PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday, 27 October 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair)

Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby _____________

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Mr Richard Wade, Twyford Cricket Club

Mr Philip Goss, Local Resident Mr Nicholas Verney and Mr Henry Verney, Claydon Estate

Mr Peter Miller, Environment Director, High Speed 2 Limited Mr Marcus Rogers Mr Mark Turner

_____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

2

INDEX

Subject Page Twyford Cricket Club Submissions by Mr Wade 3 Response from Mr Strachan 5 Phillip and Christophine Goss Submissions by Mr Goss 8 Response from Mr Strachan 13 Claydon Estate Submissions by Mr Henry Verney 18 Response from Mr Strachan 24 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Strachan 29 Mr Miller, cross-examined by Mr Henry Verney 33 Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Council Submissions by Mr Rogers and Mr Turner 34

3

(At 11.13)

1. CHAIR: Pray continue. Do you have a presentation or –

Twyford Cricket Club

2. MR WADE: I don’t have a presentation. I don’t have anything to add to the

petition which has already been presented. I think that there are a couple of very

specific points for the cricket club which I’ve highlighted in the petition at paragraphs 9,

10 and 11. I suspect the majority of the evidence relating to the impact on the village of

Twyford has already been made by Mr Landales who’s appeared before you?

3. CHAIR: Yes.

4. MR WADE: My role is – I’m the Vice Chairman of the cricket club, and I’m a

resident of the village. The very specific points that we’ve made in relation to the use of

the recreation ground where the cricket club plays its home matches, are to do with the

impact of – well, visual impact and noise impact; and the effect that this would have on

using the recreation ground for recreation ground for any form of cricket. As stated in

the petition the club of Twyford, cricket club, plays cricket to an unusually high

standard for a village of the size of Twyford. It plays in –

5. CHAIR: Is it adult teams? Teen teams? How many teams do you…?

6. MR WADE: There are three adult teams, each of the adult teams participate in the

Cherwell League which is one league below Home Counties. Home Counties League is

one league below Minor Counties, and the first XI, Twyford plays in Division 1. So it’s

competing against clubs from large towns: Banbury, Oxford, Thame, Leyton Buzzard.

This is not just a friendly local side that plays matches socially on a Sunday. It plays

serious league cricket. The second XI plays, currently, in Division 6; and the third XI in

Division 9. So the ground is used every Saturday for serious, 110-over matches. It’s

important that they play on a viable facility.

7. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You have four junior teams as well?

8. MR WADE: And we have four junior teams as well, with about 80 youngsters

4

who participate on Sundays. Obviously the impact on the juniors is less significant in

terms of health and safety and danger and being able to play the game properly, but the

juniors would not exist were it not for the senior club. So the point made in the petition

is that, without serious mitigation, being able to deal with site, noise, the cricket club

would have to either reconstitute itself or relocate if it wanted to carry on playing.

9. CHAIR: Okay. Do you have any ideas what sort of mitigation you’re looking

for? Is it barriers? Is it bunds?

10. MR WADE: I believe that the petition has already presented to you, going into

some detail about impact – the visual impact in terms of planting, the bunds that are

being talked about, whether it’s feasible to lower the line. Any of those elements would

have a serious beneficial consequence for the cricket club.

11. CHAIR: Shall we therefore go to Mr Strachan, see what HS2’s response is to that

and see what more than can do before they come back to you?

12. MR WADE: Thank you.

13. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Strachan.

14. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you, the cricket club, I think the Committee

has seen the location of it yesterday, with P9621, just to remind you of the area. It’s

taking a while to come up on screen. And if we could just focus in on that part, we can

see it’s close to the properties we were looking at with the petitioners yesterday. If we

could zoom in a little bit?

15. What the promoter has done by way of mitigation of the effects of the railway is

that alongside the Grand Central Line, as you heard yesterday, there’s additional

planting proposed along that line, which runs close to the boundary of the cricket club

pitch. Then, beyond that where the railway itself, HS2, is located, before one gets to the

railway, there is the eight-metre high bund with a noise fence barrier on the other side,

which has two effects. Both the visual mitigation effect of the bund in front of the

railway and of course, the noise mitigation from the noise barrier. In fact, the bund also

serves as a noise barrier. Can I just remind the Committee – there is a photo montage in

the pack, 9624, this is a photo montage which does actually show to the right, the

5

existing location of the cricket pitch and where the club plays.

16. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, just before you go on, is HS2 proposing to

take any of the land?

17. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Of the cricket? No.

18. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which is land which is rented by the cricket club

from the Parish Council?

19. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, there’s no acquisition of the land.

20. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So there’s no disturbance in that sense; the question

is then either the visual or the noise?

21. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Indeed. All I was illustrating by these slides was

the way that the scheme is mitigated for Twyford in this area. This shows the bund in –

the bottom photograph, showing the effect of the bund in place. In fact, there is some

sapling planting on the bund, but this shows it without it, having taken in year one. But

the bund itself will screen those playing cricket in the cricket club from the passing of

the trains, because of its height. So if the concern was visual effects, for those playing

cricket, there won’t be any anticipated visual effects, even at year one.

22. There is actually a slide, P9599, which shows, at least in the summer, the

anticipated planting effects, both along the Grand Central and the bund, and you can see

here, again the cricket pitch on the right in the summer months, once the planting has

taken. You can see both planting in the foreground, along the Grand Central, and

there’ll be further planting from the bunds. So with the mitigation proposed, we don’t

anticipate any visual effects on the cricket pitch.

23. So far as noise effects are concerned –

24. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just before you do that, on the visual, if you turn

just to 9623, I think that’s the 3A-3B line?

25. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It is. We looked at one of these sections, indeed.

3A and 3B is a cross-section which passes through the cricket pitch, which is probably –

it’s in this location where the arrow is here. There is, moving the arrow further along,

6

there is the additional planting on the Great Central mainline because some existing

planting. Beyond that, there is the noise barrier. I suspect it’s slightly lower than eight

metres at this point; it rises to eight metres further down, but it’s certainly a considerable

size at this point, with planting on top. Then on the other side, there is the noise barrier

in this location and then the main line itself. You can see clearly from here that there

won’t be – or there shouldn’t be – any visual effects from the passing of the railway on

the cricket pitch and there’s no reason it would interfere with any play in that respect.

26. On the question of noise, there will be a noise change to this environment as the

Committee has already heard. But with the mitigation of the noise bund and the barrier,

we have reduced the effects and I can just show you probably by reference to the

contours – P9628 – we were looking at some properties in Twyford, slightly to the West

of the cricket pitch, but you’ll see – we’re talking about a similar noise environment –

the cricket pitch will be in the LOAEL – above the LOAEL contour but in a band during

the day of 50-65dB, from an Leq level. That’s show again, if you want to see it on a

slightly different format – P9629 – where you can see that banding similarly – the

cricket pitch will be kept within the 50-55dB during the daytime here; it’s outside the

55-60dB which is the slightly darker yellow or orange, depending how you look at it.

27. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So noticeable if you’re not distracted by something

else, but not disturbing.

28. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Not disturbing, and that’s the key point. We accept

there will be a change; you will be able to hear the trains, and that level of noise will be

experienced. But it is not, so far as we are concerned, a level of noise that would

prevent continued play on a cricket pitch of this kind; and indeed, of any similar sports

facilities and cricket pitches which experience similar or even higher levels of noise if

they’re located next door to a road. So we readily accept there’s a change but we don’t

think with this mitigation in place that it should affect the continuation of play by the

club on this location.

29. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it’s the equivalent of a plane flying over the

Oval?

30. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I suspect it may be worse for planes flying

over the Oval – I think the actual noise events. But I know the Committee obviously

7

has heard noise levels, but you can see, broadly speaking, the level of noise and why

we’re satisfied that, whilst they’re concerns, the concerns are such that cricket can

continue in Twyford on this location and so we see no reason for the club to move.

31. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Wade?

32. MR WADE: I just have one quick question which is to do with the height of the

bund, because on the cross-section drawing which I think is very helpful – as indeed, are

all the exhibits – it appears to be the case that the top of the bund is above the level –

that is above the eye line of the level of trains that will be going through, that is correct

is it? So the train –

33. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If we go back just for a second to 9622 and then

onto 9623 I think? You can see 3A-3B, which cuts across the –

34. MR WADE: That was the one I was looking at.

35. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It does look as though – sorry, yes, it does look as

though the level of the bund is higher than the level of the roof of the trains, is that

correct? So they’re entirely shielded from –

36. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly, yes, yes. I do think the bund slightly

changes in height as it goes further to the west. In terms of the eye lines, we’re

anticipating you won’t be able to see the trains.

37. MR WADE: Okay, thank you.

38. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): You may be able to see the top of the catenary,

which is a fixed line –

39. MR WADE: Yes.

40. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absent any planting, but for the reasons we’ve

shown, we’re putting planting, and anticipate you won’t be able to see that either,

eventually.

41. CHAIR: Okay, thank you Mr Wade. Very impressive cricket club anyway, all

those teams; the number of kids involved as well. Thank you very much. We’ll reflect

8

on your views.

