High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill - High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee Contents


4  Recommendations

Birmingham Curzon Street and Washwood Heath

37. Birmingham Curzon Street station will be large, occupying some 3.5 ha of land. Petitioners were concerned particularly about land take, connectivity through the station, and access during construction, stressing the need to avoid repeats of previous planning mistakes in Birmingham. Separation of business and academic communities from each other was identified as a particular potential problem.

38. We have asked for the extent of temporary land take to be re-evaluated so that some of the current landowners who will retain land adjacent to the site will have more of their land returned, and returned sooner. We invited HS2 Limited to consult further with local interested parties on connectivity to and access across the station, including for the Digbeth area, and we anticipate reports back to our successor committee.

39. The planned Washwood Heath rolling stock maintenance depot would be on land formerly used for railway manufacture. Rt. Hon. Liam Byrne MP and others argued forcefully to us that the depot should be located elsewhere, near the Interchange station, to free the Birmingham site for other development in what is an area of high unemployment. HS2 Limited cited strong operational reasons favouring Washwood Heath as a choice of maintenance location because of its proximity to the Curzon Street terminus. Other interested parties argued against the alternative choices on the basis of possible development plans. Ecological issues related to the use of green belt land were also raised. An early decision was clearly desirable to provide certainty.

40. We concluded that the case for choosing an alternative location was not strong enough to justify overturning the Promoter's proposal. Land near the Interchange station will be desirable for planned regional development ('UK Central') making good use of connections provided by the high-speed trains. The HS2 facilities at the maintenance depot will guarantee some job creation at Washwood Heath. On land take, we directed a review to minimise the temporary and permanent use of land by the Promoter at Washwood Heath and to maximise opportunities for other employers to establish themselves as soon as possible following construction. We have called for a more imaginative approach to the location of balancing ponds (which cater for the temporary storage of water draining from railway infrastructure) and the location of the control centre. The Promoter has given an assurance that land use will be minimised as far as reasonably practicable.[10] An update will be called for in due course.

Staffordshire

41. In Staffordshire, the high-speed railway must traverse the A38 trunk road and the Trent and Mersey Canal. The Bill's proposals would have involved a high viaduct over the A38 and agricultural land east of Streethay, requiring major construction works, as well as four viaducts to cross the canal.

42. On our visit to this area we heard strong representations from local petitioners and from Michael Fabricant MP in favour of an alternative horizontal and vertical alignment, avoiding three of the four canal crossings and taking the railway under instead of over the A38. We heard that, although this approach would affect certain properties more adversely, it would be less visually intrusive (including from the city of Lichfield) and more sympathetic to the canal environment. We understand that it would also save money. We made our provisional views known and we were pleased that HS2 Limited came forward with a proposal to adopt the alternative alignment. This will be presented in an additional provision. Affected parties will have the opportunity to petition against the additional provision and be heard by our successor committee, but subject to that the realignment appears more sensible to us.

Committee visit to Staffordshire

43. Near the village of Hints in Staffordshire the route passes in a valley between two valuable areas of woodland. We visited this area and subsequently heard petitioners from Hints, which is situated in a conservation area. We were pleased when HS2 Limited produced proposals for lowering of the route through the valley. These will make the railway less obtrusive and reduce the impact on woodland. There are, however, many important rights of way which the railway will still bisect. We encourage HS2 Limited to compensate this with further measures to reduce intrusion by the railway and to allow enjoyment of the extensive local woodland as a whole.

Middleton and Kingsbury

44. Kingsbury will be the location for a very substantial construction railhead which is likely also to be used in Phase Two if that proceeds. This status has been recognised by making it part of a Special Management Zone for Warwickshire with designated liaison staff.[11] Since introduction of the hybrid bill in November 2013 the Promoter has developed better mitigation in the form of higher bunds and extended planting.

45. We asked for expeditious handling of certain property purchases in the area to remove uncertainty for the owners. We requested and received a re-examination of traffic predictions. Petitioners should write to the Committee clerk if they take issue with that further data. We sought also greater acknowledgment by the Promoter of the effect of possible Phase Two works. We expect HS2 Limited to go the extra mile on community liaison and support in this area, to compensate for some evident failings in the past. We expect that Kingsbury will be able to make a strong bid for money from the Community and Environment Fund.

46. We heard representations for a tunnel at Middleton. There had already been a lowering of the line alignment there. We said that we did not favour a tunnel.

