worse with multiple demolitions, I believe all steps should be taken to avoid the unnecessary demolition of a residential property. In my response to the Draft Environmental Statement, I supported Buckinghamshire County Councils proposal to realign the route in this area to avoid The Lodge on the basis that, in changing the alignment, no other properties will be adversely affected as a result. On the basis that the Environmental Statement is accurate in its assertion that such a realignment could not be achieved without affecting other properties in the area, I am reluctantly supportive of any proposal which creates the least net damage. The Environmental Statement proposes two balancing ponds in the area of Doddershall. Those living in the area have suggested that these ponds be relocated to the south side of the proposed route on the basis that the plans in their current manifestation would result in a 47% land loss a quite unacceptable grab of land when a less intrusive alternative is available.

Page 22

Doddershall House must be mitigated from the likely impact of noise and vibration. The proposal to build an over-bridge at agricultural bridleway QUA/28A is unacceptable to local residents. Such a bridge would be visually intrusive to the entire neighbourhood and it is disappointing that such a proposal has appeared in the Environmental Statement, especially after local residents were advised by HS2 representatives that it would be viable to move the bridge a few yards to the north which is a much more acceptable option.

Auto-transformer feeder station and National Grid substation near Quainton In my response to the Draft Environmental Statement, I made clear that I understood the position of those residents living in the vicinity of the proposed substation who do not wish to see this development close to their properties. Indeed, residents living in the vicinity of the substation are understandably perturbed that their properties fall outside of the safeguarded zone, though land potentially required for development includes peoples driveways and front gardens, as well as the access point from the A41. I note that the proposed option would, according to the Environmental Statement, have the least adverse environmental effects, though it is worth registering that many people remain unhappy about this aspect of the project. Measures need to be in place, including landscape mitigation for the station and the balancing ponds, as well as the undergrounding of overhead wires, for the benefit of the community. Finmere Wood to Sheephouse Wood A lowering of the alignment between Sheephouse Wood and Fleet Marston has been suggested to alleviate the noise impact in the Quainton area. If this could be achieved without adversely affecting any other properties, I welcome this option. The proposal to realign the Aylesbury Link railway track to the east to provide for a box shaped enclosure over the route to protect the bats falls short of what has been requested by local residents, but I note the claimed benefits such a proposal brings as set out in the Environmental Statement. The enclosed box runs to 800m and offers some physical

Page 23

separation and avoidance of additional land take. I trust that additional lighting will be used to discourage bats from flying close to areas of wind turbulence as well as designed to a specification for minimal light spillage. It is very important that High Speed 2 Ltd works with various local stakeholders to ensure that mitigating the impact in this area is not to the detriment of the ecological mitigation strategies which are already in place through the Energy from Waste operation. Cultural heritage Waddesdon Manor is a Grade I listed property and carries significant cultural value. The Manor and Gardens fall within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and is expected to experience significant effects as a result of the construction of HS2. It is important that HS2 Ltd adopts and adheres to a Code of Construction Practice which recognises the social and historical sensitivities attached to the various cultural assets in the area. Mature vegetation on the north east boundary of Waddesdon Manor should be protected and maintained during construction and operation. The trees in this area act as effective screening, mitigating the appalling visual impacts of HS2 on the Manor. Doddershall House is a Grade II* listed building of high heritage value. This cultural asset will experience significant effects as a result of construction activity in relation to the construction of an over bridge and the auto-transformer feeder station. As above, it is important that HS2 Ltd adopts and adheres to a Code of Construction Practice which recognises the social and historical sensitivities attached to the various cultural assets in the area. Sound, noise and vibration concerns There are real concerns about the impact of sound, noise and vibration in this area. If individual properties require further sound-proofing to abate completely the sound from HS2 and construction works associated with the project, HS2 Ltd should make compensatory payments to owners to pay for such work to be carried out.

Page 24

Traffic and transport concerns I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about the additional pressure on the roads. Waddesdon and Quainton are already blighted by trucks and lorries that use local roads on a daily basis; the added traffic associated with High Speed 2 will make the situation intolerable for those who live in these residential areas with narrow roads where residents park on the roadside. More widely, this area is already blighted by the noise emanating from refuse trains which travel daily to the FCC site in Calvert. High Speed 2 and East West Rail will add to the cumulative noise in the area noise which is exacerbated by the prevailing South Westerly wind, and appropriate mitigation must be in place for the benefit of those living in the area; a simple bund is wholly insufficient.