42. MR WADE: Thank you.

43. CHAIR: Right, we now go to 1390, Phillip and Christophine Goss, in person?

Are you on your own?

Phillip and Christophine Goss

44. MR GOSS: I am, yes. I’ve got about four points, if that’s okay?

45. CHAIR: Okay.

46. MR GOSS: Hopefully the first one will be relevant but I’ve worked within sound

recording for 30 years and wear headphones everyday with dB metres and mixing desks,

and recording devices. I went to the Calvert consultation, and the first thing I noticed in

the sound booth, was that the trains seemed very quiet, compared to the information of

sound levels. I actually went up to the guys who were representatives, because I felt the

levels were too low; they just said, ‘This is the level that it will be’. So I went over to

my recording studio with a location recorder, and went the same distance from a train; I

know it was just a diesel train –

47. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would you forgive me, just for interrupting you for

a second? Can we just have a look at 9578 to get our location please?

48. MR GOSS: Yes, so I –

49. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you wait just a moment, just so we can – you’re

the other side of the line from Twyford?

50. MR GOSS: I am.

51. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

52. CHAIR: Carry on.

53. MR GOSS: So I went to do a recording for myself of a normal diesel train. I

know that they are different, and I got the same set of headphones in the studio, set up

the same sort of thing that it would be in the sound booth. I then went back to the

9

consultation to have a listen and in my viewpoint, I felt it was about 30-40% dBs below

the actual amounts that it should be.

54. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, 30-40% dBs?

55. MR GOSS: Sorry, 40% quieter than what the actual dBs would have been. That

was my viewpoint again. But I just felt it was really giving the people of Twyford and

the surrounding villages a wrong impression. It could have just been on the day that the

volumes were just too quiet or the headphones weren’t right, but it wasn’t addressed by

the time that I went back. So one thing I would say to that is I think it would be worth

putting the sound booths back for a few days, in the surrounding area, with the proper

recorded levels of that train, so people could be aware of the actual impact because I

think it was false.

56. CHAIR: Okay, that’s your first point.

57. MR GOSS: Yes. My second point, coming on to now, my property – could you

please show A1512 please? Sorry for reading this out, but it’s easier for me. I bought

my house after searching for about 50 houses, and obviously I love it; it’s a beautiful

part of the country. Basically I bought it for its peace and quiet. It’s about three-

quarters of a mile from the main road, and down a farm track. There are no amenities

other than electricity and water. I get no dustman or postman or anything like that, and

everything has to be taken up to the farm. So it’s a very rural position.

58. HS2, I believe, is going to take away the one unique selling point for my property,

which is the peace and quiet. Sadly, as you can see from there, I have one neighbour

who got so stressed by this whole process, that he sold his house for £250,000 below its

price; went through hell, basically, and felt under a black cloud. I’ve wanted to stick it

out, but the Aylesbury District Council came down and used our garden for the baseline

sound levels. Again, they pretty much tally with what your figures were –

59. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are you on the left or the right?

60. MR GOSS: To the line?

61. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, in this picture.

10

62. MR GOSS: Oh, sorry. I’m on the left-hand side, the one with the pool.

63. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Fine.

64. MR GOSS: That’s my property. Yes, so your figures pretty much tally with the

figures that they gave me. Sadly, they did mine during the harvest which did have an

effect on them; and also the morning chorus did have an effect as well.

65. But could you put up P9589 please? It does say on here that it will have a

significant effect from the baseline – there’s a massive increase from the day and night

volumes. Basically, one thing I was concerned about on here is there seems to be a dip

– in fact, sorry I think the better one is 9590 – yes. Strangely, around our house, it

suddenly dips a bit quieter which I went out yesterday, across the field there, and there’s

nothing that would cause that dip that I can see. It’s a flat field, so I was interested to

know what’s caused it to be quieter around our house than what it is – that was one

concern I had.

66. But, carrying on with it, if you could show 9584 please?

67. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s a gradient rather than a cliff edge isn’t it? The

fact it’s on a map which shows to be a contour –

68. MR GOSS: Well, I walked across there, it’s flat, there’s nothing I can see that

would cause anything –

69. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Any change at all?

70. MR GOSS: As you can see from this diagram, I’ve got no mitigation at all, or

sound barriers. The only thing that’s been put up is a hedge, which on the other side of

the track, there are sound barriers, there are trees. Basically, there’s nothing here that’s

giving any mitigation to our property at all. So obviously I’m concerned that there’s

going to be, you know, the noise level that we get from the trains is what we’d get –

nothing will stop it. When I went to the second consultation meeting, they promised

that there would be bunds, there would be as much protection as possible. I don’t want

to leave, but I know that this is going to have a massive effect on what I love about my

own property, is the peace and quiet. Obviously, there’s the financial thing that’s going

to – there’ll be a reflection from the sound barriers the other side, I guess, to increase

11

our volume as well.

71. Another thing is – again, I imagine this doesn’t matter to you really, but this land

has been in my family for two or three hundred years, so there’s an emotional tie to the

land as well, which I think is important.

72. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If there were a bund, or a sound barrier, where do

you think it might go?

73. MR GOSS: Well, it does go down into a – it does obviously change from an

embankment to a cutting, so it’s really from where the level to the cutting, across –

actually it’s probably better to see the diagram, is it 9548 – sorry, 9583 I think has got

the –

74. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The one before which has got the lines?

75. MR GOSS: Yes. Could you zoom in a bit please, if that’s okay?

76. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re welcome to point; there’s a magic system

which will pick up where your finger is.

77. MR GOSS: Right, so you can see the other side of the purple line is the sound

barriers; there’s nothing this side. So I’m imagining from that level of where the cut is,

back to maybe the pond that’s been – the new levelling pond – something like that

would have an effect on reducing sound.

78. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s the sound rather than the visual impact?

79. MR GOSS: There is slight visual impact but it’s obviously more the noise levels

that’s the big issue to us.

80. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There isn’t a sound barrier on the other side

opposite you, so you aren’t going to get the reflection from that are you?

81. MR GOSS: I think there would be a reflection if there’s nothing on our side; it’s

going to just bounce of that –

82. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not going to bounce exactly by you because the

sound barriers stop before it gets to you doesn’t it?

12

83. MR GOSS: Sorry, I don’t – the sound barrier’s the other side.

84. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, but the sound barrier is not continuous is it?

85. MR GOSS: It stops at the cutting. So what I’m suggesting is that there would be

a sound barrier the other side as well, to protect us from that. I mean, I know we’re a

single property so it’s profit over people in some ways, but that would be – I think,

make a massive difference to us, if that was done.

86. My third point – could you show please one of my ones which is 1511? The blue

line going up to the red line is my trip out onto a main road, which is about three-

quarters of a mile. It’s just a dirt track at the moment, and a farm track, which is a

single line. Particularly when you get to the farm, and up to where it says, ‘Main road’,

there’s no way of having passing places or anything, it’s just a single road. HS2 are

going to be tarmacking that road, the red area of the road, basically from the top there

down through the farm, and down to your maintenance area. I’ve been told it’s going to

take between three and four months to do that, which is going to have a massive effect

on us because we’ve got to get past it to get out onto a main road to actually access the

main roads. Again, it’s a concern to us because there’s no relief road, there’s no other

way around it. It’s been suggested, as well, that we should ask that as a compensation

for this, that you should tarmac the blue line as well to actually make up for the, you

know, what’s going to happen to us through that time, because it will be a lot of grief if

you’re going to tarmacking that road and you’ve got no other access. So we’ll probably

have to leave our cars at the top and things like that, so it’s quite a way to go.

87. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’d like that road tarmacked?

88. MR GOSS: The blue area. The red area is going to be tarmacked already by HS2

but I think as a compensation for the grief we will have, to do the blue area as well

would seem a fair thing to do.

89. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the line of the HS2 is the extension of that

bottom bit of the red?

90. MR GOSS: That’s right, yes. Because we’ve got no other access as you can see

from there, to get out.

13

91. My final point, if that’s okay: I come from a farming background; there are many

farmers in the family. One of my concerns, and I guess this is a wider issue, is that there

doesn’t seem to be any liaising with organisations such as the RABI, which is the Royal

Agricultural Benevolent Institute or the Farm Crisis Network which is now called the

Farming Community Network. A lot of the farmers are proud people and they wouldn’t

come to HS2 to help; it is apparent that farm suicide rates are up, and the RABI that it

calls all the time, and I’m concerned that farmers won’t come to you. It’s hard enough

for them anyway with all that’s going on with the subsidies and what not, and milk

prices. But I think the increased stress for those people in the affected areas; it should

be looked into, and I think you should liaise with these organisations. There doesn’t

seem to be any of that at all, at the moment. So that’s just a side point, but I think it’s

important to raise.

92. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed. Mr Strachan? You can stay there;

he will respond to some of your points, you have the final say.