Water Orton

47. Water Orton is a substantial village near to the Delta Junction which will connect the main north-south tracks with the spur into central Birmingham. The proposed line here has already been moved some 30m south to reduce visual and noise intrusion. When we visited the village we heard strong representations for a relocation of the primary school. We were pleased when funding for a new-build school was subsequently agreed by the Promoter, allowing the school to withdraw its petition.

48. Although a well-presented case was made for different routing of the railway in this area, HS2 Limited presented strong technical counter-arguments based on the configuration of the route to the east. We considered that further changes could not be justified. Water Orton is nevertheless a significantly affected community. We will monitor the success of Need to Sell applications from there.[12] Noise monitoring should be rigorous. We have requested and received additional data on traffic movements. The Promoter has provided assurances on restricting construction traffic movements through the village.[13]

Balsall Common and Berkswell

49. These two villages form a strong community which clearly values its surrounding rural environment. Petitioners from the villages argued strongly for a tunnel, and wanted a further, more detailed study of potential benefits and costs than was contained in the report that HS2 Limited produced shortly before they appeared.

50. We listened carefully to the arguments from petitioners and from the Promoter, who estimated the additional costs of various tunnel options at upwards of £126m.[14] We felt it was unlikely that a more detailed survey would reduce these estimates so radically as to be merited. On balance, we decided that a tunnel here could not be justified.

51. We have, however, requested a study of how noise mitigation might be improved in this area, as well as a briefing on the range of noise mitigation measures available, including different barrier types. This will be produced after the general election and the further environmental statement will also touch on it. We have said that we were interested generally in proposals for continued noise monitoring, during construction and after operation commences.

52. We asked that construction traffic at Balsall Common be kept away from the local primary school and the Promoter has agreed to implement this through an additional provision. Station access and car parking should be maintained.

53. HS2 Limited have proposed improvements to footpaths, including reduced diversion of the Kenilworth Greenway, which we welcome. We have encouraged HS2 Limited to maintain a dialogue with the Greenway Trust and with the local Tree Warden Group.

54. Notwithstanding our conclusions on tunnelling and the merits of a further survey, we deprecate HS2 Limited's lateness in producing the tunnel report just before petitioners from this area appeared before us. This was unsatisfactory. It has not been the only such case.[15]

Burton Green

55. The village of Burton Green will be bisected by the railway. To mitigate the effect of the line, the Bill proposed a 621m green tunnel which will be extended by 50m at both ends by proposed additional provisions. Petitioners from Burton Green were concerned about blight and community cohesion, and argued for a deep bored tunnel or alternatively a short bored tunnel.

56. The Promoters now propose further additional provisions. These include a 2m lowering of the line alignment in cutting, enhanced bunding and screening, and routing of construction traffic away from the village.

57. The additional costs of a deep bored tunnel would be between £179.5m and £645m. The costs of a short bored tunnel would be between £28m and £32m. Even allowing for possible overestimates, we have concluded that neither such tunnel option would represent value for money. The additional mitigation proposed by the Promoter, together with other measures that we have suggested, should be some help.

58. A new proposal for relocating the village hall is being worked on. We have requested that the Promoter actively seek views on location and that HS2 Limited's budget for the new hall be generous. The new facility should be opened before the existing hall closes. We have requested that the Promoter suggest specific ways to support the pupil numbers at the local Church of England primary school during construction, and for one year after the scheme opens.

59. It is important that the community sustain itself during several years of construction in this area, and that properties acquired by HS2 Limited for let be well maintained. We have received a detailed and satisfactory report from HS2 on rented properties maintenance in the area.[16] We expect a further report in due course.

Committee visit to Burton

Kenilworth area

60. One of the main issues in the Kenilworth area was with construction traffic, its potential for causing congestion, and possible displacement by construction traffic of other vehicles. These were raised by Coventry City Council, the University of Warwick and others. We requested additional data. The Promoter has given specific assurances about the use of the A429 south of Crackley. When Coventry City Council appeared before us on 24 February 2015 they were able to confirm an agreed way forward in which University of Warwick will also be involved.[17] A traffic assessment will be undertaken within not more than 4-6 months. A number of detailed assurances have been given on road use including in relation to certain junctions which have been the subject of concern—notably junctions on the A45, A46, A452 and A429.[18]

61. We will be monitoring the success of the Need to Sell scheme with particular regard to applicants from the Crackley Gap.

Offchurch and Cubbington

62. Petitioners from these areas wanted a tunnel or a lowering of the line. There are also issues with the highly valued local amenity of South Cubbington Wood, with local sites of special scientific interest, and with severance of rights of way. We requested that the Promoter provide a review of its position on lowering of the line in Warwickshire. We received this on 23 March 2015 and have directed the Committee staff to review it and brief our successor committee. We consider there is unlikely to be sufficient justification for a tunnel. It would involve much extra construction traffic.