Waddesdon Bypass I welcome the proposal to build a bypass around Waddesdon. In the short term, the bypass would reduce the impact of construction vehicles associated with HS2. Heavy Goods Vehicles and construction traffic should avoid using the A41 through Waddesdon during the construction phase; the existing local infrastructure is not strong enough to cope with significant increase in usage. In the longer-term, a bypass would alleviate the impact of heavy traffic flows through Waddesdon39. Given the devastation HS2 will cause in the area, the bypass should be paid for by the Government by way of compensation. Given the heritage value of Waddesdon, it is simply unacceptable that the village is to be used as a construction route.

39

Buckinghamshires Mitigation Blueprint for HS2, Buckinghamshire County Council. p52.

Page 25

Question 3 Community Forum Area 13: Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode The majority of this Community Forum area falls within the Buckingham constituency, and the route runs to some 10km in the area. The route moves from Sheephouse Wood to the south of Calvert. The proposed line runs in a cutting 4.1km long to the west of the Aylesbury link line (realigned) and then runs parallel to the disused Great Central line. The proposed Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) will sit on land next to the line, approximately 600m from the village of Steeple Claydon. The route continues to pass Twyford and Chetwode. The area is significantly blighted by the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD). The IMD will consume some 37 hectares40 and will see the character of this beautiful rural area devastated. The area is entirely rural with small villages separated by a wealth of agricultural land. Calvert and Charndon are small settlements connected by School Hill, set next to two lakes one of which (Glebe Lake) is used by the Great Moor Sailing Club for racing and recreational use. Calvert Jubilee Nature Reserve, the second lake which sits to the east, is a recognised local wildlife site managed by the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust. Steeple Claydon, to the north of Calvert, is significantly larger with a range of community amenities, including public houses, shops, a school, two churches, a library and a Police station. North-west of Calvert is Twyford, a small village with a post office, a village hall, a public house and shops. Twyford also houses a church and a school. Further north is the small hamlet of Chetwode, a remote settlement with a Church.

Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 13 Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode. P16
40

Page 26

Community concerns Infrastructure Maintenance Depot, Steeple Claydon Steeple Claydon is a thriving village dating back to the Domesday Book; Calvert is a comparatively new village, founded as a hamlet in the Victorian era to house the workers of the local brickworks. Between these two villages is the proposed site of the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) and railhead. It goes without saying that I wholly oppose the development of the IMD at this location; the nature of the operations taking place there and the rural location makes it a wholly unsuitable place to build a Depot with a requirement for so much land. My constituents living in this area will see previously open land turned into an industrial unit surrounded by security fencing, running up to 2km long, lit throughout the night. Particularly galling is the abject lack of any mitigation in the area to protect residents from round-the-clock disturbance; the news that the Depot will be operational 24 hours a day is an issue causing enormous upset and consternation amongst my constituents living in the area. In addition, the site will provide temporary worker accommodation and the estimated duration of use for this facility is approximately to 6 years41. This is by no means temporary for the residents in the area and I share their very real concerns about the potential impact on local amenities. There are a number of concerns about the traffic implications, as well as visual and noise impacts. Given the rural location, the roads around the IMD are not suitable for such heavy usage. There are already concerns about the current road infrastructures ability to sustain existing traffic and I struggle to see how these roads will be able to accommodate the additional HGV traffic which the Environmental Statement makes clear will have significant noise effects42. HS2 Ltd should undertake to provide sufficient noise protection and bunding, as well as incorporate the needs of the community into the operating model for the site; this might include, inter alia, the introduction of a travel plan

Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 13 Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode. 2.3.21, p30 42 Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 13 Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode. 5.4.10, p96
41

Page 27

to support sustainable travel by IMD staff, as suggested by Buckinghamshire County Council43. In any event, roads used in the construction phase of the IMD must be both prepared and suitably maintained by High Speed 2 Ltd. Once the IMD has been constructed, HS2 Ltd must be responsible for the restoration of the roads to a condition and character suitable for the area. It is important also that the character of these rural roads is maintained: residents do not want urbanised roads which would simply be out of place in an area of country lanes.