93. MR GOSS: Right.

94. CHAIR: He might even agree with you, you never know. Mr Strachan?

95. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Could I go back to P9583, just to show what is

happening in this location from Mr Goss’ property? P9583 please? Just while it’s

coming up on screen, just in answer to the sound booth recordings. The Committee will

have heard that those are – some pains are taken to calibrate those sound noise

recordings. I can’t specifically to the date in question you went and heard them, but

certainly there is considerable effort goes into ensuring that the noise are representative

of the specific trains that are anticipate to run along this line. There are different noise

association characteristics with diesel trains, as I think the Committee will have heard,

than other trains. So I don’t know whether that may account for the discrepancy you

heard, but certainly, we are satisfied that the calibration techniques used are

comprehensive and robust.

96. Can I just go back to Mr Goss’ property in this location? As indicated here, you

can see that Mr Goss is, as he’s indicated, a more isolated property on the other side of

Twyford. The scheme, in this location is, as he’s pointed out, starting to go into a

cutting. The noise barrier and bundings on the other side of the line there, to protect the

14

settlement of Twyford, as you’ve heard, and the barrier, if I just take the arrow, the

barrier running along this side is running along here, onto the Twyford Viaduct and

beyond –

97. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But it’s below the line?

98. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s below the line, this side of the line, sorry. The

Twyford side of the line, not to the, effectively, the east or northeast, because it’s there

to protect the number of residencies and properties on the Twyford side. There isn’t a

continuation of either the bunding or the noise barrier on the other side of the line, on

Mr Goss’ side, but as the Committee will have heard previously, it’s not considered

practical to put in all of those same measures to protect isolated properties to the same

degree. What we do is look at the effects of the scheme on all properties, and there’s

some noise calculations for this property which do demonstrate there will be a

significant change because the change is beyond 10dB.

99. I can show you that from the noise calculation that I think Mr Goss was referring

to a moment ago? The results are P9591. The results are shown at the bottom, and what

Mr Goss was referring to is that, because there’s more than a 10dB change at night, it

gets a red marking, i.e. a significant effect on the property. The actual levels of noise

within the property are the ones that are shown here: 56dB during the day and 46dB at

night. So, readily accept that there’ll be a change for the property, for Mr Goss’

property, a change in the noise environment, but the resulting noise levels are not one

which are deemed unacceptable as noise environments fall for a property of this kind.

They are above LOAEL and so in accordance with the Information Paper policy we’ve

set out, E20, we’ll continue to look at measures to improve the noise environment for

properties of this kind. There may be, of course, advances in technology which mean

these are more worse cases than are actually experienced when the railway is built.

100. On the question of introducing noise barriers or bunds to protect properties. As

you’ll appreciate, in order to have a beneficial effect of a noise barrier on one property,

it would have to be substantial in length because of the location of the property to the

line, has to be a relatively long section of noise barrier; and an assessment is made as to

whether that introduction of a length of barrier plus the cost of introducing that

significant structure are proportionate to the overall effect on one property. That’s why

15

the balance has been struck in the way it has, although we’ll continue to look at it in

relation to E20. So, that seems to explain why the noise barriers don’t continue on from

that side of the road, but the overall effects of the noise environment are shown on

P9591.

101. I think Mr Goss raised the issue of access to his property, which if I go back –

perhaps I can show it from P9583, so you can see what’s actually going on here. The

road that Mr Goss was referring to was his access road, that runs along out to his

property here. What we are doing on this section of the road which he talked about

tarmacking is providing, effectively, with a byway with accommodation overbridge to

pass over the railway. There is an information paper about maintaining access to

residential properties. That sort of work, to anything that’s done to improve the surface

of the accommodation overbridge, we will still be maintaining access for Mr Goss to his

properties during that work. So we don’t anticipate – and indeed if we were to prevent

him getting to his property – he would no doubt have a legitimate basis of complaint

against us. But we don’t anticipate preventing him getting access to that property –

102. MR GOSS: It’s the other end, I’m meaning to go down that bridge –

103. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I’m sorry; the continuation. Any works that

are done here are to this road, including where you join it, which should not involve

preventing you getting access to your property. There’s a policy set out in one of the

information papers.

104. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just as a matter of physics, how do you tarmac a

road which is not a very wide road and at all times make it possible to pass along it?

105. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I imagine there is a way of creating passing spaces.

106. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, you’re tarmacking it –

107. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’m assuming it was tarmacked –

108. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, it’s going to be tarmacked –

109. MR GOSS: There are some areas that are tarmacked, but there’s hedges both

sides, and dips. There’s no way of getting past without –

16

110. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We haven’t actually made any decision on whether

it will be tarmacked or not, so I’m not sure where Mr Goss has got that information –

111. MR GOSS: From the farmer that owns the property, he’s had meetings –

112. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): As I understand behind me, no decision on the final

surface has yet been made, and no doubt that will take into account the accommodations

of the farmer. We’ve heard discussions about what types of surface may be necessary

for different types of farms. So I’m not – at the moment, we’re not in a position of

saying it would be tarmacked. If it is to be tarmacked, I will find out how that would be

achieved without preventing him getting access to his property. In extremis, we’d have

to perform some other alternative access for him to get around, because we can’t

obviously carry out works which block access to a residential property as a matter of

principle; short of taking the land itself.

113. So I note his concern, I note what he wanted which was the extension of

tarmacking along his road. It may be there’s not any tarmac involved at all, but

generally speaking, the approach would be not to prevent him getting to his property as

you can understand?

114. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I raise two points, following on from what Mr

Goss was saying? The first was going back to what he was talking about now, about

giving him a hard surface from his property to this access road. What sort of distance is

that?

115. MR GOSS: About 200 metres.

116. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It does seem to me – going back one more stage.

The Secretary of State decided to bring the line closer to him. The original proposal was

to have it on the cutting, and then to protect Twyford, he and his neighbourhood had to

make more of a sacrifice when the road was brought up in terms of level and closer to

them. That’s what you were saying in your petition. So, to that extent, it is a not very

desirable situation made slightly worse. I hope that if significant work is going to take

place on the access road, that the undertakers will be asked to consider providing him

with 200 yards of better access to his property.

17

117. The second thing, going back to this question about the noise and the visibility of

the line. I’m not enough of an expert to know whether a bund or a barrier on his side of

the line near his house would make much difference, or whether he’d be better advised

to think of having, whether some kind of mounding and either a barrier or more trees

around his property would make more sense, because it guess it probably would,

because 300 metres of sound, in effect, can curve. Having something closer to his house

make some sense. Is that something he can discuss with the promoters or is he just

ruled out from any consideration?

118. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, he certainly can have those discussions with the

promoters. I think what the cross-section shows – I don’t think we’ve looked at the

cross-section itself – is that the idea –

119. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s 9584?

120. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P9584, is that there is both the introduction of

planting close to the HS2 mainline, and there is some planting beyond which exists

already. But the idea is, because the line is lower down at this point, there would be

quite a lot of visual screening provided close to the line. But certainly the detail of that,

we haven’t finalised, and of course –

121. MR GOSS: It’s not very high.

122. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Not very high is it? No? From your picture it

looked as though it was pretty good? Maybe I’m misled by that? Anyway, if it’s

possible for the petitioners to have discussions? It looks like two trees and a hedge?

123. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There’s an aerial photograph at P9580 which may

give you some indication of what’s in between. The cross-section was seeking to show

some of this, but I hope you’ve got your boundary broadly right, Mr Goss?

124. MR GOSS: Yes it is.

125. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There’s your property –

126. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, it’s not –

127. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If we put – the line’s obviously in this location

18

down here – and in between there is some hedgerow and planting along here. That was

what’s shown I think on the cross-section and then in addition, as we get close to the

line, there’ll be planting alongside the line where it’s gone down into embankment. So

broadly speaking, I totally welcome the idea of discussions, but the idea is, of course, to

provide visual screening to the property.

128. On the bund itself, just in answer, what I was simply pointing out, that once one

starts to introduce noise bunds or noise fences, in order to be effective to a property in

that location, it has to be of some considerable length, hence the balanced exercise that

has to be taken as to the proportionality of doing that.

129. MR GOSS: There is more than, obviously, my property there; there’s the property

next door with new owners. There’s also two or three more, like Cally Lodge, which is

just along the line. I know that the farmhouse wouldn’t be as affected, up the road, but

if you look at it as probably four or five properties that would benefit from it.

130. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): As I said, the door in relation to consideration of

reducing noise levels to below LOAEL is not closed because that’s an ongoing task on

our part to consider – keep on considering any properties above the LOAEL level. So

that process is already built in. But I have taken on board, particularly, the idea of

discussions on planting

131. CHAIR: Okay, good. Okay, thank you very much, Mr Goss. We now move on

to 1787, the Claydon Estate with Henry Verney, which is also AP2160. Before we start,

Mr Clifton-Brown wants to say something?

132. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I need to declare an interest on this particular witness.

Sir Edmund Verney, who is my second cousin.

133. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Noted.