Ladbroke and Southam

63. We were concerned about potential adverse effects on business and employment from disruption caused by construction works in the Southam area. We expect the Promoter to take full account of such effects in managing the project and to seek to minimise them. The local community expects, and should receive, reassurance on traffic management.

64. There should be sensible placing of traffic lights outside Ladbroke during construction, to minimise possible traffic displacement through the village. We asked the Promoter to provide written reassurance about footpaths in the area.

Wormleighton and Priors Hardwick

65. This is an isolated and tranquil area where the proposed line would have a noticeable profile, albeit mitigated by bunding. Petitioners argued for a tunnel. The remoteness of the area reduces traffic access, which would make spoil removal from a tunnel difficult and intrusive. We have requested that the Promoter consult further with local interested parties and consider whether there is an option for lowering the line in this area while still accommodating the need to pass over the Oxford Canal.

Thorpe Mandeville and Culworth

66. These two settlements are on either side of a valley which will experience significant effects from the railway. Certain properties in Lower Thorpe Mandeville are particularly close to the proposed line. Responding to petitioners who appeared before us, the Promoter has agreed to undertake a feasibility study on installing a second sound barrier on the Culworth side of the viaduct through the valley.[19] We welcome this. The study should be made available as soon as possible. There were a number of notable compensation cases here.

Radstone

67. Petitioners from Radstone presented a commendably pragmatic argument for a relatively inexpensive realignment of the route to the west of its current trajectory. The Promoter has agreed to review the feasibility of this proposal along with further mitigation options, to be provided in June 2015. We welcome this. Notably, the Promoter said it would not dispute whether such a move would be within the broad route alignment.[20]

Brackley

68. Petitioners from Brackley were concerned principally about the proposed height of the A43 viaduct and the arrangements for building it. Constructing the viaduct will be a major undertaking and there will be inevitable, short-term inconvenience. There should be a report back at a later stage on whether HS2 Limited's plans for dealing with it are adequate.

Finmere and Mixbury

69. Petitioners here wanted a lowering of the line to avoid raising the height of the A421, a potential noise source. They were concerned also about bridleway access and horses being startled, as the area is extensively used in horse training.

70. Lowering the line could cost some £125m. There is already substantial mitigation in this area and we were not convinced that vertical realignment was necessary. We asked the Promoter to consider better mitigation and to improve its proposals on bridleways and horse access. This illustrates what should happen in similar areas where access for horses is an issue.

Colne Valley

71. We will be only part way through hearing petitions from this area when Parliament dissolves. Furthermore, certain issues raised by petitioners from the Colne Valley are connected with Chilterns issues. We reserve judgment on these petitions. The Heathrow spur has been abandoned but passive provisions remain in the Bill to safeguard against a change in policy in the longer term,[21] and these are illustrated in associated maps. Passive provisions may be sensible, but whether they are really needed should be reconsidered after the final report of the Airports Commission.[22] The risk of a continuing perception of blight should be monitored.

Old Oak Common

72. Dialogue between interested bodies including the Mayor of London, Transport for London, Crossrail and HS2 Limited is important here. Our successor committee should be briefed on options and on who is taking the lead.

Tunnelling generally

73. We heard arguments for tunnels or longer tunnels at, in addition to the locations mentioned, Long Itchington, Boddington, and Greatworth. We concluded that tunnels would not be justified at these locations but that there should be appropriate attention to the railway's detailed design at each of them. The final decisions on tunnel matters will be for our successor committee.

74. We have adopted a sceptical approach to all costs estimates placed before us—on tunnelling and other matters. Even so, the net additional costs of tunnel options presented to us so far were all so high that we did not believe further studies would have changed our view.

75. The merits of tunnels should be assessed on the basis of their own cost and potential benefit, not their percentage contribution to overall project costs. We have requested that the Promoter make available a guide to tunnel costs to assist petitioners arguing the case for more tunnelling.

Highways and traffic safety

76. We anticipate that local highway authorities should manage these issues in consultation with HS2 Limited, but the project should endeavour to leave a legacy of reduced risks and improved road safety in areas that receive no other benefit from HS2. Cases where we suggest specific action are:

·  A pedestrian crossing in the village of Ufton, which will suffer some five years of construction traffic, to be as close as practicable to the location specified by the petitioners and funded by the Promoter;

·  A roundabout or equivalent safety measures at the Long Itchington construction compound to help with handling construction traffic entering and exiting the compound;

·  A roundabout north of Chipping Warden at the intersection of the A361 and Welsh Road to address safety concerns;

·  A roundabout in Greatworth at the junction of the B4525 Welsh Road and the Dump Road.