Passenger Station at Calvert It is with disappointment that HS2 Ltd has decided not to develop a passenger station at Calvert. Aside from the fact that it would relieve pressure on the road infrastructure, such a station would be a welcome addition to a community severely blighted by High Speed 2. It is a matter of deep regret that an opportunity to mitigate the effects on the community and to compensate those living in the area for the damage caused by HS2 has so far been missed.

Satellite Maintenance Compound, School Hill In my response to the Draft Environmental Statement, I suggest that, given the proximity of the Satellite Maintenance Compound to the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot, it would be prudent to examine the feasibility of incorporating this facility into the IMD. Whilst not ideal, I believe on balance that it would be preferable if the blight was confined to one area. From examination of the Environmental Statement, it appears as though this suggestion has not even been considered. compound should be restored for wildlife. I am led to believe that HS2 Ltd and Network Rail are in discussions with respect to the development of a tunnel running from the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot and under
43

Once superfluous to requirement, the

Buckinghamshires Mitigation Blueprint for HS2, Buckinghamshire County Council. p58.

Page 28

the East-West rail line to allow access to the eastbound HS2 line. Aside from the obvious long-term benefits for my constituents, in the short-term it would mean any satellite construction compound in the School Hill area could be smaller than currently planned and will be needed only for a much shorter period time. I fully support this proposal and, given the palpable benefits for both HS2 Ltd and the community, I trust that it will progress.

FCC Environmental Ltd Sidings In my response to the Draft Environmental Statement, I was broadly supportive of adjustments to the access arrangements for the FCC sidings which would relocate access away from Calvert and the settlements therein. I note the comments in the Environmental Statement setting out the practical difficulties in such relocation, taking into consideration a number of environmental sensitivities. My constituents and I are yet to be convinced that through sensitive design and mitigation, potential impacts from relocating the sidings to the eastern side of the Aylesbury Link would be no worse than for the other options44, especially given that no detail is provided in the Environmental Statement. FCC is currently in the process of moving its entire operation eastwards (away from the village), and it stands to reason that the siding operation moves with it. FCC has confirmed that it already has land available to accommodate such a move which is beneficial both to them as operators and to the wider community: not only would it move the sidings closer to their new facility, it also abates the level of disruption for residents who will no longer have to endure the same degree of noise and odour pollution, high noise levels and monstrous visual intrusion. Portway Farms/Shepherds Furze Farm High Speed 2 currently intends to deposit some 2 million tonnes of spoil from tunnel borings on this land, as well as build two balancing lakes. This would necessitate not only
Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 13 Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford and Chetwode. 2.6.35, p61
44

Page 29

the destruction of prime farm land but also the demolition of a home and associated house buildings, displacing long-standing tenants from the site. The land that is earmarked for use by HS2 Ltd is vital to the future viability of nearby Portway Farm, providing the straw, maize and grazing used for the 400-strong dairy herd. I have been approached by a partner at Portway Farm who has suggested that, instead of taking more land, HS2 should utilise the 150 acres at nearby Greatmoor Farm (Edgcott) which is currently being used for the sustainable placement of spoil from the nearby Incinerator site where there is already a rail-head in place. Such a relocation of spoil deposit would minimise the impact locally and cause minimal disruption to the activity at Shepherds Furze Farm. The balancing lakes could be relocated to the land west of Shepherds Furze Farm (otherwise cut off by the southern rail link). Such a relocation would be cost efficient (the compensation bill would be cheaper) and given that Greatmoor already has a rail-head in operation costs will be saved in this respect too. Churches High Speed 2 Ltd must work with Church officials, including the Church Buildings Council, to mitigate the impact on Church buildings in the area which are important community amenities. The potential impact of noise and vibration is of specific concern to those in the area, notably the medieval church in Chetwode and the Grade I listed St Marys Church in Twyford. High Speed 2 Ltd should also pledge compensation for the long-term maintenance of the Churches if they are to be impacted in any way as a result of the operation of the line. Ecological concerns Calvert Jubilee BBOWT Nature Reserve Local Wildlife Site This wildlife site is dominated by a former clay pit which is one of three which flooded after the closure of the Calvert Brickworks in 1991. The nature reserve homes wildfowl, birds and butterflies. This area will be affected by the HS2 route (the proposed route