134. CHAIR: Okay.

The Claydon Estate

135. MR NICHOLAS VERNEY: By way of introduction, my name is Nicholas, Sir

Edmund’s son. The Claydon Estate is our family home, has been for 12 generations

19

now. As well as being our family home, it’s also our family business. Henry and I are

responsible for the day-to-day management of that business. Henry is estate manager.

Our primary income source on the estate is agricultural. Our secondary income source

is tourism. The effects of HS2 on our agricultural business and our tourism business is

obviously our largest concern; although we do have areas of woodland and other areas

of land that are under environmental schemes that we are very actively involved in, and

we take the impacts of that very seriously too. The Claydon Estate, some of you having

visited it and are aware, it’s a very historic landscape. We have concerns over the

effects on Claydon House itself and the landscape. All of those concerns have been

raised in our petition and Henry will take you through.

136. MR HENRY VERNEY: Thank you. The members will be relieved to hear that

I’m not going to go through all of the petition points for 1787; and I’m going to

disregard AP2160 for today. I’m going to concentrate on six main points of our original

petition. The first one I’d like to start with, is paragraph 30, being the land take

proposed very permanently and temporarily for the IMD and associated environmental

mitigation, in our view, that’s deemed to be as excessive. You can see on your screens

in front of you the extent of the estate, outline in blue. The area in pink is that that is

being taken temporarily for mitigation and construction purposes.

137. CHAIR: So when we stood in the pub at Steeple Claydon and looked down

towards it, all the land in between the pub where they are going to have the rock concert,

is the estate?

138. MR HENRY VERNEY: That’s correct, yes. And the area in grey is the

permanent rail head part of the infrastructure maintenance depot. If we can turn to HS2

–

139. CHAIR: The proposed station is that on your land? Or is that to the right?

140. MR HENRY VERNEY: No, that’s in the area – so everything inside the area

outside in blue is on estate land. So the station is very much part of it, yes.

141. CHAIR: Okay.

142. MR HENRY VERNEY: If we can refer to P9658? Now this plan, again, shows

20

obviously the extent of the estate outlined in red this time, and a more detailed proposal,

once the rail head is in operation, and obviously it shows both the mitigation planting in

green; the settlement areas in blue, for obviously the collection of run-off water; and

obviously the rail head in grey itself. Now, the concerns that we have with this area is

that this whole area outlined in red forms an integral part of our in-hand farming

operations. As such, we are geared up as part of that with machinery and the resources.

Any permanent land take has a direct impact on that.

143. Now, we’re acutely aware that as part of – there is a balancing act between

agricultural loss and ensuring there’s a good level of mitigation planting for both

screening and ecology. But to date, we haven’t had the justification as to why the level

of land take is as it is.

144. More concerning is the temporary land take proposed. If we can turn back to the

original plan? Thank you. More concerning is this area of pink. As I said before, we’re

understanding of the reason why the IMD has been chosen in this location; we would

like some clarity over the area in pink and, to a certain degree, we have been provided

with that. But the extent of the layout as it is at the moment leaves us with very

irregular field corners and you can see on the plan here, these areas that are going to be

severed. We’re very much aware that, obviously, under our heads of claim when it

comes to compulsory purchase, severance, and obviously injurious affection is part of

that, but we would hope that we could come to a more sensible arrangement with the

promoter so far as the layout.

145. I’m well aware that you’ve had petitioners who have gone before us, residents of

Steeple Claydon, that have got concerns with the level of mitigation to the north of the

IMD, but any permanent land take, be it temporary or permanent, is obviously

impacting on the in-hand farming. So as such, we ask for some form of assurance that

any land that is taken permanently or temporarily should be strictly limited to that which

is absolutely necessary for the construction, safe operation and maintenance of the HS2

works. We ask for it to be reconsidered, in terms of the layout of the screening to both

minimise irregular field corners and the extent of the land take.

146. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I ask, Mr Chairman, that the discussions and

negotiations you’ve had with HS2, we heard about those when you gave us a briefing at

21

the front of a house back in – was it June, I think?

147. MR HENRY VERNEY: That’s right.

148. MR BELLINGHAM: How have those negotiations gone? I remember you made

some of these points at that stage?

149. MR HENRY VERNEY: That’s right, yes. To a certain degree, they’ve

progressed well in certain areas, but the six points – the first one being the one I’ve just

raised now is a real sticking point.

150. MR BELLINGHAM: The one about the field margins?

151. MR HENRY VERNEY: Yes.

152. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.

153. MR HENRY VERNEY: It’s still a contentious point. Would you like me to go

on with the other five points?

154. CHAIR: Yes, deal with the other five points and then we’ll come back.

155. MR HENRY VERNEY: The second point, paragraph 31 of our petition, is that

relating to both permanent and temporary tree planting and shrubs. The temporary tree

planting just to be clear, you’ll have heard of previously, that it’s being proposed for the

north of the temporary area of the infrastructure maintenance depot, and in effect, that is

a bund that is being created and planted up for the 10-year construction phase of the

work.

156. The area to where the FCC sidings, which I’ll come onto later, and the corridor

effect obviously is that planting proposal for ecology purposes, specifically for the

Bechstein’s bats amongst other species. The point I wish to raise on this is that the

estate is fortunate to have the resources and knowledge to be able to manage these

woodlands both during that phase and after. We would seek some form of assurance

that we would be consulted through that process with a view to potentially taking those

on in hand. The estate as a whole is very conservation minded; we are in a higher-level

scheme at the moment, which is the upper-most tier of agricultural land management.

22

157. The third point being paragraph 36, is land not needed for permanent railway

works being acquired temporarily: I picked up on this under paragraph 30, and again, it

refers to this pink area of land being the temporary land take; and having some form of

assurance that this isn’t going to be permanently acquired and can be dealt with under

Schedule 15 powers. As I said, that area forms an integral part of our in-hand farming

operation and whilst we accept that it’s a 10-year construction phase, ensuring that

comes back in-hand after that period is absolutely essential to the long-term

sustainability of the estate.

158. MR BELLINGHAM: Just to – sorry to interrupt – to go back to the context. The

pink bit that’s going to be acquired for temporary mitigation, what acreage is that? You

have mentioned that –

159. MR HENRY VERNEY: I have, yes. It extends to 77.8 hectares in total of

temporary take and 53.3 hectares of permanent land take. There is a small proportion of

that that is included in this area.

160. MR BELLINGHAM: Down at the bottom there, yes.

161. MR HENRY VERNEY: Down at the bottom, but the majority, as you can see,

obviously is including that area. Now, you may be shown a slide by the promoter to

show the percentage of land take against the wider holding. My only point with that is,

as I said before, we are geared up, as far as the arable enterprise is concerned, and any

acreage removed permanently has a huge effect, clearly, on the margin. What the

acreages don’t take into consideration is the fact that much of the estate is either down

to woodland or grazing or areas that clearly don’t form part of the arable enterprise.

162. CHAIR: What percentage of the arable enterprise do you think they’re taking

both temporarily and permanently?

163. MR HENRY VERNEY: According to their figures, it’s 6%, but what I don’t

believe has been factored in is the irregular field corners which, with the kit of modern

day agriculture, hasn’t been factored into it. So I think we can legitimately say it’s

another 30-35 acres, thereabouts, that are going to be affected directly.

164. CHAIR: Okay.

23

165. MR HENRY VERNEY: The fourth point that I’d like to pick up on which I’m

afraid the members will have heard considerably already is concerning the FCC sidings.

Whilst I don’t intend to have either the resources or knowledge to comment on ecology

and mitigation proposal, the concerns that we have, again, comes back, as you can see

on the plan in front of you – if we can go to plan 3, reference 3? – this hopefully gives a

better indication. So the FCC access and rail track, obviously, highlighted in the rail as

well as the HS2 line, it comes back again to the concern that we have with leaving

irregular field corners and areas that just can’t be farmed. Area number one is a poplar

plantation. That obviously has been planted for biomass, renewable purposes and that

will be felled in the not too distant future. It may well be reverted back to agriculture.

Point two, you’ve got three fields that are going to be left, the majority of those being

under three acres. Whilst they are deemed to be pasture at the moment for livestock

purposes, there is every chance, given the level of that land, it could be returned to

arable purposes. It is just some form of assurance that we will be consulted with when,

actually, the final design of the mitigation is fixed.

166. In addition to the points that have been raised by your other petitioners, in terms of

the hours of operation, noise, light and odour. We’ve obviously got concerns also with

the ecology impact, and I’m sure you’ll hear at length – or have heard at length – the

involvement of Natural England, have been involved with the reports that HS2 have

commissioned. But I genuinely think that with the mitigation planting that’s proposed,

to the south of Sheephouse Wood and decoy, there hopefully be a better scheme

proposed. I know you’ve heard from Members of Parliament as well as both Parish and

Council, and the estate supports the case of relocating those sidings to the south of

Sheephouse Wood.

167. Paragraph 40 of the petition, if we can move to reference (3)? Sorry, (5), sorry.

Paragraph 40 of our petition relates to the land loss and severance to provide habitat for

the Bechstein’s bats, and our belief that this is excessive and sub-optimal for its purpose.

