high speed rail committee - parliament.uk · mr strachan qc (dft): if it helps, i ’ll just show...
TRANSCRIPT
1
PUBLIC SESSION
MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE
taken before
HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE
On the
HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL
Wednesday, 15 October 2014 (Morning)
In Committee Room 5
PRESENT:
Mr Robert Syms (In the Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham
Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Michael Thornton
_____________
IN ATTENDANCE
Mr James Strachan QC, counsel, Department for Transport Mr Timothy Mould QC, lead counsel, Department for Transport
Mr Charles Meynell, Fisher German LLP
Witnesses:
Mrs Marion Sadler Mr John Sadler
Mr Peter Miller, Head of Environment and Planning, HS2 Ltd
Mr Colin Smith, property consultant
Mr Colin Noble Mrs Kim Noble _____________
2
IN PUBLIC SESSION
3
INDEX
Subject Page
Chairman’s Opening 3
Mr Strachan’s Update 3
Mr and Mrs Sadler
Mr Meynell’s remarks 8
Submission from Mrs Sadler 17
Submission from Mr Sadler 21
Mr Smith, examined by Mr Strachan 24
Mr Smith, cross-examined by Mr Meynell 27
Mr Miller, examined by Mr Strachan 29
Mr and Mrs Noble
Mr Mould’s Remarks 36
Submission from Mr Noble 37
Statement from Mr Sadler 42
4
(At 09.35)
1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome everybody to the session of the High Speed 2
Public Bill Committee. We are now hearing petitions – and Mr Strachan, you’re on
duty this morning, and we’re hearing from Mr and Mrs Sadler and Mr Meynell, you’re
presenting their case?
2. MR MEYNELL: I am.
3. CHAIR: Normally, HS2 just give an overview of the issues, are you happy with
that, and then we go on to your submission?
4. MR MEYNELL: Yes, indeed.
5. CHAIR: Okay, Mr Strachan, would you like to tell us what it’s about?
6. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly. If I could ask that P321 to be put on the
screen. As I understand it, the petitions today are going to be presented jointly, from
Mr and Mrs Sadler, and Mrs Round and the reasons for that will become very clear in a
moment. You’ll see that the location of the petitioner’s – in fact, all the petitioners’
properties – property is between Handsacre and Lichfield, just adjacent to the existing
West Coast Mainline. If we could just look at P322, you’ll see there are two main
buildings at Ashton Hayes. Mr and Mrs Sadler’s property is marked blue; immediately
adjoining to that, to the north, or above it, part of the same building – Ashton Hayes
Farmhouse – is where Mrs Round lives. But her landowning is wider; she owns the
land, shown in the red boundary. Although it is no longer relevant for today’s purposes,
Ashton Hayes farm is owned and occupied by Mr and Mrs Freeman, shown in green.
They are petitioners but they’re not appearing today; they served a polite notice on the
promoter and a purchase of that property has proceeded. I’ll come on to the
significance of that in a moment.
7. MR BELLINGHAM: Mr Strachan, can you just see an overall map, just to get
this in context? Can we just go back to the previous map?
5
8. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, 321.
9. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes, thank you. You mentioned the West Coast
Mainline –
10. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, if one looks at Lichfield at the bottom right?
11. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes.
12. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There’s a black, sort of dark-grey line coming out
to the left of the ‘L’ of ‘Lichfield’?
13. MR BELLINGHAM: Got it.
14. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s the West Coast Mainline, and it’s passing by
Ashton Hayes Farmhouse; and HS2 is coming in above; it’s being tied into the West
Coast Mainline pretty much just past Ashton Hayes. It ties into the West Coast
Mainline, so I will show you.
15. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you.
16. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If I could just go back to – perhaps we will look at
324, just to give you a little bit more photographic detail. This is the lower property, is
Ashton Hayes Farmhouse; and the one above is Ashton Hayes Barn. So, Mr and
Mrs Sadler’s property is the one below, and you can see here, to the right, is the West
Coast Mainline. I apologise for the reverse compass orientation here; it’s just because
it’s an aerial photograph. So, Ashton Hayes Farmhouse is the property below, divided
into two. You’ll see, if you can note, that there are some existing planting, vegetation
in Ashton Hayes Farmhouse Garden; there isn’t any to the left and right of the property;
again, I’ll show you the significance of that in a moment.
17. Can we just please show A1391, which is a photograph from the petitioners, that
may help you orientate yourselves. This is looking towards the West Coast Mainline
with Ashton Hayes Farmhouse in the foreground, and to the top of the picture, you can
6
see an underpass where the footpath goes under the West Coast Mainline; there’s a
footpath there currently; and the underpass, underneath.
18. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the barn’s off to the left?
19. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The barn’s not shown; it would be off to the left,
indeed.
20. CHAIR: Is this a field we’ve studied? We’ve visited?
21. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand it was, yes. So you have been to this
property.
22. CHAIR: It was at the end of a long day, but we have looked at it, alright.
23. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If it helps, I’ll just show A1398, so you can see the
relationship of the existing West Coast Mainline to the property. There’s obviously a
Virgin Train travelling along the West Coast Mainline. Ashton Hayes Barn is to the
right of the picture, in the foreground, and you can just see to the right, Ashton Hayes
Farmhouse, but that’s already speaking to the relationship with the existing like.
24. Could I ask you then to look at P325? This is a plan showing the safeguarded
areas, and as the committee will no doubt remember, there are two zones shown here.
The grey shows what is currently safeguarded, and you’ll see that the grey here passes
over Mrs Round’s land; it also takes the small part of the blue area on Mr and
Mrs Sadler’s property, to the grey mark. Of course, the current safeguarding entitles
the owner to be served a blight notice, under statutory blight procedures if they so wish.
25. In addition, I think it’s pink or perhaps purple hatching, but the hatched pink or
purple area shows what’s known as the extended home owners’ protection zone, and as
you may recall, that reflects land which was originally safeguarded, but the
safeguarding was refined, but because it was originally safeguarded, the extended home
owners’ protection zone, allows persons with property in it, to treat it as safeguarded
land for a period of five years, so that they too can serve a blight notice and through that
7
procedure, require the promoter to acquire the property. You can see that that is what,
when I say the Freemans who were petitioners, they are in that zone. Both Mr and
Mrs Sadler’s property and Mrs Rounds’ are part of the same farmhouse, are within the
extended home owner protection zone; the house itself.
26. I think if I could just then show you, effectively, the works very briefly; I’ll
identify the main issues. 326, please? This shows the existing relationship of the
properties with the West Coast Mainline. In a light shading of grey, you can see the
way in which the West Coast Mainline will move closer to Ashton Hayes Farmhouse as
a result of construction. There’s a light grey line just below the blue line. The West
Coast Mainline is diverted slightly further north, to allow the HS2 to come in between
the four tracks, to tie in. The approximate – I say, approximate – the distances of the
property to the changed West Coast Mainline are shown in the bottom right-hand box.
But essentially, it is 30 metres closer to the property than is currently the case.
27. In 327, this is the construction phase drawing. It shows what sort of works are
going on closer to Ashton Hayes Farmhouse to enable that construction to take place.
The HS2 mainline is on the embankment to the far right, and it comes – moving from
right to left – over on Harvey’s Rough Flyover, it comes over the West Coast Mainline
diversion, and then in between the four tracks to tie in, as I previously described. That
is why the West Coast Mainline is shifted 30 metres further north, to enable that tie- in
to occur.
28. In 328, you’ll see the resulting position once the scheme has been constructed.
Again, the West Coast Mainline closer to Ashton Hayes Farmhouse. What the orange
line there, immediately adjoining the blue, is of course the footpath which remains in
place, going underneath the lines, and then either side, there’s some landscape
mitigation planting shown. There isn’t any immediately in front of the property,
because that’s where the footpath is, but there is landscape mitigation planting either
side, for the benefit of the Ashton Hayes Farmhouse properties that will remain.
29. Now, I hope that gives you an overview of the scheme. The main issue – the two
main issues, although there may be others they want to raise – there are two main
issues. The first is that Mr and Mrs Sadler seek more than simply compensation; they
8
would want a sample of undertaking that, if they require the promoter to acquire Ashton
Hayes Farmhouse, the promoter will demolish to enable them to pursue a planning
application to relocate their building elsewhere on Mrs Round’s land. And we have
responded to that in a letter, if I could just take the Committee – there’s a letter that
explains the promoter’s position in response to that, at P331(1). The options that are
available to Mr and Mrs Sadler and Mrs Round – although this one is to Mr and
Mrs Sadler – it is explained in the paragraphs beginning, ‘First’ and ‘Secondly’ – the
first option is of course, they would be entitled to compensation to reflect the
diminution in value to their house as a result of the scheme being closer, and the noise
effects have been assessed, and they will get any reduction in value to their property,
plus compensation for the land taken, which they can choose to do as they choose.