Page 30

runs along the eastern edge of the reserve) and construction work for the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot. HS2 severs the nature reserve on a shallow embankment and it is likely that there will be significant implications for wildlife. HS2 Ltd should undertake to compensate the local community for the loss of this local amenity, perhaps providing an alternative reserve accessible to visitors with similar habitats. Calvert Railway Station Local Wildlife Site The Environmental Statement claims that there will be a permanent adverse effect 45 on Calvert Railway Station local wildlife site on School Hill. The local community reports that the wildlife site is already growing and hosting flora and fauna. I welcome the reexamination of this site by HS2 Ltd which earlier claimed that there would be no additional effects from the Scheme. I reiterate my earlier request that, when the Satellite Maintenance Compound becomes redundant, HS2 should reinstate a local wildlife site for the benefit of the community.

Finmere Wood Finmere Wood will be affected by HS2 and it is important that the engineering is tailored to ensure minimal impact on this Special Site of Scientific Interest. The ancient woodland is also home to the Bechsteins bats, a species identified as very rare in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and listed in Annex II of the EC Habitats and Species Directive. This particular species is also listed as Nearly Threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Natures Red List46. Mitigation measures in this area must adequately address the damage to ancient woodland, and seek to protect the habitat of the Bechsteins bats.

Sheephouse Wood Sheephouse Wood, also a designated SSSI, similarly homes Bechsteins bats. If the alignment of HS2 is unable to change in this area, HS2 Ltd needs to come forward with proposals to mitigate the impact of damaging unique ancient woodland.
45 46

It is also

ES, 7.4.8, p139. IUCN 2012, available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/14123/0

Page 31

important to ensure that Sheephouse Wood remains unaffected by HS2. My constituents are concerned, as a result of conversations with HS2 Ltd staff, that there may be a significant land-take in this area; greater clarity and appropriate mitigation proposals must be brought forward. Sound, noise and vibration concerns Green Tunnel at Chetwode HS2 comes within 250m of the conservation area in Chetwode which includes the Grade I Listed Church. The Church is believed to house some of the oldest medieval stained glass windows in the country and the protection of these from vibrations caused by HS2 is of paramount importance. There is likely to be significant visual blight from HS2 on Chetwode. A number of residential properties at School End, and properties within The Hermitage and Priory House estates will have a clear view of the railway cutting and the over bridge. HS2 should re-examine proposals, consistently argued for by me, Buckinghamshire County Council and local residents, to provide a cut and cover (green) tunnel in the area. I have raised the issue of noise impact on Chetwode with HS2 and the Department for Transport on a number of occasions since it was indicated as a red dot area of high noise, even after mitigation, on the Appraisal of Sustainability document published in 201247. Even after proposed mitigation, Chetwode residents will still be forced to endure major adverse effects48. Given HS2s commitment to balance economic, environmental and community needs, I am very disappointed that this desperately needed mitigation measure has been dismissed out of hand simply on the basis of cost. This is particularly frustrating as no costings are provided in the Environmental Statement.

47 48

Appraisal of Sustainability, Volume 2, p109 ES, 6.5.4, p114

Page 32

High Speed 2 Ltd must make clear to its contractors that the single-track country lanes in Chetwode should not be used for construction traffic at any point during the construction phase. Aside from the roads being incredibly narrow with no passing points, the proximity of residential dwellings to the roads means that children are often in the area. Equally, rural lanes in the villages of Edgcott and Gawcott are similarly unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles and construction traffic.

Twyford Given the proximity of Twyford to the HS2 line, there are genuine concerns amongst residents about the noise impacts. The line will come in close proximity t o Twyfords Grade I listed Medieval Church. Effective noise mitigation is essential in this area and I support the communitys campaign to have bunding installed above pantograph level. Though I appreciate that the bund would be of significant height (some 8m), as a Member of Parliament it is my duty to reflect the views of my constituents and I can certainly see the merit of this proposal which will mitigate against noise and visual intrusion. To protect further the community from intrusion, paths should be diverted under Twyford West viaduct to negate the need for over-bridges.