The area in blue to the north is all under the estate ownership. The area here in pink is

all proposed for planting purely for ecology purposes, for the Bechstein’s bats. At the

current time, it’s unclear as to why there is a corridor effect to the south and a further,

considerable area to the north that’s required to link Sheephouse Wood to your left and

Rona Wood to the right. Coupled with this, the area of land immediately to the south

24

consisting of the four fields that you can see on here, is in effect, land locked. I’m sure

there’ll be access provided but it’s very unclear at this stage how they’re going to

continue to be farmed, and we’d want some form of reassurance that we’ll be consulted

with in that process; and for that land take to be absolutely limited as far as possible, to

reduce permanent land take.

168. The final point being 44 of the original position is that concerning maintaining

current access to Queen Catherine Road and Addison Road and if I can refer to P9659?

On this plan you can see both Addison Road and Queen Catherine Road. Both provide

essential links, again, for the arable enterprise but also for people accessing Claydon

House and visiting the various attractions that the estate are also putting on as well.

Increasingly, in the not too distant future – and we’d look for some reassurance that

these roads are going to be adequately maintained and access is continued on a day-to-

day basis. That concludes the presentation.

169. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Strachan?

170. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Just on a general note, I’m grateful for

the recognition that discussions have been ongoing and I would suggest, strongly

suggest, that those discussions continue. There have been useful discussions and I think

there’s been some useful exchange of information. A number of the requests related to

continued consultation about the detailed design of the scheme – and I’m pleased to say

that there will be continued discussion and consultation on the detailed design of the

scheme. The reason why it may not be necessary to provide further assurances is

because we have already provided a number of assurances in the context of responding

to the NFU and the CLA which are of general relevance to the sorts of points that Mr

Verney has made. For example, I know the Committee will have seen these before but

Assurance 14 – if we can get it on screen, if not I’ll just read it, P8435(11) if it’s

available?

171. That general assurance was prior to the completion of the detailed design of the

works. The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to consult an

owner/tenant of an agricultural holding regarding the detailed design of the works

proposed to be constructed upon part of that holding under the powers of the Bill.

Those general objectives, seeking to minimise the loss of agricultural land. 14.2.2 seek

25

to accommodate reasonable proposals from the relevant owner to modify the detailed

design of the works for the purposes of facilitating the efficient management of the

agricultural holding in question, which as I understand Mr Verney’s point regarding the

detailed design of field boundaries, that sort of assurance is specifically directed at

achieving as a mutual benefit for the promoter and of course the land owner in ensuring

the most effective use of continued agricultural land whilst the scheme is being

constructed and indeed, after operation.

172. CHAIR: It’s presumably, if you left the petitioner with fields which are not

viable, then that would increase the potential compensation against the project anyway?

173. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely. That’s why I say it’s in both parties’

interests to ensure the continued effective operation of the fields insofar as it’s possible,

consistent with the scheme. So, there are some assurances which have already been

provided. I don’t know if they’ve been discussed yet in the context of the discussions

that have been had, but clearly it would be useful, I think, for the promoter to continue

discussing those assurances with Mr Verney to see the extent to which they already

cover the points of concern to him.

174. I know that the Committee has heard something about the IMD and the mitigation

proposals in this area that are on the Claydon Estate land, and I’m very happy to ask

either Mr Smart or –

175. CHAIR: Can I just ask, how detailed at the moment is the design of the site? Is

the potential footprint a worse case scenario, in which case – are you likely to take less

of the land from the petitioner, is the case?

176. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, it’s intended to be realistic, of course, but it is

intended to show the maximum extent of the land that would be necessary to construct

the scheme, because we can’t obviously come back and take more. But there is a

general principle expressed in Information Paper C4 about land acquisition. The general

principle is that the Secretary of State will acquire no greater amount of land than that

appears to him to be reasonably required following the detailed design of the scheme.

So either as a result of the detailed design of the scheme, the footprint can be drawn in,

then it will be in accordance with that policy. Again, for the mutual interest of both

parties: it reduces the footprint of the scheme, reduces the compensation and it also

26

allows those affected landowners have more land retained or uninterrupted.

177. CHAIR: The difficulty is, it hasn’t been designed yet and therefore we’re not

there yet. But the intent is to try and be as helpful as possible?

178. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s exactly right and hence the undertaking – or

the assurance – that I’ve just referred to as the continued importance of consultation

because the promoter will benefit from discussions with the landowner, productive

discussions, on how those land takes could be minimised. If those can be incorporated

into the final design, everyone benefits from that in the ultimate thing. But it is, of

course, important to recognise the stage we are, so far as the Bill is concerned at the

moment, which is not – we don’t have the detailed design. We have sought to show, as

you say, a reasonable case as to what would be required, but there is the opportunity to

bring it in.

179. I’m just trying to make sure I cover all the points Mr Verney raised –

180. CHAIR: Conservation of –

181. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): One of the things management of – indeed – where

woodlands are planted, they will be interested in taking back the land and managing it.

That, in principle, is something that the promoter will allow. The only thing it has to –

not speaking about the Claydon Estate but in all cases, seek to have the appropriate

covenants on future maintenance of that, in order to ensure the railway continues to be

mitigated. But from what Mr Verney’s describing, that’s not going to be an issue

because there’ll be a mutual agreement that those sorts of covenants can be provided

and continued management to take place. So I only mention that as a more general

principle.

182. Schedule 15, I think the Committee has already heard about and we’ve written to

Mr Verney about that. There is an information paper that’s provided to the Claydon

Estate about the use of Schedule 15, which is to take land temporarily where it can be

done. I hope that information note is coming to Mr Verney to explain the circumstances

in which Schedule 15 powers will be used, as compared with compulsory acquisition.

Again, it’s subject to mutual agreement, and an economic benefit exercise. Sometimes,

Schedule 15 temporary powers are more expensive to use than a compulsory purchase

27

so there is a balance there. Subject to that, those discussions about Schedule 15 should

continue.

183. On the FCC sidings, I’m in the Committee’s hands but I anticipate you’re going to

have a full session on the location of the FCC sidings tomorrow, when FCC are due to

appear and it may be that it’s most appropriate to hear that all in one go, recognising

what we’ve heard from the petitioners about their land. In outline, we’ve already

explained our current position. We’ve explained to the Claydon Estate that the location

of the site that we’ve identified is operationally effective; it’s close to the existing silos.

It’s chosen to be in that location in order to ensure we don’t have a significant impact on

protected species, of the Bechstein’s bats and others, further down the line. You will no

doubt get into that in more detail so, unless you tell me to the contrary, I’m going to put

that off until tomorrow for you to have a more detailed discussion about it.

184. CHAIR: Essentially, quite a lot of the points legitimately raised by the enterprise,

which is concerned about its business planning, are things that will come out in the wash

and there are assurances about how you will proceed. Is there anything which, at the

moment, doesn’t fall into that category, which could be decided now?

185. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t believe so, because the assurances – I think

perhaps when we have further discussion – will satisfy, as I understood it, most of the

points being made, which were primarily about continuing to consult and seeking to

minimise the effect on the Claydon Estate, both of which we intend to do.

186. The only thing that was specifically raised was about the Queen Catherine Road.

We’ve written to the Claydon Estate; we’re not proposing to use that as a construction

traffic route, so we don’t anticipate any interference with it. I think you’ve heard about

those routes we do use in the area; the alternative access arrangements will be put in

place and of course the other obligations we have, in relation to any effects on roads.

187. CHAIR: In that case, can the project have a further meeting to sweep up any

issues, reassure them on the assurances and have a report back to the Committee in three

or four weeks’ time, please?

188. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly.

28

189. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I ask one question about the woods, which I

think was on 1496(6), please? No, it’s not. Linking the two woods, is there a reason

why the linking wood should go where it is above those fields or is there any reason

why it couldn’t be thinner and longer, and go slightly farther to the west?

190. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There is a reason, but I think Mr Miller’s better

placed to provide the answer to that or maybe I could do it.

191. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, do you have a reference to it?

192. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I think the connection you want is… We

perhaps should…

193. CHAIR: Let’s quickly have Mr Miller on, if he has the answer.

194. MR BELLINGHAM: I was going to ask Mr Verney whether, because he raised

the wood, the estate was open for discussions about where it should go. It seems to me

it’s mitigation of planting, in respect to partly the bat problem, but it doesn’t seem to me

that there was an absolute imperative that it went in that location. I just wanted to check

with the estate; you mentioned that you were concerned on two counts. Has the estate

finally agreed to that location?

195. MR HENRY VERNEY: To answer that, no. We weren’t consulted with it. We

have been consulted obviously in other areas, but not specifically on this area, hence the

query over why it’s the extent it is. I understand the principles of linking the two

together, but obviously the corridor effect that you can see directly beneath that is

further mitigation for ecology purposes. Understanding why there need to be two links

in addition to that is a question.

196. MR BELLINGHAM: One question I’m going to put to Mr Smart is that the land

basically south of your land and the line, does that belong to another large estate, a small

farm or who owns the land?