77. We welcome the news that HS2 Limited and Northamptonshire County Council will help to fund a bypass at Chipping Warden. Speedy progress must be made with the plans for this in order to incorporate those plans in a new round of additional provisions. We encourage interested local parties to communicate their views on the principal matters quickly. We expect the county council and HS2 Limited to take account of further local concerns on more detailed matters, provided that is communicated to them by mid-April.

Viaduct design

78. We expect that the viaduct design and materials will be the subject of local consultation across the route, particularly at Berkswell, Hampton-in-Arden, Stoneleigh, near Offchurch and Cubbington (over the River Leam) and at Thorpe Mandeville. The road overbridge north of Ladbroke should be of sympathetic design.

79. South Northamptonshire District Council argued forcefully for written commitments to locally sympathetic design policies. We supported their position and we expect appropriate general assurances from the Promoter. Designs should be sensitive to the local situation and the wishes of communities. Travellers using the line do not see structures from the local perspective; residents do.

Farm land take, tax issues and alternative mitigation

Land take

80. We have directed that the Promoter reconsider the extent of temporary and permanent land take affecting a number of business and residential landowners who have petitioned. We have taken the same view in relation to agricultural land holdings.

81. There are issues around the temporary use of agricultural land such as whether soil and drainage systems are returned in good condition and whether the farmer should have inspection rights during the period of use for construction. We encouraged the Promoter to develop a model that would take account of these issues. HS2 Limited also committed to developing an alternative dispute resolution system.

82. The Promoter has since taken the view that it would prefer to use its powers as temporary user under Schedule 15 to the Bill. The Country Landowners Association (CLA) has objected to this for several reasons, including that there could be inadequate individual liaison with farmers. These issues remain outstanding at the time of this report and will need resolution in the new parliamentary session. The alternative dispute resolution system is in development.

83. We still encourage the Promoter to minimise the need for permanent land acquisition, preferring temporary use where possible. Building on the concept of the agricultural liaison officer which found favour with the CLA and the National Farmers Union and which is the subject of an assurance, the Promoter should also continue developing a set of policies and practices so that liaison with farmers is earlier and better—by use of a 'farm pack'. Farmers need to be able to approach their bank managers armed with some certainty based on proper assurances from the Promoter. The Promoter's petition response and negotiation approach should take account of farming realities such as the need to plan ahead for seasonal feed storage and lambing.

84. A meeting with any petitioning farmers to address outstanding issues comprehensively should take place at least a week before they come to the Select Committee.

85. In a letter of 11 February 2015 to the CLA and the NFU,[23] HS2 Limited offered to hold a workshop with those two bodies to explain its policy on agricultural land occupation. The letter contained additional assurances on consultation with farmers, assistance with relocation of buildings, and soils management. These reflect sensible progress toward implementing our suggestions. How they work in practice will require monitoring.

Tax issues

86. Another reason why we encouraged minimal agricultural land take is that acquisition could generate deemed disposal for the purposes of capital gains tax. There is rollover relief on this, but farmers might not be in a position to find replacement land in which to invest the proceeds of compulsory purchase within the three-year time period within which rollover relief currently applies—particularly as the local real estate market might already be distorted by other HS2 activity. If they died while the assets were held as cash there might also be an inheritance tax liability.

87. Current rules allow a discretion whereby the time limit for rollover relief may be extended to six years—and beyond in exceptional circumstances. We are concerned that despite that there should be more certainty for farmers. For example, we consider that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs should issue a statement declaring that instances of acquisition by HS2 Limited will by presumption be covered, or perhaps reverse the burden of proof on land holders affected by the railway. We have asked for consideration to be given to these issues by HM Treasury and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and have called for HMRC to organise a meeting with representative bodies such as the NFU and the CLA to examine possible improvements. We expect HM Treasury and HMRC to report back to our successor committee.

Alternative mitigation sites

88. A number of petitioning farmers (the McGregors (1127), the Burtons (1635), and the Wilsons (1141), for instance) told us that the Promoter's plans for the location of environmental planting and/or of balancing ponds and other drainage systems did not take account of local conditions. Whilst we recognise that environmental mitigation is often best provided nearby, we invite the Promoter to consider imaginative mitigation proposals that may involve land use at locations other than adjacent to the railway, and consult closely with local landowners on this. We welcome the general undertaking on consultation that has been provided.[24] Its implementation should be monitored.