Charndon, Calvert and Calvert Green Given the level of devastation in the area, it is important to ensure that adequate noise mitigation is in place. Residents were advised at a Community Forum meeting that High Speed 2 Ltd was agreeable to a request to install a mini-bund with fencing above on the west-side of the Calvert stretch to mitigate against excessive noise intrusion. line. This is not acceptable to local residents and is not what had been agreed earlier. I understand that published noise levels take into account only HS2 and fail to include noise from other sources to which HS2 will add. In this area alone, the residents of Calvert and Calvert Green already have to endure noise from the FCC operations, and this will be exacerbated by noise from not only HS2 but the Infrastructure Maintenance The Environmental Statement, however, offers only a 5m high barrier above the height of the

Page 33

Depot and, possibly, the Satellite Maintenance Compound. Noise level indicators should take into account noise from other sources in order that local residents are fully apprised of the situation in which they will find themselves. Traffic and transport concerns Infrastructure Maintenance Depot There are concerns about traffic implications of the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot. Given the rural location, the roads around the IMD are not suitable for such heavy usage. There are already concerns about the current road infrastructures ability to sustain existing traffic and I struggle to see how these roads will be able to accommodate the additional HGV traffic. Indeed, adverse traffic implications will stretch far beyond Calvert and Steeple Claydon, with residents living in Grendon Underwood, Edgcott, Twyford, Charndon and Marsh Gibbon having to endure more HGV traffic passing through their tranquil villages. Aside from the increased traffic, villagers will experience increased noise, vibration, pollution and dirt on the roads. Appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure that the community is inconvenienced as little as possible as a result of the depot.

New station on East West Rail for site operatives Given the rail infrastructure already exists for IMD workers to travel by rail on the Bicester to Bletchley line, the development of an alighting point at Calvert would, theoretically, certainly ease the capacity on the fragile road infrastructure. It also offers the prospect of a permanent stop at Calvert which will benefit the community as a whole. As raised earlier in this response, it is very disappointing that the Government has decided not to pursue this meaning mitigation.

East-West Rail In spite of numerous requests from me and my constituents, it is still unclear how HS2 will fit in with the East-West rail line in the area. Given the proposals to develop an

Page 34

Energy from Waste incinerator in the same area, I am concerned about the lack of analysis of how these large projects will impact on each other.

Permanent closure of Perry Hill Perry Hill runs between the A41 and Buckingham. Given the importance of Perry Hill to the local transport infrastructure, it is essential that this road remains operational. Furthermore, it would not be acceptable to expect a significantly increased volume of traffic to run through Twyford.

Page 35

Question 3 Community Forum Area 14: Newton Purcell to Brackley Turweston, Westbury and Mixbury all fall within my constituency and are affected by HS2. The area is largely rural and the areas affected within my constituency lie within approximately 250m of the construction area49. In this part of my constituency, HS2 runs on a viaduct across the Ouse flood plain, less than a kilometre to the west of Westbury. The line then runs to the east of Turweston. HS2 will cross the A43 which will require changes to its alignment. Turweston and Westbury are significantly larger than any of the other nearby villages, combining newlydeveloped properties with their historic character. Community concerns Turweston playing fields Power cables will be required on the playing fields and village recreation grounds to the west of Turweston. 8,400m2 - some 40% - of The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Field, part of the Queen Elizabeth II Fields Challenge campaign, will be required for the diversion of electricity and the construction of a cutting for the HS2 line. The bisection of the fields will leave part of the land completely unusable. Once installed, 3,650m2 will be retained for the construction of the scheme to accommodate a cutting. The Environmental Statement itself acknowledges that the playing field is a valued local resource and concedes that the effect is major adverse and...significant 50. Therefore, the onus is on HS2 Ltd adequately to explore alternatives, including the undergrounding of power cables. If this is not possible, High Speed 2 Ltd must generously compensate the village for any loss. As there is no substitute land available in the vicinity to develop another playing field, it is important that an alternative recreational facility is secured. I am aware that Turweston Parish Council is in discussions with HS2 Ltd and other local bodies with a view to the construction of a cycleway between parishes and this seems to be a good,
49