197. MR HENRY VERNEY: It’s another farm.

198. MR BELLINGHAM: If you’re mitigating against problems caused by the line,

you would actually be nearer the line. You wouldn’t put it a few hundred yards north

29

east. You’d put it even longer away.

199. MR HENRY VERNEY: Without stealing FCC’s thunder for tomorrow, the

majority of that is owned upright by that.

200. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Could I just ask Mr Miller to address those points

briefly?

201. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The blocks that come down from where it says

Romer Wood, are those economic forestry?

202. MR HENRY VERNEY: They’re so we can access the different parts of the wood.

203. MR MILLER: You’ve heard from me briefly about this area before. What we’re

trying to do is look at the Bechstein’s bats’ movements. They’re a European protected

species and they fly between an ancient woodland just to the west, over to the east, and

backwards and forwards. As I understand it, it’s principally the males who fly on those

routes. At the moment, we’ve got an existing railway line that is used pretty

infrequently. We’re putting a new railway line in, as you know, and this service will be

used more frequently. The concern is the detriment to the bats by being hit by the trains,

putting it simply.

204. What we’ve done is we looked at this area as a whole and we thought about the

ancient woodlands – this is all in Bernwood Forest area – and how those woodlands

work and how we try to encourage those bats to move in a connectivity sense

north-south, as well as providing some protection through green bridges for the

east-west-type movements. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to reinforce the

assemblages of bats. It’s not just the Bechstein’s bats, but I think I’ve described a sort

of leading bat in this location. It’s probably the most important in terms of its European

status, but there are a range of bats that we’re looking after here.

205. All of the pink lines that you see close to the railway line, just below and along the

blue line there, what they’re doing is thinking about how the bats fly between the

woodlands and the habitats themselves.

206. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry, I’ve just asked for this slide, which I think

was previously shown to Aylesbury Vale, but just to show the context of these other

30

words that you’re referring to, Mr Miller. Is that right?

207. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. This is really interesting, because you see all of

the various woodlands and I think they’re predominantly ancient woodlands in this area

and on your estate. These are the remnants of the Bernwood Forest. The habitats are of

such good quality that they support these types of species. What we’ve been trying to

do is link those all up, and you can see that in the light green. I mentioned this when I

appeared on the Calvert Green discussion last week. The whole idea is to try to link all

of this up and reinforce those ancient woodlands, provide a replacement ancient

woodland where we affect that ancient woodland, and further enable that habitat to

support those species. With the woodland in the location between Sheephouse Wood

and the other woodland there –

208. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Romer Wood, yes. Mr Bellingham was asking

about whether that could be moved closer to the line.

209. MR MILLER: That’s right. As I understand it, that is to support the foraging of

the bats. I think from the Bechstein’s bats the female bats are more sedentary. They

tend to stay around, rather than fly long distances. What our ecologists have done

through this area is thought about the bats’ habitat and put this plan together.

210. Now, the reason for putting that plan together is to think about the licence

requirements that we’ll have to enter into with Natural England, removing or supporting

these in this location, in light of the railway coming through. Although it’s sort of at

outline stage at the moment, we’ve broadly got agreement to these kinds of plans. There

will be more detailed work that has to be entered into.

211. CHAIR: On the more detailed work, is that likely to be in consultation, not only

with Natural England, but indeed with the estate or the landowners affected?

212. MR MILLER: It will be with the estate. I’m really encouraged to hear that

there’s a willingness to look at this and take it on, in light of the habitat through here.

That’s a really important step forward. Without that, it’s very difficult to get this

mitigation to work well together.

213. What I think will happen is, and I think in detail when we get the ecologists out

31

there, we will get a much better understanding of what’s happening in Sheephouse

Wood, for example, about that. Then, we may be able to have a better discussion about

the block of woodland in there. That block of woodland, whilst we put it down on paper

as a block, when it comes to it, that will feature rides through it and that sort of thing.

Access, the sort of thing that you see through woodland anyway to access farmland, I

think we can have that discussion as well.

214. I take your point about further up on the IMD, where we’re taking land. Some of

it looks scallop-shaped landscaping and that sort of thing. Sometimes there’s good

reason for doing that, from a landscape and blending-in point of view, but I take your

point about the field boundaries that run at an angle to the line there. For those sorts of

things, we’ve got to sit down and we’ve got to have a detailed discussion about those

plans as well. There, we can have a productive discussion about keeping good field

boundaries there for getting machinery around and that sort of thing. In this location, I

think we can talk about and get a more detailed understanding of the woodlands and

how they work. We can finalise what those land plans actually look like.

215. It may well be that, on the estate, you may consider that there are other ways of

looking at that mitigation that we could further investigate, which might link up some of

the other woodlands on the estate, which we can get an agreement on. That might

actually produce something that is overall much greater than the sum of the parts, which

I think would lend itself very well to a very attractive edge to the estate, bearing in mind

that the high-speed railway is going to come through. I think there’s quite a lot to be

done, and we can have that productive discussion.

216. CHAIR: Any more questions, Mr Strachan?

217. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I make a suggestion, and it may be for the

convenience of the estate; it may not? Instead of having that link bit of wood, if you

beefed up the connection along Three Points Lane, you took some land from the

adjoining owners and some land from the Claydon Estate, and did away with that link

wood, it would actually be more convenient from an arable farming point of view. It

might be just as convenient for the bats.

218. MR MILLER: It might be. I’m prepared to have that discussion.

32

219. MR BELLINGHAM: What I don’t understand is that the line isn’t actually

impinging on ancient woodland at this particular juncture. The bats are not immediately

affected, because you’re not going into any ancient woodland to the south of the

Claydon Estate, are you?

220. MR MILLER: No, the Bechstein’s bats are flying between the Grendon Wood

and Doddershall Wood, cutting across.

221. MR BELLINGHAM: You’re concerned about the linkage through the woods.

222. MR MILLER: They’re flying across the railway line at the south. We’ve had

quite a lot of detailed work undertaken through here to understand their flight paths.

We’ve been talking with the North Bucks Bat Group, which does have some access to

Sheephouse Wood. We’ve looked at their data as well. We’ve had, I think, infrared

work done along the line of the route. We’ve put a lot of effort into understanding

what’s going on with this particular species of bat in this location.

223. MR BELLINGHAM: Have they indicated what percentage of bats would be

stopped from moving in a northerly direction and, indeed, a southerly direction, as a

result of HS2?

224. MR MILLER: The bat expert has advised that that would be detrimental to the

habitat for the bats.

225. MR BELLINGHAM: You’re going to have fewer bats going up and down, i.e.

north to south, so what you want to try to do by way of mitigation is to get more bats

going east to west, hence linking up the block of wood.

226. MR MILLER: Yes, I don’t think we’ll ever stop that east-west movement, so

there are measures in there to accommodate that, but the idea is to give them a much

better habitat on that north-south axis, as you’re suggesting. We’ve had this sort of

debate a number of times about connectivity and, of course, in the first instance, people

are concerned about the railway being a barrier and being detrimental to species actually

trying to cross the line. On the flip side of that, one of the better ways of dealing with

that is actually to encourage them to connect and be supportive of different habitats, on

a different orientation. That’s, as you said, broadly what we’re trying to achieve.

33

227. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just for the sake of completeness, Mr Miller, there

is some compensation planting of ancient woodland in this location. There is some loss

on wood for example.

228. MR MILLER: There’s a triangle of woodland here on the estate. I think it’s on

the estate. I think the Woodland Trust had put forward to Natural England to say that

that is a remnant of ancient woodland, and I believe Natural England has accepted that

to be on the case and it’s now on the ancient woodland inventory. When it goes on the

inventory, if we’re affecting it, we then have to provide compensation for it.

229. In that area, what we’re trying to do is think about the connectivity. What I said

last week is that that woodland connecting the woods to Sheephouse Wood, to provide

compensation, that’s in and around our proposal for the FCC sidings. From a screening

perspective, you can see that that would provide some benefit for those sidings and the

road around that was described last week. I think that would protect the broader views

and perhaps the more elevated views that we saw, when we went out and had look at the

estate that day when we went out on the visit.

230. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Verney, do you want to ask any questions of Mr Miller?

231. MR HENRY VERNEY: Just one point of clarity, if that’s okay. You just referred

to 1496. Just in terms of the temporary land take, we discussed the north of the IMD

itself. Just some clarity over whether they’ll be some of assurance that that won’t be

permanently acquired at some point in the future and whether it will be dealt with under

schedule 15 powers.

232. MR MILLER: It’s worth just understanding that there is a utility that goes

through that land. I can’t remember exactly what it is, but there is a utility we have to

account for.

233. MR HENRY VERNEY: That will be dealt with through an easement.

234. MR MILLER: I guess so. That sort of thing came up in discussion yesterday.

I’m not sure I can pretend to tell you what the legal argument is for that and what

happens within the Bill, but there are some requirements in the Bill to account for that.

Ultimately, that could go back to an easement or an agreement with you, and that should

34

not stymie that land, as I understand it.