That’s entirely up to them. The second option is, of course, because they’re in the
extended home owners’ protection zone, they can require the promoter to purchase the
property if they do not want to remain in it, or don’t regard the effects as acceptable,
they can require us to purchase it, which is the second option. So they have flexibility
between those two options.
30. If I can just ask you to go to P331(2). What the promoter has also agreed to do in
respect of their relocation, is to engage with them about that planning application if they
want to make it, and to pay the reasonable costs of a planning application if they want
to make one; we’d pay those costs to pursue that. They would be recoverable if the
scheme proceeds, from any compensation. But that was one of the concerns the
petitioners have, about what would happen if they explored a planning application and
then the scheme didn’t proceed, and they might waste money having explored that
option.
31. There is one other main issue relates to Shaw Lane and I’ll just show you the
plans. If you just go back P328? You’ll see Shaw Lane shown on the right-hand side
of the plan, running up and down. Shaw Lane is stopped up, as a result of the scheme,
because the HS2 is coming in on the bank, and the West Coast Mainline below it;
there’s no bridge or spanning mechanism across that part. Shaw Lane is stopped up,
and there’s diversionary routes to the north, or through Handsacre. The petitioners have
asked for the haul route to become – that will be in this area – to become a public
9
highway. That’s not the proposal from the promoter. There are other petitions that
have raised this issue, which you’re going to hear from later. The issue is not
straightforward because the haul route would not be constructed to a public highway
standard, it would be in a flood plain, and if that proposal were to take place, it would
require taking land from another petitioner for a more permanent effect across
farmland. So it’s not currently the position, but I just raise it in this way, because the
committee will have to look at that issue in the round, in light of those other petitions in
due course.
Mr and Mrs Sadler
32. CHAIR: Okay, I’m grateful. Mr Meynell?
33. MR MEYNELL: Sir, good morning. My name’s Charles Meynell, I’m a
chartered surveyor and I’ve represented Mr and Mrs Sadler and Mrs Round during the
widening of the West Coast Mainline, so I know the property well. I also know the
effects of the railway scheme in their back garden.
34. I am today representing Mrs Round and Mr and Mrs Sadler, and I’d like to please
take their petition jointly, if I may start with. The property has been described to you
and is more particularly described in the statement of petitions. Although there are
differences in the petitions, about which I may comment further in due course, for the
purposes of my opening remarks, I wish to deal with the principle of relocation which is
common to both.
35. Put simply, your petitioners ask your honourable House to support and assist
them, to how the existing farmhouse is demolished and rebuilt elsewhere upon Ashton
Hayes Farm. Demolition would allow reworking of the proposals which, we submit,
would improve the environment mitigation of the scheme, and the safe operation of the
railway. If I ask for P325, thank you.
36. As was explained earlier, Mrs Round’s property is in red, which includes –
looking at the map of the northern part of the farmhouse - Mr and Mrs Sadler’s property
is shown in blue. That is actually incorrect. On 9 August, Mrs Sadler – 9 August 2013
10
– Mrs Sadler responded to a land ownership questionnaire to advise that her mother had
gifted her a paddock, which extends to 0.447 hectares, just over an acre – about 1.1
acres or thereabouts – which is comprised in the title, SF525494. That paddock lies to
the south and east of the farmhouse and garden; it is between the blue colouring and the
railway and extends round, southwards, to be between the green colouring and the
railway, so it’s a paddock in that area.
37. CHAIR: That is the field we stood in.
38. MR MEYNELL: It is.
39. CHAIR: Okay.
40. MR MEYNELL: If I can ask for P327? That shows that the work’s being carried
out adjacent to the property, and you’ve previously been referred to them, and they are
to construct the new railway or the road, and you will see that that takes land and
buildings from the southern end of the garden. It also takes trees from the southern end
of the garden. If you can just please take us to the – I haven’t got the number written
down, I’m sorry – the photograph, the petitioner’s photograph to which you were
shown earlier. It will take the top-end of the garden, as we look at it, including
buildings, a bunch of conifers and not quite sure whether it includes the apple trees, but
certainly it will take some of those significant trees out.
41. Could I ask for reference P328? You’ll see that once the scheme is complete, the
haul road is removed, and the significant earth bunding is shown by the side of the
farmhouse. That’s to the north of the railway line and either side of the footpath, and
landscaping proposals on the northern side of the railway, which are fairly significant.
42. I’m going to ask in a moment if Mrs Sadler could just state in her own words the
effect of the scheme on her family, both during construction and the operation of the
railway. But, continuing with what the petitioners have asked, and that is to support the
proposal, to mitigate the effect on them by relocating the existing farmhouse elsewhere
on Ashton Hayes Farm. If I could just take you to the top boundary, the red edging and
11
then come down the edge of Tuppenhurst Lane, where you can see there is a property
there. Just to the north of that – sorry, northwest of that, so south of the main –
43. MR SADLER: In the red boundary.
44. MR MEYNELL: Yes, in the red boundary, near the road, at the side, right a bit!
You’ve got it – it’s within the red edging, and it is to the northwest of where you can
see that property that is not owned by Mrs Round. That is the site we’ve identified that
may be suitable to replace the two dwellings.
45. The planning policy favours replacement of a dwelling, providing that there are
exceptional circumstances, and your petitioners believe that such special circumstances
could apply in this case, and would ask your honourable House to require HS2 Limited
and the nominated undertaker, to provide an undertaking to demolish the existing
houses as part of a settlement with your petitioners. Under such circumstances,
Lichfield District Council, who are the planning authority in this area, has indicated
they will support the principle of relocation of the properties to that alternative location.
46. The removal of the farmhouses will enable a more comprehensive landscape
mitigation scheme to be implemented, rather than what believe is a somewhat contrived
arrangement, that leaves the house and relies upon the retention of the trees in the
garden. I have referred to those being removed. In fact, the farmhouse remaining in
position in order to screen views from the north. As has already been said, there is no
proposal to screen the railway directly to the rear of the farmhouses. So, directly
behind those houses, there is no environment mitigation.
47. Could I refer you to a reference in the environment statement of November 2013,
if you have that document, page 222? That refers to, at paragraph 95242[?] that
discusses the viewpoint south of Ashton Hayes Farm. It refers to the magnitude of
change as being a major adverse effect in year one. By year 15 of operation, the
proposed party either side of the underpass will provide some screening, however at the
entrance of the underpass, and that is immediately behind the houses, the magnitude of
change will be higher, continuing to result in a major adverse effect. By year 16, the
greater the maturity of the proposed planting will provide screening, although the upper
12
elements of the overhead line and equipment remain visible, reducing the magnitude of
change to medium, but of course there is no screening immediately behind the houses.
48. Just contrasting that to a viewpoint taken by Shaws Lane Farm, that property is
just to the east of Mrs Rounds’ property. You can see that south of there, there is
considerable screening; and it refers to the effect of that screening as showing a
reduction from major adverse to medium; and then medium to moderate adverse effect
by year 15 and beyond. So the effect of providing screening at that point, when viewed
from the north, is helping to reduce the effect of the railway line.
49. By removing the farmhouses, your petitioners submit that the landscaping could
be improved as shown generally on the petitioner’s exhibit at A139(12). I’m sorry, we
don’t have the technology to develop the same degree of accuracy, but what is
suggested there, would be to put some screening to reinforce the views from the north,
which would – and you can see that would take up farmhouses. We got slightly
enthusiastic and have taken out the barn as well; that wasn’t our intention. The extent
of that we believe could be reworked in that area to provide a more robust screening
when viewed from north. So you will not rely upon trees in gardens, because they’ll be
removed, but provide more robust screening. That, we submit, would provide a more
uniform design and thereby bring forward the public benefits by reducing the number of
years until the screening becomes effective, perhaps in the same way as those to which
I’ve just referred, on Shaw Lane.