Petition monitoring

89. Farm petitions that we particularly suggest be monitored for satisfactory resolution are Truggist Hill Farm (the Hughes, 224), the McGregors (1127), the Whitfields (1628), the Dowdeswells (772), Moretons (502), the Burtons (1635), the Wilsons (1141), the Humphreys (322) and the Banisters (1627).

90. The case of Andrew and Jennifer Jones (petition 1425) is also one where we have asked the Promoter to look at options for reduced land take (before the next planned additional provisions).

91. We have recommended monitoring of several other cases.

Other

92. We welcome HS2 Limited's willingness to enter into further discussions with Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and to reflect the outcome of those discussions in a further environmental statement.

93. We have heard that HS2 Limited's record on engagement has been poor but we do not generally find it helpful to go into the whys and wherefores of this. Sometimes there will have been a failure by HS2 Limited to communicate adequately and helpfully;[25] sometimes there may have been a mismatch of expectation. In other instances, the answer requested by petitioners will not yet have been available.

94. It would go some way toward creating better relations with communities if the aggravation they will experience from construction were mitigated by moderate community and ecological improvements. This would help create positive local legacies from the project and at the same time help redress some of the grievances resulting from initial failure to engage or communicate helpfully. Improvements to the River Tame have been suggested as an example of what could be achieved for the wider community.[26] There will be other examples. We want the Promoter to brief our successor committee on the scale and scope of the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund, on what real schemes they might cover, on the criteria for applying to them, and on how they will be distributed, so that we can assess whether they should be extended.

95. On noise, we have said that it is not helpful for petitioners repeatedly to refer to World Health Organisation guidelines. We would rather they cited comparisons with HS1, or actual measurements or estimates. The Promoter has provided information on mitigation at tunnel portals, but there remains a clear desire among petitioners to hear modelling of tunnel portal noise. We want the Promoter to develop such a model and demonstrate it in sensitive areas such as Burton Green. There should also be demonstrations of noise at significant noise threshold levels so that people can familiarise themselves with those thresholds and what they mean in practice.

96. The materials deposited with the Bill include a Health Impact Assessment.[27] We are concerned that there is insufficient data on the health consequences of infrastructure construction and operation on this scale. A research project on health impacts would be welcome.

97. We have requested details of how exactly the Residents Commissioner will represent, communicate with and feed information back to residents.

98. We invite the Promoter in due course to respond to Rt. Hon. Damian Green MP's argument that contractors to the project should treat residents fundamentally differently from business partners.

99. We want the small claims procedure to be open to small 'requests' rather than strictly only to financial claims. It should not have the appearance of an adversarial process.

100. The Promoter produced a simulation of the route which has been made available to petitioners by appointment. We are content with this arrangement for the time being.


10   HS2 Limited, Register of Undertakings and Assurances, March 2015, Item 13 Back

11   High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Committee, Associated Evidence, 16 December (P2116/1) Associated evidence is evidence cited during petitioner hearings. 'P' numbers refer to the Promoter's evidence; 'A' numbers refer to petitioners' evidence. Back

12   See Chapter 6 Back

13   High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Committee, Associated Evidence, 11 February 2015 (P4571, P4571A and P4573); Oral evidence taken on 11 February 2015, para 247 [Mr Mould QC (DfT)]. HS2 Limited, Register of Undertakings and Assurances, March 2015 Back

14   HS2 Limited, HS2 Berkswell and Balsall Common Tunnel Report, 25 November 2014 Back

15   See, for instance, oral evidence taken on 16 December 2014, afternoon, [Dan Byles MP] Back

16   High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Committee, Associated Evidence, 11 February 2015 (P4583) Back

17   High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Committee, Associated Evidence, 11 February 2015 (P4583) Back

18   Oral evidence taken on 24 February 2015, afternoon, para 2 [Mr Mould QC (DfT)] Back

19   Oral evidence taken on 4 February 2015, morning, para 229 [Mr Mould QC (DfT)] Back

20   Oral evidence taken on 24 February 2015, morning, para 73 [Mr Mould QC (DfT)] Back

21   See para 6 Back

22   https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission  Back

23   See High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Committee website publication Back

24   High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Committee, Associated Evidence, 11 February 2015 (P4583) Back

25   An example is the inexplicable failure to provide important cross-sectional watercourse maps to Kenilworth Town Council when they had been provided to Warwick University (see oral evidence taken on 12 March 2015, para 2 [Mr Mould QC (DfT)]) Back

26   Oral evidence taken on 16 December 2014, morning, para 81 [Rt. Hon. Caroline Spelman MP] Back

27   HS2 Limited, Health Impact Assessment, November 2013 Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 26 March 2015