235. CHAIR: The vast majority of land owners and farmers coming down the route

were worried about losing more land and the viability of their enterprise. The

Committee itself has made it very clear that, where absolutely possible, land should be

returned subject to there being a regime of soil testing and all the other things to make

sure that the quality of the land isn’t degraded by the construction work or whatever

goes on. I think that’s where we are, but whether that can go further I don’t know.

Shall we go back to where we were 10 minutes ago, which is that you all have further

discussions? You all come back and give us a report about how they’ve got on. Either

some of these matters can be resolved but, if nothing can be resolved immediately, there

should be assurances that there will be consultation and discussion about the way the

process will operate, so that the estate can remain viable.

236. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely. We did do a letter just before this

hearing, but I think it would be usefully updated to take account of the further

discussions we’ll have. We can update the Committee on that.

237. MR HENRY VERNEY: Thanks for your time.

238. CHAIR: Thank you. We now move on to 1485, Stone with Bishopstone and

Hartwell Parish Council and Marcus Rogers, who I understand is here.

Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Council

239. CHAIR: It may be you’ll be able to do your case before lunch, we’ll probably

break about one and then HS2 will respond at two. You were suggesting 25 minutes or

whatever it is as roughly what you’re going to do. Welcome.

240. MR ROGERS: Thank you. Could I have the first slide, please, which is 1494(1)?

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Select Committee. I’m

Marcus Rogers, role B agent for Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Council.

I’ve been involved personally with the HS2 project since it was first announced in

March 2010, initially with Buckinghamshire County Council and 51m and, more

recently, on behalf of councils and individuals across Buckinghamshire. With me is

Mark Turner, a parish councillor for Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell.

35

241. MR TURNER: Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Select

Committee. I’m Mark Turner, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Councillor.

I’ve been a councillor since September 2010. I should say that, five years ago, I

imagined life as a parish councillor would centre on grass cutting and dog poo, but

leaving those very important matters for one side, I never for one moment thought I

would become so involved in such a significant project, which would affect so many

people in our parish, or that today would lead me to such auspicious surroundings. I’m

very pleased to have been trusted by our residents to speak with you here today.

242. MR ROGERS: Thank you, Mark. I would like to start by considering the context

for the parish and how HS2 impacts the area. Next slide, please. Here we have the view

south from the proposed HS2 rail line, as it passed Aylesbury. On the left or east of the

railway, here, is Aylesbury, the largest town or settlement that will be passed so closely

by HS2, between London and Birmingham. Three town and parish councils,

Coldharbour, Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville, represent communities east of the

railway line. Everything on the right or west of the railway, both north and south of the

A418, which you can see in the centre, the Oxford Road, falls within Stone with

Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Council’s area. This includes Hartwell House,

immediately north of the A418 Oxford Road. Next slide, please.

243. This slide, when it’s there, will provide further context. There we go. The shaded

area is an approximation, to be fair, of the parish council’s boundary in relation to HS2.

244. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just interrupt? Could we have 9727, just for a

moment? We can see, just left of centre, Stone and then, on the right, Bishopstone, just

above where it says Stoke Mandeville bypass. That’s your piece.

245. MR ROGERS: That’s correct, yes.

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you. Go back then to this 1494(3).

247. MR ROGERS: Mark will give you a little more detail now about the parish and

how it’s comprised.

248. MR TURNER: So when the slide comes back up, as you can see, the parish lies

west of Aylesbury. The villages that make up our parish have been traditional rural

36

farming communities for years. The village of Stone is a relatively central point,

comprising approximately 900 households. Stone straddles the A418 Oxford Road. It’s

probably doubled in size in the last 50 years, but village life still centres on the village

hall, the duck pond and the recreation ground.

249. Bishopstone is to the south of the area. It’s just over 100 households and a

number of farms, including Standalls Farm and the Kelly Farm. I’ll come to Hartwell,

which is number 1 on the slide, it’s also sometimes referred to as the Hardwick Hall

Estate. This is where Meadow Way and Mayflower Close, which we will talk about

later, are located. Lower Hartwell, number 3 on the slide, consists of nine properties,

many of which are listed. Whilst it’s not part of the National Trust estate, it still

contributes to the historic setting of Hartwell House and it’s a designated conservation

area in its own right. Sedrup, which is number 2, is a historic hamlet of 10 pretty tiled

and thatched cottage properties, and includes the buried remains of a medieval village

that may be disturbed by HS2.

250. As you can see, we’re fairly spread out, but HS2 will have big effects across our

parish and the villages within it, impacting on people’s daily lives. This is the reason

the Parish Council is petitioning. As we move to discuss our specific concerns, I’d just

like you to remember these three locations, as they’re really the key to our presentation.

Next slide, please.

251. MR ROGERS: So we come to the requests or asks of the parish council. The

slide here summarises these, giving me the chance briefly to explain them, before Mark

covers each in a little more detail. The first ask concerns the A418, the key route

between Aylesbury and Oxford, carrying more than 20,000 vehicles every day. HS2

Ltd proposes a major realignment with the road to the south, bringing big impacts for

Meadow Way and Mayflower Close residents. The parish council believes this

realignment is unnecessary.

252. Second, HS2 plans to site a construction road head immediately to the rear of the

same properties – realigned road, road head and train line – a triple whammy. Surely, if

the road head is needed, could it not be located elsewhere? Committee Members, I

know you have not only heard about, but you have also witnessed the fragile nature of

the road network in Aylesbury. The parish council, in common with others, is

37

concerned that construction traffic from HS2 will increase traffic using other unsuitable

rural roads. The promoter is therefore asked to manage rat running.

253. Finally, the council is concerned that there are still three places in the parish where

residents have not been offered the best sound and visual mitigation to maintain their

quality of life and protect their precious landscapes. Next slide, please, Mark.

254. MR TURNER: So the A418 and construction road head. Mr Syms, Sir Peter, I’m

sure you’re all very familiar with it. We were there in June. This is looking out at the

rural landscape, which is currently enjoyed by the residents of Meadow Way and

Mayflower Close. This is the field proposed as the site for the construction road head

and the diverted A418. The parish council is concerned that, despite ongoing

engagement with HS2 Ltd, no details have yet emerged as to what this road head will

actually look like, how many hours of day it will be in operation or how it will be

managed and mitigated.

255. In the absence of this information, our best guess is that it will be a very large site

to be used for loading and unloading materials from construction vehicles, probably for

use at the satellite sites along the west side of Aylesbury. Then it will be the entry and

exit point for construction vehicles. Until the publication of additional provision 2, our

expectation was that this site would be handling up to 730 lorries at the peak period,

each day. The lorries would be turning off the A418 Oxford Road, which is on our left,

and just some 10 to 20 metres from the fence, which is at the end of the gardens there in

the photograph.

256. The latest estimate suggests that the number of vehicles using this access will now

be 206 daily. Whilst that’s a smaller number of vehicles and that’s welcome news, the

impacts on the residents will still be large. Despite repeated requests, the promoter has

refused to consider even moving the road head to the access which is behind these

houses, farther up the road.

257. MR ROGERS: Indeed, Members of the Select Committee, the latest

correspondence that I received on Saturday last, 24 October, reiterates this position,

much to the disappointment of the parish council. Next slide, please.

258. MR TURNER: Committee, that brings us to the construction and road head

38

construction plan. The arrow at the bottom left-hand corner of the slide shows the

direction of the photograph in the previous slide. It shows how close the access road is

to those homes. This has blighted these properties, with many now unsellable until

construction is complete, probably some 10 years from now.

259. One example is a couple in Meadow Way, who moved into their home just before

HS2 was announced. In the intervening period, the husband had a stroke and the couple

had a clear need to sell. Following failed applications to the exceptional hardship

scheme, the couple eventually sold the property earlier this year for more than 15%

below the market value. These are people who have saved hard for their old age and

their future, and I am sure you would agree that it cannot be right when hardworking

people are forced into such a position. Properties like this may fall out the recognised

compensation zones, but I would urge you to consider reviewing the rules for homes

that are in such close proximity to these large construction sites.

260. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Turner, are the properties you are talking about in

the site of those properties?

261. MR TURNER: Yes, they are; that’s right. They’re down in the bottom left-hand

corner. That’s Meadow Way and Mayflower Close. As if the residents are not suffering

enough pain with the prospect of the road head and the railway, they’re also being asked

to cope with the additional burden of the realignment of the A418 Oxford Road, so that

it passes in perpetuity closer to their back gardens. You might remember that, in the

previous slide, there’s a rising landscape. The road will be further elevated on an

embankment to let it cross over HS2.

262. Without adequate screening during the day, vehicles will be visible from the back

gardens, restricting privacy, whilst at night headlights will shine straight into the living

rooms and bedrooms of these houses. The parish council believes the diversion is

unnecessary; it’s further blighting these houses and the road should be retained in, or

more or less on, its existing alignment. If the road is to remain, additional mitigation

measures, such as extensive planting, landscaping, triple glazing and blackout blinds, we

feel, should be offered to the residents.