50. Could I please take you to the promoter’s response to Mrs Round’s petition, at
page 8, paragraph 4? Now, I think you may have the bundle, the petitioner response
relating to Mr and Mrs Sadler. Thank you, that’s the one. The same question was
posed in Mr and Mrs Sadler’s petition, and that appears at page 378(8). Same question,
different response. Because it doesn’t appear there to comment at all about landscape
and visual on the response to Mr and Mrs Sadler, whereas it does on promoters’
response to Mrs Round. If I could refer back to that please – that’s the response to
Mrs Round – and draw your attention to paragraph 4? Where it says, ‘The nominated
undertaker will use all reasonable endeavours to adopt mitigation measures that will
further reduce any adverse environmental impacts caused by the proposed scheme,
13
insofar as these mitigation measures do not add unreasonable costs to the project or
unreasonable delay.’
51. Could I also please take you on the same petition to page 17? The same response
on page 17? I’m sorry, I don’t have a copy with the numberings to refer you to. At the
bottom of paragraph 3, it says, ‘The level of detailed design necessary to enable the
proposed scheme to be constructed has yet to be carried out and is unlikely to be
completed until after the Bill has secured Royal Assent’ Paragraph 4, ‘Once complete,
the nominated undertaker will need to apply for approval of the detailed design for…’,
if we go over the page, please, ‘… various elements of the proposed scheme from the
local planning authority along the route, in this case, Lichfield. This will ensure that
although planning permission for the proposed scheme is granted by Parliament, local
planning authorities will be able to approve the detailed design, thereby ensuring that
the design of permanent structures fits into the local environment’.
52. If I just take you to page 19 of that response, paragraph 2: ‘Landscaping and the
use of the land near the railway have an important role in mitigating the effects of the
railway. It can provide visual and noise screening.’ Put simply, what we are suggesting
here is that my clients would like to relocate their property away from the railway, and
in so doing, believe that redesigning the landscape in the proposals here, will have
benefit, because they will reduce the time that it takes for the screening to take effect
and would provide the important role referred to there, to mitigate the effects of the
railway.
53. If I could just briefly return to the haul road and Mr Sadler is going to comment
on this. It’s required during the construction to facilitate access to the overhead
gantries, and to provide for long-term maintenance access to the railway from the north.
In fact, that isn’t quite the case, past Ashton Hayes because it’s proposed to remove that
walkway. However, if the landscaping were amended, a section of the road could
remain, and thereby remove the section of haul road further to the north, which requires
access to the residential area, past the entrance to the school.
54. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It would help to have a map.
14
55. MR MEYNELL: I don’t have a map reference, but if we could go back to 328?
Sorry, 327, my apologies. You’ll see that haul road runs along the northern edge of the
railway, coming from the Shaw Lane end, on the north side and extends through the
back garden of Ashton Hayes Farmhouse and continues up to where it says, ‘To
Rugely’ at the top end. There is also a proposal to bring permanent access in from the
housing estate in the top corner, by the school, and round that sort of ‘Z’-bend to the
position again, where it is shown, ‘To Rugely’. That’s where it comes through a
residential area, across the school. But if the landscaping were changed, the haul road
would remain and remove the need to divide up the separate access to the residential
unit.
56. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, the southern haul road? The Shaws Farm?
57. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.
58. MR MEYNELL: We are not advocating that stays if the house stays, but if the
houses go and the landscaping is changed, then that could be accommodated.
59. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, forgive me, Toppenhurst Lane, does that join
up with Shaw’s Lane?
60. MR MEYNELL: Exactly, just in the corner, by Shaw Lane. Yes, thank you very
much. Your petitioners submit that both of these amendments to the scheme would
improve public benefit, in addition to assisting their case for the relocation of the new
property elsewhere on the farm. The significance of the demolition proposed is that, as
I referred to, the presumption in favour of replacement. If the houses remain, there
would be a need to apply for two new dwellings in the open countryside, and that is
contrary to the policy.
61. CHAIR: You could do is as an agricultural one couldn’t you, but –
62. MR MEYNELL: You could, but I don’t think under the circumstances here, that
although Mrs Round has a farming business, and actually operates the land there,
Mr and Mrs Sadler don’t.
15
63. CHAIR: Is it Lichfield District Council?
64. MR MEYNELL: It is.
65. CHAIR: Have they indicated that that’s what they would want? Have there been
discussions?
66. MR MEYNELL: They say replacement is replacement; new-build is contrary to
policy.
67. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, that’s policy?
68. MR MEYNELL: Policy.
69. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I get things clear. It is probable that the
occupants won’t want to go on living in the house, but would want to live in a
replacement house nearby? That’s what we understand; and that can happen either by
having their present home demolished and the District Council allowing the new build
as a replacement?
70. MR MEYNELL: Yes.
71. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or they can new build if the Council didn’t require
the existing property demolished, then the existing property would still exist?
72. MR MEYNELL: Yes.
73. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are the petitioners indifferent as to which of those
happens?
74. MR MEYNELL: Well, if the existing houses remain, then the only justification
would be as a key role in development.
75. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, that’s not quite the question I put. Is the
reason for the requirement of demolition of the homes, because that is known to be the
16
only way in which Lichfield would grant permission for the new home to be built, or is
it because that is what Lichfield Council’s policy?
76. CHAIR: I think what we’re trying to get at, if you put in an application, let’s say
with the support of HS2 paying for it, and Lichfield kicked it out on the basis of their
planning policies, then there would be an argument for what you’re asking for, which is
demolition. But if Lichfield granted it, then the argument for demolition would be
rather less, because the cost to High Speed 2 would be buying the house and then
knocking it down; they wouldn’t be able to sell it or re-rent it or whatever. What we’re
trying to get at, have you had the discussions with them?
77. MR MEYNELL: The replacement would be subject to that condition if we could
prove the point and neither house has a condition on it, so my clients’ position will be
worse because they will end up with replacement dwellings that are not a replacement.
78. You referred earlier to the response from HS2 about the letter of 10 October,
P351(2). And that response talks about the flexibility afforded by the two options
outlined in the letter, but your petitioners are not seeking flexibility. They’re seeking
certainty. We believe that can be provided through the relocation of their houses, and
we believe that the public benefit will also improve.
79. Briefly, on the matter of replacement, this is not unique in the Lichfield District,
but legal privilege prevents me from discussing another case where I have negotiated
similar arrangements.
80. MR THORNTON: May I…?
81. CHAIR: Yes, fine.
82. MR THORNTON: One of the offers, one of the possibilities: they buy the house
off your client, then there’s the money there to do what they want with it. Now, what
I’d like to know is, obviously when you normally buy a house or build a house, you
have to buy the land. So the cost of doing that would be more, obviously, then probably
normally what you’d get – perhaps more than you get for an old house, even at market
17
value. But if your clients aren’t having to buy the land, then surely the construction of
the house is likely to be much – if they construct the house themselves, and demolish
their old house, if they demolish the house themselves, if it – they wouldn’t be able to
do that, would they? Okay, got you.
83. MR MEYNELL: If I can expand the point I think you are saying is, if they
already own the land, is it going to cost them less than the value of the property? In
broad terms, and I don’t refer to this particular property, but just to assist: in general,
broad terms, plot value is about a third of the value of the property. Here, the plot is
already owned, so actually the construction costs of replacement would be less than the
market value of buying the property. But our difficulty is, the point you got to which is,
if they remain, then we can’t – we have no grounds for the replacement.
84. MR THORNTON: One of the points the Chairman made was the fact that if HS2
demolish the property, then they lose the value. If they, however, didn’t have to pay the
full market value of the property, only had to pay for the rebuild cost, of rebuilding a
new house on their own land, that would then reduce HS2’s cost. I’ve no idea if that is
something HS2 would agree to: I’m just wondering, would your clients agree to the
demolishing of the property and HS2 paying for the rebuild without necessarily being
the cost of the market value? Thereby, saving HS2 money, but getting what your
clients wanted?
85. MR MEYNELL: Well, we ask to be put back in the same position, so that is two
houses on the farm. To achieve that, I believe you’re right, that actually the cost of
replacement could be less than the cost of the market value of the two houses. We
haven’t got to that stage.
86. MR THORNTON: Thank you.
87. CHAIR: Mr and Mrs Sadler have sat there very quietly and very patiently, shall
we hear from them?
88. MR MEYNELL: Indeed, thank you.
18
89. CHAIR: Right, who’s first on then?
90. MRS SADLER: Good morning, Mr Syms and members of the Select Committee.
I’m going to speak on behalf of myself and my husband John; my mother, who is
88 years old; and my daughter, she’s 14. Just briefly, mother is set to lose about four
hectares of productive agricultural land.