50 50

ES, p5, 2.1.4 ES, p79, 5.4.13

Page 36

valuable asset which could be paid for by a compensation payment from HS2 Ltd: a moderately small gesture to offset the vast impact of HS2 in the area. Any impact on Westbury Cricket Club must be fully mitigated. Ecology concerns Turweston Manor Grassland Local Wildlife Site This Local Wildlife Site will lose land as the proposed route cuts across the grasslands and floodplain of the Great Ouse River on a viaduct. compensated. In this part of my constituency, some 5.7km of hedgerows are earmarked for removal, though this is likely to be more as some land is yet to be surveyed. Naturally, this will have a drastic impact on the conservation status of the area and must be avoided where possible. Bats and barn owls in this area are at risk and the proposed green bridge at Turweston is woefully inadequate. The option of a tunnel in this area must, therefore, be considered again. The Environmental Statement fails to acknowledge the popularity and importance of equestrian activity in the area, including the prominent and well-used riding stables. Appropriate mitigation must be in place in order that these activities can continue unhindered. Any land lost must be fully

Viaducts In this part of my constituency, two viaducts are proposed which will have significant adverse impact on the landscape. The viaducts need to be screened to enhance the landscape for the communities affected. Constituents living in Westbury are concerned that, though the viaduct in that area will have a noise fence barrier, it will not sufficiently
Page 37

mitigate against noise impact. Given that the diverted footpath under the viaduct is very well used, a high noise barrier should be provided to mitigate the adverse impact on the footpath users; the benefits of such a barrier would extend far beyond the immediate vicinity and would lessen the impact on Whitfield village as well.

Pylons To accommodate High Speed 2, a number of National Grid pylons, currently to the east of Turweston, will need to be relocated. In the Environmental Statement, the pylons have moved even closer to the village of Turweston and run across the playing fields. By way of compensation, HS2 Ltd should make an undertaking to install the electric lines underground. I have raised this matter with the Chief Executive and Head of Environment at HS2 Ltd and I would urge them to look at this matter again. The recreation field is used by many of those living in the area and, only recently, the local scout group used this playing field to fly kites: just one example of a village amenity earmarked for destruction as a result of HS2. The undergrounding of the power lines is a very important matter for the villagers affected and I do not believe it is a wanton or excessively luxurious request.

Tunnel past Turweston I have made numerous representations both to HS2 Ltd and to the Department for Transport asking that a tunnel be built in this area. I note from the Environmental Statement that options for a tunnel were evaluated51 but HS2 concluded that construction and maintenance costs would be significantly more expensive than the preferred option52. Given HS2s commitment to balance economic, environmental and community needs, I am very disappointed that this desperately needed mitigation measure has been dismissed out of hand simply on the basis of cost. This is particularly frustrating as no costings are provided in the Environmental Statement.

51 52

Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 14 Newton Purcell to Brackley. 2.6.4, p44 Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 14 Newton Purcell to Brackley. 2.6.12, p45

Page 38

Sound, noise and vibration concerns The Environmental Statement shows attenuation sound barriers along the viaduct but acknowledges that some 25 dwellings on and around the Main Street in Turweston will be adversely affected during both daytime hours and through the night. 53 A further 10 properties in Finmere will be similarly impacted. Villagers living in Turweston already endure noise from the Silverstone racing track which is some 7 miles from the area; on the basis that the Proposed Route is significantly closer, it is not unreasonable to assume that the level of sound intrusion will be intolerable, and residents are dismayed to learn that residual permanent noise effects on the acoustic character of the communities at Finmere, Turweston and Radstone closest to the Proposed Route are considered significant54. I remain dissatisfied with the lack of information in the Draft Environmental Statement pertaining to noise levels. Local residents must be able to examine peak noise levels. The DES claims residential receptors...have been identified as likely to experience a significant adverse effect from HS2 noise alone. Combined with the additional noise pollution resulting from the realignment of A43, it is important that my constituents are thoroughly protected from excessive noise and attenuation measures should reflect this. Traffic and transport concerns

Construction traffic Access to the Turweston green over-bridge satellite construction compound will be via Oatleys Road/private access from the A43 Oxford Road and M1 from the east, and the A43 and A422, A43 and the M40 from the west. This is not acceptable to the local community: haulage and worker access should be via a temporary road from the A422 discussed by local stakeholders with HS2 Ltd and broadly agreed to when a contingent

53 54

Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 14 Newton Purcell to Brackley. 11.4.21, p220 Environmental Statement Community Forum Area Report 14 Newton Purcell to Brackley. 11.4.30, p221

Page 39

from HS2 Ltd visited the area on 26th April 2013. construction traffic of any kind.