263. MR ROGERS: It depends also, Committee, if the construction road head, which

is the large brown blot you can see – almost rectangular – the parish council believes the

39

best solution for that is to remove it completely or, at the very least, for it to be

relocated. If the revised traffic flows are accurate, then is the road head needed at all,

particularly if alternatives like rail sidings elsewhere are feasible and deliverable. If its

needs can be demonstrated with the construction site with junction plan on the other side

of the railway, why could this not be used? Next slide, please.

264. This slide shows you the preferred traffic route through the parish using the A418

Oxford Road, the yellow line, but it also shows you the routes often used by drivers,

sometimes locals, to bypass Aylesbury. The unofficial bypass is in red dashed lines.

Mark will explain the council’s concerns about traffic impacts.

265. MR TURNER: This slide illustrates that local residents are already affected by

A418’s traffic to and from Aylesbury, particularly at peak times, due to the congestion

that already exists. This will only get worse when HS2 construction starts. The parish

council is concerned that the impacts on the roads from the construction sites and works

are linked to the A418 crossing HS2 at Hartwell.

266. Before the publication of AP2, Stone and Hartwell residents were expecting, as I

said previously, up to about 730 vehicle movements per day – more than one every

minute – on the A418. Now that figure’s been amended to 260 vehicle movements at

peak time. That’s still one every three minutes. This is still a significant number of

vehicle movements and it will undoubtedly impact on the surrounding vehicles of

Haddenham, Dinton and Ford, and especially Bishopstone, which is down here, as the

traffic tries to find other routes to bypass Aylesbury. None of the village roads here are

able to accommodate significant traffic levels or more rat running.

267. The promoter suggests that these are county council concerns, but the parish

council wants to be involved or would like to be involved in the development of local

environmental management plans to ensure that these displaced vehicles are deterred

from using village roads. We believe that we can add valuable local knowledge to these

plans.

268. Bishopstone residents are particularly concerned, as I say, that the road through

Bishopstone is already used as an unofficial bypass for Aylesbury. The road used to be

used mainly by cars but, nowadays, it’s increasingly being used by HGVs. The road

narrows at several points and it’s not wide enough for two large vehicles to pass. There

40

are already some interesting situations each year, where the combine harvesters drive

through the village. To prevent rat running by inappropriate HGVs across the parish,

the parish council believes the promoter, together with Buckinghamshire County

Council, must introduce traffic management measures and appropriate monitoring

regimes.

269. MR ROGERS: Alternatively, the promoter could actively consider, as they’re

building a railway line, using existing rail lines to build HS2. New sidings from the

current Aylesbury-to-Princess Risborough line could help import and export materials

for HS2. You will hear more on this issue in November, when our neighbour, Stoke

Mandeville Parish Council, appears before you. This parish council does support that

particular petitioning position. Next slide, please.

270. MR TURNER: So turning to mitigation and the visual noise effects of HS2 on

our parish, we start with what we call the Sedrup gap. The circle identifies the Sedrup

hamlet, which was number 2 on one of the original slides. The arrow on that circle

shows that the majority of homes face towards the railway. This reinforces local

concerns that HS2 will bring both noise and visual intrusion to these properties.

271. Ideally, the parish council would like to see the current proposal amended to

include a green tunnel or at least two green bridges to minimise these effects on Sedrup.

The current scheme in this area, however, proposes embankments that are both east and

west of the railway. That’s the Aylesbury side and the village’s side, apart from a

significant gap in the area on the village’s side, which is due east in front of Sedrup.

Until recently, this gap had no mitigation in place. Subsequent changes, as part of

additional provision 4, have introduced a noise barrier west of the line on the Sedrup

side, but there are no current plans to extend the bunding or embankments to afford

better visual screening for Sedrup. Next slide, please.

272. MR ROGERS: As Mark has highlighted, the publication of AP4 did introduce a

noise barrier, which you can see on the slide here, rest of the railway in what we term

the Sedrup gap. Whilst this is welcome, it does little to screen views of the railway from

Sedrup. The view is likely to be of a flat landscape topped by a noise barrier or wall

alongside the railway.

273. MR TURNER: The parish council believes this is an unacceptable solution.

41

Without the mitigation, the view towards Aylesbury from Sedrup will be of planted

embankments to the north and south, with this open gap in the middle, which is topped

by a noise fence. This harsh industrial view is, in our opinion, not in keeping with the

local area. We think the embankments should be continued across the gap, with a

simple reconfiguration of the reed bank and drainage areas and balancing pond.

Additional planting between the balancing ponds and the railway would then filter the

view of the gap from Sedrup.

274. Also in this area, drainage and flooding issues are of great concern. The proximity

of the Stoke Brook and Sedrup Ditch are of concern. In the winter of 2014, a number of

homes in Sedrup were flooded, and so any negative effects on the water table in this

area could be catastrophic to the community. They have yet to receive any assurances

from HS2 Ltd that drainage and flooding will be properly managed. Next slide, please.

275. MR ROGERS: You will be hearing, Committee, from Lower Hartwell residents

in November and the parish council supports their bid to secure better visual and noise

mitigation for the area.

276. MR TURNER: So Lower Hartwell is one of the smallest settlements in the parish,

and residents currently look out over some tree-lined fields towards Aylesbury Park

Golf Course and Aylesbury. HS2 is going to change this outlook significantly, as the

railway, as it crosses here, would be on an embankment in the landscape. The existing

line of trees between the homes and the railway is fairly sparse at this point and they

provide very little screening. The existing scheme includes a noise fence on an

embankment similar to as has been proposed for Sedrup, but residents are quite rightly

worried here that this won’t be in keeping with the existing parkland setting. Of all the

residents in our parish, they are the closest to the railway, meaning their tranquillity will

be destroyed.

277. You’re probably aware of the National Trust’s aspirations for green banks to

protect Hartwell House, but the green banks proposal currently fails to offer any

protection from the railway for the residents in Lower Hartwell. As Marcus has already

said, you’ll hear more from these residents in November. The parish council hopes the

Committee will be persuaded by their arguments and recommend additional visual

screening, perhaps by a natural extension of the green bank scheme into Lower

42

Hartwell.

278. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I ask you if the National Trust owns the land that

you’re asking for an extension of the green bank?

279. MR TURNER: I believe that actually it’s Ernest Cook Trust land and it’s part of

the land that is leased to the National Trust.

280. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: A lease from the National Trust?

281. MR TURNER: Sorry, it’s been leased to the National Trust from the Ernest Cook

Trust.

282. MR ROGERS: Next slide, please. You’ll be pleased to know we’ve reached the

final point and it concerns the alignment or realignment of the A4010 or, as some have

called it, the Stoke Mandeville bypass. The parish council has no fundamental concerns

about the realigned road and supports the measure but, as ever, the devil in the detail

that Mark will quickly expand upon.

283. MR TURNER: Committee, the A4010 realignment will create an elevated road

between Stoke Mandeville and Bishopstone, which we believe will put both the sight

and sound of traffic above the existing treeline. Additional provision 2 provided for

extra planting and screening along the road apart, for some reason, for a small stretch,

which is facing the southern end of Bishopstone. It’s next to the existing railway line.

The effect on this end of Bishopstone could be improved by the addition of a few trees

and the continuation of this planting.

284. Also at this point, where the new road and the existing railway cross HS2, new

overbridges will sit alongside each other, we think creating an unnatural feature in the

landscape. The parish council is worried that, in this area, residents may be affected by

disturbances, both day and night. This could be prevented or mitigated with the

continuation of the planned planting and landscaping, and enhanced noise barriers to

minimise noise impacts.

285. MR ROGERS: Other parish and town councils will talk to you in more detail

about impacts east of the proposed line. Assuming that mitigating features, perhaps a

green tunnel or green bridges, afforded the same protection just along the line here, both

43

east and west of the rail line, they would be supported by Stone with Bishopstone and

Hartwell Parish Council. Next slide, please.

286. The parish council requests or asks of the Committee and the promoter are set out

again here and are worth repeating briefly, for the record. They want to see the A418

Oxford Road rebuilt on or close to its existing alignment, a point I would add that is

supported by both district and county councils. They want to see the removal, or at least

the relocation, of the proposed construction road head close to homes on Meadow Way

and Mayflower Close. They want to see the introduction of active traffic management

or alternative transport proposals to reduce rat running on unsuitable roads and, finally,

they would like to see the introduction or extension of sound and visual mitigation

measures to respect and protect relevant landscapes within the parish. Next slide,

please.

287. MR TURNER: The parish council does not believe that any of its asks are

unreasonable or, indeed, unrealistic. We hope the Committee will be inclined to

consider them. Therefore, on behalf of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish

Council and its residents, I’d like to thank all the Members of the Select Committee for

taking the time to listen to and understand our key concerns.

288. MR ROGERS: If any of you, or indeed the promoter, has any questions about our

points or seeks any clarification, we’ll be happy to respond and offer further information

if necessary. Thank you for your time.

289. CHAIR: Thank you. We will have the response from HS2 at two o’clock.

Lunchtime. Order, order.