91. MR BELLINGHAM: Sorry to interrupt, could we just go back to the map just so
that we can see the context? That would be great?
92. CHAIR: And your mother is Mrs Round?
93. MRS SADLER: Sorry, yes. Doreen Round.
94. MR BELLINGHAM: Thank you, that’s much better; now we can see where
everything is.
95. MRS SADLER: So yes, mother is set to lose about four hectares of productive
agricultural land, and part of her garden; and we’re about to lose just over half a hectare
of paddock, and part of our garden, and that also takes into account our sewerage
system as well; that’s within the area HS2 wish to acquire. But I want to speak now in
relation to all of us, as one family unit. We all wish to remain on the farm, for very
personal reasons: the farm to us is not just a place to live, but it’s our home and it’s our
way of life. It was purchased in the early 1950s, three generations ago, by my
grandfather. The earliest photograph – if I could ask for 1394 – that shows the farm
back in the 1960s. My father farmed it and I was brought up with the land as much
giant playground. I personally have known no other home. It’s the same for Hannah,
our daughter. She loves the farm in the way that I do, and whilst she may pursue
another career, she does see her future living on the farm and continuing to farm the
land. My mother, Doreen, has spent all her married life living on the farm and working
with her husband.
96. Over the past 60 years or so, there have been extensive improvements, both to the
farm and extensive financial investments. If I may, I’d just like to run through a couple
19
of other slides just showing the changes over the years. So the present on, that’s back
in the 1960s. If I ask for 1395, that’s in the 1970s; 1396, that was in the ‘80s, by which
time we’d built the extension onto the house where myself and John live. Then 1391,
the one you’ve already seen a couple of times, that’s the most up-to-date. Our last
major building work was finished in 2009, so we’ve had just about five years of
enjoyment with that.
97. MR THORNTON: Can I ask you, how much of a nuisance is the existing West
Coast Mainline in terms of noise and disturbance, particularly in the summer when
you’ve got your windows open?
98. MRS SADLER: Yes, well; I may describe it as, if we’re sitting outside in the
garden, when a train goes by, the conversation stops. That’s the level of noise; it is
impossible to talk over the train noise.
99. MR THORNTON: Right, thank you.
100. MRS SADLER: Of course, we would like to save the houses we have. However,
the construction and operation of the proposed HS2 makes that totally intolerable and
impossible. I make this, not just as an off-the-cuff remark, but it’s made with personal
experience, because from 1999 to 2010, we were forced through the *TV4* scheme of
widening the West Coast Mainline to four tracks. So this not only brought the railway
lines closer to the houses, but we endured all the disturbance too. We had the noise and
the dust from the construction and the endless trucks from the machinery and building
works, and also tolerated the unsociable working hours, with lights on and noise in the
evenings and at weekends.
101. Further to that, haul road, parallel to the railway was built. That, again, was on
our side, so that brought construction works even closer to the properties, and this
causes security problems. An example of this was, on one occasion, the padlocked
gates from the haul road onto Shaw Lane cut through; the offenders came down the
haul road to the back of our house, where there was another padlocked gate. This was
also cut through, and then they proceeded to break into one of our outbuildings. They
20
unlocked a 14-foot aluminium trailer, and then proceeded to load it with a large number
of power tools and equipment, so we do see it as a major security risk.
102. Further to all that, we had the issues of stress and worry to contend with, having
countless meetings and correspondence with Network Rail. So many working hours for
John, my husband, were lost who, at the time, was self-employed; and a great deal of
my time off from work – and I’m a forensic investigator with Staffordshire Police – a
lot of that time was spent in negotiations, meetings etc. Accommodation works were
not to standard, so we had to a written and photographic log while that was taking
place. It included field range problems, our BT lines being cut through, further
temporary blocks of land being taken and not restored back at the same time, or with
late compensation.
103. I think you will agree with me, from all of that, as I say, it’s not an off- the-cuff
remark. We know what’s lying ahead of us. All of that was bad enough, and it wasn’t
finalised until 2012. That was the same year we officially found out about the proposed
HS2 scheme. The HS2 scheme was obviously far more extensive and intrusive and will
affect us in by far a larger way, so to live next to it will be totally unacceptable.
104. Can I have 1392, please? The hatched markings show the extent of the land to
which they wish to take. If I just refer to the rear of the house. From the rear of the
house to the edge of the land they wish to take, that’s just 20 metres. From the side of
the house to the left hand side, that’s just 10 metres. To the opposite side, or more
northerly, we have fields. So you can see, the only access we would have left to those
properties is to the frontages.
105. Mr Chairman, I think you will probably sympathise and accept that living in our
current location will be unbearable, so you might ask, ‘Why don’t we just sell up to
HS2 and move elsewhere, well away from any railway?’ But the point I’m trying to
make is, that this land is part of us; it’s in our blood and money cannot buy that.
Furthermore, the type of property we would require are very few and far between. We
need two adjoining houses, as mother is dependent upon us. Our daughter is settled at
one of the best schools in Staffordshire, and is working towards her GCSE
qualifications, and she’s achieving very well. So we need to be within travelling
21
distance of that particular school. We would also want a property with some land, to
replace what we’re about to lose, and we know a property fitting all these requirements
would be extremely difficult to find; and in fact, over the last year or so, we have been
in touch with local estate agents, just to see what is becoming available in the area. We
haven’t seen anything, and we do know of other families in our areas looking for this
type of property.
106. I’d just like to refer back to Mrs Round, my mother, and say, how can anyone
expect a lady of advanced years to cope with the upheaval of moving and then living
elsewhere, leaving behind all the memories. Moving home is quoted as one of the most
stressful things in life; so for mother, it’s just too much to contemplate. She is already
being medically monitored for stress-related problems; she desperately wants to see out
her days on the farm, and continuing to have the quality of life she’s always been
accustomed to.
107. We cannot possibly remain in the houses, so all we are asking is the next best
thing; after all HS2 are imposing this railway upon us through no fault of our own. It’s
already wrecked out content and settled existence. We know it is an established
principle to be put back, as far as money can do it, in the same position as if no land had
been taken. So to us, that is relocating our properties as far away from the railway as
possible, but still on our own land. In fact, there are several access points from our
fields, onto Tuppenhurst Lane, where relocation could take place. The one I think
Mr Meynell referred to – I’m sorry I haven’t got the reference number.
108. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve got it in mind; it’s just to the north of the
existing property in the lane.
109. MRS SADLER: It’s just an interesting photograph, because it does show other
properties in the area. 139(11) please? That’s Tuppenhurst Lane, running in the
Rugely direction, so in a northerly direction. There is a property already there, as you
can see, and that’s one of our suggested areas.
110. CHAIR: Presumably, it’s the farthest point away from the railway is it?
22
111. MRS SADLER: Just about. However, as Mr Meynell has already said, this
would not even be considered by our local planning authority while existing houses
stand.
112. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are we looking at three properties there or two or
one?
113. MRS SADLER: It’s one, but it’s a cattery business as well.
114. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I see.
115. MRS SADLER: So we’re asking for the assurance from promoters that the
existing houses will be demolished. Finally, I’d just like to say that our decision with
this is not taken lightly. To see our homes destroyed in this fashion will break our
hearts, and we also realise that rebuilding homes is not an easy choice. But we are
prepared for the challenge, as we know it is the only way forward. Thank you.
116. CHAIR: Thank you, and I know it’s difficult if you’ve lived on a farm for years
and years and years.
117. MRS SADLER: It’s extremely difficult, because it is a way of life.
118. CHAIR: Interesting to see the changing cars in the photos as well! Are we going
to hear from Mr Sadler?
119. MR SADLER: Hello Mr Chairman, and members of the Select Committee.
Mr Meynell has already referred to haul road that is to be constructed at the rear of our
farm for the construction of the railway. Again, he’s addressed the issue of mitigation
as to – our suggestion as to mitigation was to be accepted, the haul road would remain.
