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
| 