Turweston is not suitable for

There is concern about the proposal to raise the height of the A43 Oxford Road. Such a realignment will generate considerably more noise than the present levels which are already unacceptably intrusive. There is no proposed mitigation for this in the Environmental Statement and requires resolving as a matter of urgency.

Page 40

Conclusion I conclude by drawing on some of the key points I have made throughout this response. My concluding remarks are by no means comprehensive and the examiner of this submission should refer to my earlier comments. 1. Mitigation measures should balance the need to protect key aspects of the areas cultural heritage, including inter alia Hartwell House, Waddesdon Park Manor and Doddershall House, with the needs of local residents who may be adversely affected as a result of well-meaning mitigation measures. 2. The Statement identifies elements of the Proposed Scheme as having a significant effect but fails to come up with suitable mitigation or solutions. If this project is to go ahead, effective solutions must be found in advance and agreed by the community. 3. The train line or associated construction works will damage or completely devastate a number of community amenities in my constituency and it is important that HS2 recognises the need generously and appropriately to compensate affected areas in order that these facilities can be replaced. 4. HS2 Ltd must give an explicit undertaking to mitigate and attenuate sound pollution as far as is possible. If individual properties require further soundproofing completely to abate the sound from HS2 and construction works associated with the project, HS2 Ltd should make compensatory payments to owners to pay for such work to be carried out. 5. Alternative options put forward by the local community have been dismissed on the basis of their potential adverse impact or cost. must come forward with greater detail. Potential impact is an insufficient justification for excluding possible mitigation options and HS2 Ltd

Page 41

6. For people whose homes, communities and livelihoods will be destroyed, I suggest the overall adverse impact as judged by HS2 Ltd does not begin to reflect the view of the community directly affected. HS2 Ltd should not second-guess the impact of design elements on individual communities. Its responsibility is to produce proposals for mitigation or, alternatively, properly and publicly to consider recommendations from the community. 7. HS2 Ltd must come forward with suggestions as to how to improve the public transport infrastructure in my constituency. Communities are being devastated in the name of a public transport project from which they will see no tangible benefits. If there is any way that affected communities can benefit from the project, it should be incorporated into the scheme. 8. I have already identified steps the Government could take to compensate certain communities for the damage caused by HS2 Ltd. By way of compensation, I strongly urge the Government to ensure that rural communities impacted by the train route are supplied with high speed broadband internet. Considering that the case for HS2 draws on the benefits of economic growth through superfast connectivity between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds and my constituents will not benefit from this at all they should be entitled to superfast internet connectivity. 9. A number of meaningful, effective mitigation options have been rejected by HS2 Ltd on the grounds of cost. The Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, has recently announced that the overall cost of the project will be 57 billion55 some 24 billion more than the 33 billion figure originally cited. Given the significant increase in budget since HS2 Ltd deemed multiple mitigation options unsuitable on grounds of cost, I am hopeful that these discarded proposals will be looked at again in light of the new overall budget.

55

HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c343

Page 42

The Environmental Statement fails to assuage any of my concerns and does not change my vociferous opposition to this monstrous project. By every yardstick, the HS2 plan fails to meet the test of serving the public interest. The business case is utterly flawed. The environmental damage that it will inflict upon great swathes of the countryside, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Buckinghamshire, will be chronic. Horrendous noise and widespread visual blight will be a fact of life if this unaffordable, unnecessary and unwanted project goes ahead. The cost to the public purse, already obscenely large, is rising exponentially and in an era of austerity it seems extraordinary even to countenance such an outlay. The mitigations proposed thus far have been very limited and I share the assessment of my constituents that HS2 has not even begun to reckon with the scale of what is required to alleviate the detrimental impact on the area which I represent. In short, so far as my constituents and I are concerned, the HS2 project is all pain and no gain. I make this response in order to register the views and legitimate demands of my constituents but I reiterate that it would be far better if the Government were to discontinue the project altogether.

Page 43