I notice that, if we refer to P327, that the haul road is indicated there as a thick, black
line along the side of the railway works, and terminating up to near Hayes Meadow
School. I’ve got to say that this is the first time that we’ve had sight of this particular
drawing, because in the past ones, we’ve had reference to – if you just bear with me –
page 139(13), which there shows the mitigation side – the permanent maintenance track
23
which is coming by the side of Hayes Meadow School, around the rear, and then
terminating at the point there, which shows on the map of the P327. The petitioners
are proposing that if the haul road were to remain, coming past Ashton Hayes Farm,
that there would be no need for this permanent maintenance track, running through the
estate, Toppenhurst Estate, and coming through the side of Hayes Meadow School, and
that would be on the grounds that, one, there would obviously be a huge cost saving in
the fact that the haul road wouldn’t have to be removed, and HS2 or their undertakers
wouldn’t have to dispose of the soil etc. Also, it would be a massive benefit within
Handsacre, particularly those on top of the Spode Avenue as the HS2 vehicles would
not require access at these particular points. Also, on the safety ground, to Hayes
Meadow pupils, which is a primary school, would be a lot safer, in the forthcoming
future. So that’s what I think I want to say about the haul road and the school access
there.
120. If I can go on to the proposed – or rather the proposal of Shaw Lane and retaining
the section of the haul road for residential use, etc. If we could have a look at map
A402, I think it is? You’ll see there, I’ve highlighted, where it says, ‘A’, the section
between Shaw Lane and the A515. We’re proposing that that haul road could be made
to a highway standard; we are aware – it is on a flood plain, but as you can see, down in
section B, highlighted B, the High Speed 2 are proposing a haul road coming off the
A515, and that section would be a permanent section going into the ‘V’ of the railway,
once it’s finished. You can see it goes up into the ‘V’ of the railway. Then you’ll see
that there’s a tee-off coming further down towards the A515, which links onto the haul
road that will subsequently come past Ashton Hayes Farm. We would suggest that if
this haul road is to remain for a period of time while there’s construction there, it will
be over the period where adverse weather will be experienced, and therefore, they will
have taken the steps to alleviate any flood issues on that particular haul road.
Therefore, the haul road that we are talking about which is between section A would be
installed, constructed, so that it wouldn’t interfere with the flood plain in the future.
Without any correspondence from Staffordshire County Council to say that if the road
was built to a highway standard, they would look at adopting it.
24
121. If we could go on to 1403, please? Again, as you can see there, the arrows A, the
indication of how the haul road could go, and we are aware that at the junction of the
A515 by the bridge, where HS2 goes over the A515, there would be a safety issue, and
the suggestion is that this was slightly diverted towards the Kings Bromley side; and it
could also take you – a track for the maintenance of the balancing pond[?] which would
eventually be constructed once the mitigation side of it is completed. Because on
previous maps this balancing pond had no indication of a maintenance track coming to
it, but with the map that’s come to light since the 10th of this month – can I refer to
P329(5)? As you can see, at the junction of Tuppenhurst Lane and Shaw Lane, if you
can see that, there is a track that runs to the right of that, which indicates that that is the
maintenance track for balancing pond. This is the first knowledge that we’ve had of
this particular track, although we have mentioned it on numerous occasions on
community forum meetings, and bilateral meetings that we’ve had with HS2
representatives, this was never brought to our attention, and we’ve had no
communication as to any alterations. So again, I would go back to the 143, please?
And perhaps the committee finally look at our proposals for retaining this section of the
haul road, with slight alterations that are shown upon that map.
122. CHAIR: Okay?
123. MR SADLER: Thank you very much.
124. CHAIR: Thank you very much Mr Sadler. Are you finished? Mr Strachan, do
you have any questions for Mr and Mrs Sadler?
125. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, I don’t sir. I think in relation to the haul road,
I’d just ask Mr Miller to explain what’s going on in that location? But I don’t think I
have to ask Mr Sadler –
126. CHAIR: I hope Mr Miller is going to be quick?
127. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): He’s going to be very quick. I just wanted to ask
Mr Smith to deal with that in terms of what’s on offer in the letter and then briefly get
Mr Miller to deal with the court.
25
128. CHAIR: Okay. Good morning, Mr Smith.
129. MR SMITH: Morning.
130. MR BELLINGHAM: Morning.
131. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Smith, can I just ask you to address the issue of
compensation and the offers that have been made in the letter? I think if you just get
that on screen, it’s probably simplest—3311. Obviously, we’ve heard from Mrs Sadler
in particular as to what they wish to do and we’ve set out in the letter to them two
possibilities. The first is what is described in the letter as option one. That involves
them retaining ownership of the house but being paid for the effects on the house of the
HS2 scheme. Is that correct?
132. MR SMITH: Yes, that’s correct. So we’re assuming that we would buy some
land, I think, including probably the paddock, which I think Mr Sadler referred to. I
think that would be the case. We would definitely acquire some land. But, of course,
basically HS2 brings the west coast mainline closer to the Sadler’s properly and
therefore there would be some depreciation to those properties. So the compensation
would be assessed on the basis of the land taken and any depreciation to the value of the
existing buildings.
133. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr and Mrs Sadler have explained their position as
to whether they would want to live there through the construction and, with the
operation of the scheme, they’ve made their views plain, of course. So far as the
assessments that are being done in relation to the property, which you’ve seen reference
to, what is the position? Is it considered that the property could still—albeit if the
Sadlers do not wish to remain there—be occupied if it was sold to HS2? Would HS2
look to let it or sell it?
134. MR SMITH: Yes, I entirely respect the Sadlers’ view that they’ve had one
railway scheme and they don’t want another at the back of them, and they would like to
move. I think the point is that somebody else would be prepared to live there quite
happily because, although the noise effects are greater, they are not so significant that
26
they would make the house uninhabitable. It would be perfectly acceptable. It could be
made better—this is a point that has been properly raised— by further screening.
Anybody coming in there—and, indeed, if HS2 have to buy this property—would look
to put further screening along there than is shown on the plan that has been before us
this morning, because I think that would be the sensible thing to do.
135. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just going back to the first option, if the Sadlers
choose to remain there in the meanwhile, is there anything that prevents pursuing the
planning application process, which is referred to later on in the letter, to find out
whether if the council is prepared to allowed them to relocate the house, there is any
reason why that process cannot occur?
136. MR SMITH: No
137. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): With them taking the compensation amount for the
diminution in value, retaining ownership of the house but pursuing the proposal for a
new construction?
138. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you say that again?
139. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The Sadlers, in this scenario under option one,
retain the ownership of the house and control of it. They obtain compensation for the
effects of HS2 upon it—the diminution in value plus any loss in land—and, in the
meantime, explore with the local planning authority relocation of a house on another
part of their property, and we see what reaction the local planning authority have to
that. Is it possible to do that?
140. MR SMITH: It is possible to do that. We have stated elsewhere that we would
pay for Mr Sadler to take forward those planning discussions, albeit that, obviously, that
would be a matter for Lichfield to decide. There is nothing to prevent those discussions
going forward now.
141. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If you turn over to the second page of the letter, it
refers to engaging with Mr and Mrs Round in developing the proposed planning
27
application for the house and, of course, them paying for the reasonable costs. Can you
just explain what the promoter would be prepared to do in relation to that engagement?
142. MR SMITH: Yes, well–
143. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry—Mr and Mrs Sadler. Apologies.
144. MR SMITH : The promoter would, obviously, be happy to engage, firstly, with
Mr Sadler and his planning advisors because, as has been said earlier, there is a policy
that is set out and we accept that greenbelt is a very important policy. But there may be–
145. CHAIR: This falls in greenbelt land?
146. MR SMITH: This falls within greenbelt land.
147. CHAIR: That didn’t come out before.
148. MR SMITH: It does. Greenbelt is an important policy. At the same time, there
may be options for the Sadlers to take forward that, maybe, do not require demolition.
We would like those explored and we would like—there may other good planning
reasons why their broad aspiration for moving to a new plot could be granted. We
would just like that explored, rather than just to accept: this is it; the house has to be
demolished.
149. CHAIR: Right, we understand that.
150. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The alternative option, Mr Smith, is, if either of
those negotiations are unsuccessful or the Sadlers and Mrs Round take a different view,
there is, of course, the ability to require us to purchase the property outright, with the
compensation payable.
151. MR SMITH: Yes.
28
152. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): In those circumstances, HS2 would have paid for
the unblighted market value of the property, which has been assessed, as you have
indicated, as being one that means it could be capable of being used as a house. In those
circumstances, what is your reaction to the idea that it would be appropriate to require
HS2 to demolish it, having paid that full value?
153. MR SMITH: Having paid for it, we feel they are perfectly good houses for
occupation by somebody and somebody would pay good money for it, and it would be a
waste of public funds. We would seek to avoid that as much as possible.
154. CHAIR: Okay.
155. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thanks very much.
156. CHAIR: Do you have a question, Mr Meynell?
157. MR MEYNELL: I do and I know it will have to be brief—it’s very brief. Do you
think that demolishing the houses and putting in an amended landscape scheme in the
form proposed by your petitioners will show an environmental improvement—yes or
no?
158. MR SMITH: Can I just explain that—very briefly—the reason for the planting
around your client’s land is to provide the protection to those properties. If the
properties are demolished as you see fit, there would be no reason to extend the
landscape because there’s nothing really to mitigate anymore. What I would agree is
that if you keep the houses, there should be more extensive landscaping. I think that’s a
good point you’ve raised. There is more extensive landscaping that could be planned
either within the garden or somewhere else. Something needs to be done.
159. MR MEYNELL: There was a further comment. Further screening is news to us.
That’s not been suggested to us at all.
160. CHAIR: Okay.
29
161. MR MEYNELL: But it doesn’t actually meet our objective. Could I just pick up
on one further point on the height of the railway line, at this point? In the response
letter—we have it in front of us—at, I believe, yes it’s paragraph two—
162. CHAIR: This isn’t really an issue about compensation, is it? Because we’re, sort
of, going on to height, which is more environment.
163. MR MEYNELL: Well, it’s just an issue as to the impact on the property. There
was an issue there where, in our assessment, we thought the line was somewhere
between 5 and 10 meters and it’s stated they’re expected to be 3.2 meters above existing
ground level. Could you just confirm the height of the west coast mainline at that point?
164. MR SMITH: I’m the wrong person to—
165. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The next witness is the right person.
166. MR SMITH: Could I just mention one point very quickly? If there’s a height
issue and a question of how much depreciation is there, there are two ways we can
compensate Mr Sadler. We can either buy the house outright and pay disturbance and
home loss payments as if we were going to acquire the property for the scheme. We are
not but because it was safeguarded once, he still has that option. Secondly, we could do
a second calculation and say, ‘Mr Sadler can retain the property.’ We will pay the
depreciation. If he wants to move, he can then demolish the property, move as he sees
fit. If HS2 surveyors, I would suggest, and Mr Meynell got together to assess what is
the likely financial outcome on those two options, then Mr and Mrs Sadler would have
more certainty on which options are really available to them, and they would have more
financial certainty in trying to move. We would be very happy to do that.
167. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How long have you got the option—the choice—in
years?
168. CHAIR: Five years
169. MR SMITH: Five years
30
170. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just ask one thing quickly just to clear my
mind? Let’s assume that the value of the property with the new railway has gone down
by X—and X may be between 30% and 70%, so a fair amount—the property at the
moment has a house, so it has planning permission. Where they would move to hasn’t,
so swapping one for the other would mean you would take agricultural land and turn it
into a site with a house on it and you would then turn, if Lichfield required it.
171. MR SMITH: That may be the case, yes.
172. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The alternative is Lichfield saying, ‘Alright, we
won’t require the existing home to be demolished. We recognise these are really
exceptional circumstances and we would like them to have the planning permission to
build their new home.’ That then leaves the existing property on the existing site. The
question then is: who gets the loss or the gain, or is left even stevens? That is, in a
sense, the question that’s in the air.
173. MR SMITH: If HS2 buy the whole property, they would take the pain and gain. If
HS2 don’t buy the property and just pay the depreciation, Mr Sadler takes the pain and
gain. That’s my straight answer.
174. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There is time for the application to go to Lichfield,
so that the Sadlers and HS2 know what Lichfield would or would not allow?
175. MR SMITH: Quite.
176. CHAIR: The argument may be the depreciation of the property with the
mitigation that you would need to keep the property there, against the value of the new
home. There may not be much in it.
177. MR SMITH: Well, we don’t know. That’s what I’d like explored, Sir. I think it’s
very reasonable to do that.
178. CHAIR: Okay. Any more questions. Shall we move on to Mr Miller. Thank you
Mr Smith.
31
179. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Miller, I was going to ask you about the core
route, but, just before I do that, can I pick up on the question that was asked. In relation
to the additional planting that Mr Smith was referring to behind Ashton Hayes farm
house—within the garden or elsewhere—can you just explain how that would
ordinarily occur?
180. MR MILLER: Yes, because we’re taking some boundary of the property, there is
a provision for accommodation works. We’ve agreed those works with the property
owner and that would be replacement fencing and planting on that boundary. So there is
an ability for screening at that point.
181. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think there was also a question about the height of
the existing west coast mainline.
182. MR MILLER: Sorry, we were just checking that in the background. I am advised
that that is 3.2 metres, so the middle lines of HS2 as they’re going south are rising up to
go over the reconfigured west coast mainlines to the east. The point around about
Ashton Hayes is about 3.2 meters above the west coast mainline height.
183. CHAIR: 3.2 meters?
184. MR MILLER: 3.2 above the west coast mainline.
185. MR MEYNELL: Sorry, I missed that point.
186. CHAIR: Could you speak a bit louder?
187. MR MILLER: The High Speed 2 lines, as they join the west coast mainline in our
plans at Ashton Hayes, are about 3.2 m higher than the west coast mainline.
188. MR MEYNELL: Can I just question then the statement in this letter which says
3.2 meters above existing ground level? It’s not clear.
32
189. MR MILLER: Well, my advice—we were checking just now—was that it was 3.2
meters above the west coast mainline. That’s what I’m saying.
190. MR MEYNELL: Just to put that in context, 3.2 meters above existing ground
level is level with the first-floor bedroom windows of the existing house. If we said—if
west coast mainline would say—that’s a similar height, which we think it probably is,
that means the new route is above the house.
191. CHAIR: Yes. We know it’s well up on the embankment.
192. MR MILLER: Yes, we’re not doubting that any of these works are not
insubstantial and that’s the reason why the landscaping and the earthworks are being
provided alongside the scheme, where there is available land to the bigger side of the
garden of the property.
193. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Miller, Mr Smith stated that the landscape
planting in that location is to provide benefit to the Ashton Hayes farmhouse itself. Is
that correct? So if one removed Ashton Hayes farmhouse, as is being suggested, would
you have that landscape mitigation there?
194. MR MILLER: We’ve certainly said that we would review the need to provide that
landscaping there. The idea is to put as much mitigation in there as is practically
possible to provide some protection screening to those properties. That’s what we’ve
done. If they were no longer there, I think we would end up pulling back.
195. CHAIR: So there would be some mitigation but it would not be of the same scale?
196. MR MILLER: It wouldn’t be as extensive, I believe.
197. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Finally, Mr Miller, can we just deal with the
suggestion about the Shaw lane haul route? I think if you look at A140(3), Mr Sadler
has suggested that the haul route that’s being used to construct the railway has been
turned into a public highway—not necessarily along this precise alignment, but some
other alignment. I’ve already alluded to the fact, Mr Miller, that there are other
33
petitioners who raise this and that there’s another landowner whose land it would cross.
Can I just ask you to address this point, Mr Miller? I think the assumption is, for
example, that the haul route would be constructed according to public highway
adoption standards and that it therefore would be a relatively simple matter to retain it
and have it adopted as a public highway. Can you just deal with that?
198. MR MILLER: No, the haul road is very much a temporary road for construction
and it would be built with a hard core base. It is not built to highways standards in the
way that other roads are—the existing Lichfield road, for example, in this location. It
doesn’t have any, sort of, lines that are necessary for ordinary traffic, and it doesn’t
have any connection in the way that is suggested here. I think actually the petitioner has
suggested that that tie- in would need to be agreed with the highway authority. It is the
case that the haul road is that: it’s temporary; it is not to highways standards.
199. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think it is also on the flood plain. If that’s the case,
what’s required of a public highway in terms of construction, if it is on the flood plain?
200. MR MILLER: I haven’t looked at the details of this, but I would expect that it
would have to be raised and it would have to have some form of structure on there for
the free flow of water. That would have to take into account the full extent of the flood
plain through there. We would have to get consent for that through the lead local flood
authorities as advised by the Environment Agency.
201. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): One other point about the haul route, Mr Miller, was
the suggestion that if the haul route were continued past Ashton Hayes farm house, it
would avoid the need for another road coming in from Hayes Meadow school. Do you
want to just look at that—A139(13) in the petitioners’ documents. I say that just
because it’s closest. If you look to the left of the screen, there’s a road shown in red
with a turning area. There’s a small brown blob just below the turning area. I think
that’s what the petitioner was making reference to: that if you continue the haul route,
you would avoid the need for access to be taken from the Hayes Meadow area. Can I
just get you to explain, Mr Miller, what is actually happening there in the operational
phase of the railway once it’s up and running? What is that access road and what is its
likely use?
34
202. MR MILLER: The railway in this area—this is really where the tie-back is
happening with the west coast mainline. There are various features in the Handsacre
area and going beyond, where gantries have to be reconfigured. Bits and pieces of
equipment need to be put in alongside the line to make sure that the HS2 trains operate
onto the existing operating railway network effectively. So what we’ve got here is an
access, which would be very lightly trafficked for one of those sorts of facilities. My
guess at the moment—because, in the construction, we do have to reconfigure a gantry,
which is one of the things that goes over the lines in this location for the power and that
sort of thing—is that there will be equipment there and it will be an access point. So it’s
not the case that it will be heavily trafficked in the future.
203. CHAIR: Okay.
204. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Just to remind you and the Committee
that, of course, the issue of that haul route is something that is being raised by other
petitioners, as we’ve alluded to in a letter. So it may be as well to consider that
particular point after you’ve considered those other petitions.
205. CHAIR: Any questions, Mr Meynell, for Mr Miller?
206. MR MEYNELL: No, Sir.
207. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Final brief remarks, Mr Meynell?
208. MR MEYNELL: Final brief remark. Sorry, the gentleman who spoke
previously—was it Mr Smith?
209. CHAIR: Mr Miller.
210. MR MEYNELL: I think Mr Miller’s comment was that he asked that we explore
with HS2 the possibility of planning discussions with Lichfield to get two new houses
built in our preferred location. It leaves hanging in the balance what happens if they do
not agree to that. That is what we are asking this Committee to address.
35
211. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Meynell. Thank you very much, Mr Sadler,
for giving your evidence here today. I note your Member of Parliament sitting quietly
behind listening to proceedings—Mr Fabricant. Now we go on to Mr and Mrs Noble. I
think, Mr Sadler, you’re going to read a statement later from somebody else.
212. MR SADLER: *Mrs Lachlan*.
213. CHAIR: Mrs Lachlan, yes. We’ll have that after Mr and Mrs Noble, if that’s
okay.
214. CHAIR: Are you Mr Noble?
215. MR NOBLE: I am Mr Noble.
Mr and Mrs Noble
216. CHAIR: Welcome Mr Noble. You’ve been sitting quietly at the back and have
seen how we proceed, so may I ask Mr Mould just to introduce the topic of your
position before we come to you. Mr Mould.
217. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you very much. On the screen in front of you
you’ll see the town of Rugeley and if you go eastwards, you’ll see the village of Hill
Ridware, wherein lives Mr Noble with his wife, I think. Their property is no. 1
Mavesyn Close in Hill Ridware. If you back westwards, you’ll see the west coast
mainline. We’re north here of the phase one scheme. If you go down the west coast
mainline towards London, you will see that we come presently to the Handsacre
junction. That’s shown on the map in front of you. So we’re north of the phase one
scheme, but we do have to carry out some signalling works in the vicinity of Hill
Ridware, and the grey shaded area just to the west of the petitioner’s property is the
area where we have a work site where we will replace some existing signal gantries—
two existing signal gantries—with two replacements.
218. Essentially, we’re converting two-track signal gantries to four-track signal
gantries. In order to do that we need to hard surface an existing track, which goes from
36
Wade Lane. If we could put up 359, please, you’ll see Wade Lane, which is marked in
the centre of the aerial photograph. You can see the line of the existing track, which is
hard surfaced, going down to our work site. That’s done in order to enable the plant, the
lorries and so forth to get down to do the signalling works and then to get out again.
You can see the petitioners property, which has been marked there. You can just spot
the Uttoxeter Road, which is the main route through the village. It continues in a
broadly south-easterly direction, and that is the B5014. That’s the route we would
expect the HS2 traffic to take. It would come up from the Handsacre area on that route,
go into the Wade Lane, the works would be done and it would come out again.
219. If we can put up 360, please, here you can see the layout and the arrangements.
There are, in fact, two or three small work sites served by the hard surface to Wade
Lane that are all to do with signalling works. You can see the location of Mavesyn
Close and you can see on the top right-hand corner that we’ve set out a little table that
gives you the key stages of these works, the duration of them and the number of
vehicles—both light and heavy vehicles—that would be associated. You can see that, in
each stage, the duration is: upgrading the track—two weeks; dealing with the first
gantry—six days; the second gantry—six days; and then removal—a week.
220. At each stage, you can see that the order of traffic is relatively light. In terms of
HGVs, five in the first stage, four in the second stage, four in the third stage and five in
the fourth stage. That will involve some craneage, because we’ll need to have a mobile
crane in there to do the gantry works. In terms of the working hours, I ought to just tell
the Committee that this is the sort of work that, because it’s work alongside and over an
existing mainline railway line, clearly has to be done out of hours, at least, to some
degree. So, in using the trade jargon, we have to take possessions, so there will
obviously be traffic that will be going through the village on the main route through in
order to set up and take—
221. CHAIR: This may be done at night or weekends?
222. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Yes, it’s likely to be. It’s the sort of thing that, frankly,
Network Rail would be doing from time to time in ordinary renewals anyway, so it ties
in with that kind of work. The only other thing I ought to show you is an extract from
37
information paper G2 which is dealing with community relations because,
understandably, Mr Noble has raised concern about being kept informed about what’s
going on here. Can we put up page 3 of that information paper? The Committee, I think,
is familiar with it. If you look at the subheading ‘Community Relations Strategy,’ one
of the things that the nominated undertaker will be contractually obliged to do is to
develop a community relations strategy. I show you this just to show that amongst the
things that will be required to be done—second bullet point—is to ensure that local
residents, businesses and so forth are informed in advance of works taking place in their
locality. If you go to the next page, you will see that they’ll be required to produce
advanced information sheets describing the works, the expected disruption and so forth.
That will tie in with the arrangements that the nominated undertaker and the project will
have to undertake with local highway authorities here in Staffordshire to plan out routes
for heavy traffic and so forth, so that, as far as possible, they take the most appropriate
routes and they try to minimise or limit the disruption to people living along the way.
223. That’s by way of a quick overview—over to Mr Noble.
224. MR NOBLE: Good morning, gentlemen. Forgive me: this is all my own words,
so if I say anything–
225. CHAIR: They’re usually the best ones to have.
226. MR NOBLE: Yes, fair enough. I’m going to read out something I prepared
earlier, so to speak. My initial concern is to minimise the threat to the safety and
wellbeing of villagers within Hill Ridware. As you are now aware, Hill Ridware is a
village situated on the B5014, connecting the villages of Handsacre and Abbots
Bromley. It is not a main through-route to any town or large settlement, but,
unfortunately, in addition to normal commuter traffic, it is frequently used by a much
higher number of vehicles whenever serious congestion occurs on the nearby A38 due
to accidents or roadworks and closures. Is it proposed that there would be roadworks on
the A38 at the same time as there would be roadworks through Hill Ridware because
that could–
38
227. CHAIR: Let Mr Mould answer in a moment because he’ll get advice. If you’ve
got any questions you want to pose, then do it as you go through.
228. MR NOBLE: The main road through the village is narrow and has a number of
sharp and blind bends and, as a very old road, was not designed or built even for
today’s normal volumes of traffic. I have supplied some photographs that are A142. As
you can see there, the footpath is only on one side of the road. It narrows to about a 1
meter footpath with just over 5 meters there, I think it is. A143 looks very, very
similar, but I’ll show you as it is a slightly different place further up the village. Again,
there is a similar thing. A144 is looking out of Wade Lane where the proposed turning
point is, where we’d be turning obviously to the left of that bollard there to turn down to
where the construction road is going to be built.
229. I have provided another one which I gave in at the last minute. It hasn’t got a
number.
230. CHAIR: Do you have a number for it or are there no numbers?
231. MR NOBLE: No.
232. CHAIR: Do you have a copy?
233. MR NOBLE: I thought last night that I’d try and clarify a little bit the earlier
photographs that I’d taken because they’re not very clear, are they?
234. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Can we call it A4141?
235. MR NOBLE: Hill Ridware is a residential village with its own primary school
and with houses straddling each side of the main road. Most village children will walk
to the local school. In many places along the road, there are no footpaths or there is a
very narrow one, meaning that traffic is very close to any pedestrians. On one blind
bend in the village, the road is 5 meters wide and has a tall wall on one side, and I have
observed on many occasions vehicles of normal size straddling the white lines as they
come around the bend.
39
236. Given a normal vehicle would be circa 1.8 metres wide, it is concerning that a
construction HGV of 2.5 meters wide will, in all probability, be on the wrong side of
the road when driving round this bend. If there is other traffic travelling around the
bend in the opposite direction, the consequences could be horrific—imagine if it was
another 2.5 meter HGV. To reduce risk to pedestrians—older people, children etc.—I
strongly suggest as an absolute minimum that the hours of access for the construction
traffic are restricted, avoiding the times when children are travelling to and from school
and also rush hour traffic. I am aware that elsewhere in the country restrictions exist of
20 mph at these times for safety reasons and would therefore suggest this is
implemented by HS2 traffic as an indication of our concerns. The turn into Wade Lane
off the B5014 is a hairpin bend as clearly portrayed on your maps.
237. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Do want a map?
238. MR NOBLE: Yes, please. In actual fact P358 shows it. Now you see where the
road is going to be built is off Wade Lane, which is off the main Uttoxeter road. If you
note the turning into Wade Lane is a very tight hairpin bend. I believe that it has already
been acknowledged by someone from HS2 to one of the residents of the village who
has had an onsite meeting that it is going to be extremely difficult for a large vehicle
such as the crane to get round that bend. In fact, if we can go back to your photograph
of Wade Lane, which is—
239. MR MOULD QC (DFT): 3162.
240. Mr NOBLE: You can clearly see there by the give way sign the tyre tracks of a
farm vehicle that has struggled to get round that corner. Access from the north of the
village as an alternative would either mean vehicles travelling through single-track
lanes via Hamsell Ridware, Colton or through the village of Abbots Bromley, which
would entail the negotiation of three traffic calming chicanes at the entrance and exit of
that village. I can’t therefore see a northern approach to Wade Lane as a workable
alternative, however the southern access to Wade Lane is as impossible due to the
aforementioned hairpin bend and width of the road. Again, it’s just an overall thing that
I’m concerned about how things are going to work with pedestrians, people taking dogs
for walks and everything else.
40
241. CHAIR: We get your point, Mr Noble.
242. MR NOBLE: Road safety is something very close to my heart at the moment so
forgive me. I understand the following are named directors of HS2 Ltd: David Higgins,
Simon Kirby, Alison Monro, Andrew McNaughton, Beth West, Duncan Sutherland,
Mike Welton and Richard Brown. Could you confirm if these names are correct and, if
so, which director would be held corporately responsible for any fatalities caused by
HS2 Ltd. construction traffic and business transport at all locations? I believe this
information is necessary as, following the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter
and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, every company is affected and has to ensure that all
policies and procedures are protected. Some recent prosecutions for rail crashes, for
example, have failed because of the difficulty of directly linking one person in
management to specific operational failures.
243. I have expressed concerns about the flooding, which I am sure you will have had
from a number of petitions, so I won’t bore you with that over and over again. The
other thing I raised was the spur in Kings Bromley, which is being built as part of phase
one, but actually it’s really part of phase two. It is pointed directly to the village of Hill
Ridware on the route of phase two, which hasn’t even been fully decided yet
244. CHAIR: Unfortunately we cannot deal with phase two—or fortunately.
245. MR NOBLE: Well, no. It’s just the fact that the spur is being built as part of
phase one, but I think it should be part of phase two. That’s all.
246. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Noble. That’s clear. Thank you also for the photos—it
looks a lovely village. Mr Mould.
247. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Just a couple of points in response. First of all, I’m
going to eschew the invitation to identify which of the directors of the company would
be responsible. We are planning as hard as we can to avoid the need to raise that as
anything more than a theoretical question, as you can imagine. In relation to the
understandable concerns raised by Mr Noble on traffic management, the photograph in
front of you shows the point at which Wade Lane joins Uttoxeter road in the village.
41
Clearly, if in order to accommodate a mobile crane it were necessary to temporarily
remove the bollard to enable it to get through, that is something that one would
typically see happening. It would then be replaced. These sorts of activities will
obviously be managed and marshalled.
248. CHAIR: Presumably the police would also be involved.
249. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Exactly, yes. I can put up if it’s helpful—this is really
stating the obvious—a page from our traffic management information paper. We’ve got
that.
250. CHAIR: Okay.
251. MR MOULD QC (DFT): I will just show the petitioner and yourselves this.
Paragraph 4.5 in information paper E13, as you can see, sets out what you would
expect: that is to say that we would liaise closely with highway and traffic authorities
and the emergency services—you mentioned the police—in relation to local routes and
so forth. On the A38 point, there may be some overlap between works to the A38 and
these works because these works are expected to be, in current programme, in 2021 or
thereabouts, and the A38 works will be taking place during a four-year period that
would overlap with that. But that is another matter that would need to be carefully
managed under the aegis of this arrangement that I set out in paragraph 4.5.
252. CHAIR: Final comments, Mr Noble?
253. MR NOBLE: I am concerned that no one can be identified as being corporately
responsible.
254. CHAIR: I think they’re all responsible ultimately, if you’re a director of a
company.
255. MR NOBLE: Fair enough.
256. CHAIR: You’ve made your point and it’s on the record.
42
257. MR NOBLE: In my final point I just wanted to try and get across from that that
they must realise that they have been given great power to build this project and I am
sure that they are aware that great power brings great responsibility.
258. CHAIR: Absolutely.
259. MR MOULD QC (DFT): We understand, of course, the responsibility.
260. MR NOBLE: I have the final word.
261. MR MOULD QC (DFT): I’m just saying we understand that point.
262. CHAIR: Good point Mr Noble—don’t let these lawyers run over you. Thank you
very much Mr Noble. Thank you for being brief and for sitting through our
proceedings. Mr Sadler, you’re going to read a statement. Could you just tell us where
Mrs Lachlan lives in relation to you. Mr Mould, do you want to—
263. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Of course, P316, please. All I need to show you is that
Lachlan lives in the same close as Mr and Mrs Noble. So essentially the same issues
arise. There you are: there is a plan showing Mrs Lachlan’s location—it’s the same
close.
264. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Sadler?
265. MR SADLER: In relation to your question of Mrs Lachlan as to where we are, we
know each other through liaisons with various action groups. She has contacted me to
act on her behalf. I’m going to read what she says verbatim, because that’s her request
266. CHAIR: Is it a page or two?
267. MR SADLER: It’s just a page.
268. CHAIR: That’s super, thank you.
43
269. MR SADLER: Uttoxeter Road may be a B road but it’s very busy and it seems to
be the preferred route of HGV vehicles whenever there is any kind of hold up on the
A38, adding to the danger of anyone else using it. At the last count of cars, there were
approximately 300 cars per hour at peak times. The road is used by all kinds of
motorised transport—tractors, motorcycles, cars, lorries—and is very busy with cyclists
and horses. It is constantly crossed by pram pushers and pedestrians—some elderly and
infirm like myself—children going to school, others catching buses to other schools and
colleges. In many places along the road there are no pavements or verges, but occasions
of walking in the road are a hazard at the best of times. Maybe HS2 Ltd would like to
cost- in some designated crossing places.
270. I feel very strongly that any more volume and much bigger vehicles would be an
accident waiting to happen. The entrance to Wade Lane suggested as a route to be used
by HS2 Ltd for construction work and then the sharp right-hand turn into the farm-yard
is very narrow and tight, and I cannot visualise how large vehicles etc could achieve the
manoeuvre without extreme difficulty and possible accident. The Hill Ridware village
is in an elevated position and has a very high water table—Ridware is Saxon for water
people—so noise and dust would travel far across the area causing a big health hazard,
especially to the vulnerable, elderly and very young, and I cannot see how HS2 Ltd can
alleviate the problem.
271. After being refused the release of equity from my home with an intimation that
this is due to the HS2 construction, I have now re-applied and await a further decision.
I would never want to relocate as Ridware is the kindest and friendliest place to be and I
have spent most of my three score years plus very happily living there. There have been
few changes over the years—mainly the building of houses for the common good—but
nothing that has altered it too much. There is the rhythm of village life and it would be a
great pity if that were to be spoiled with large construction vehicles travelling through
the village day and night.
272. She finishes: please think long and hard before your decisions are made and may
God give you wisdom and bless you in all that you do.
44
273. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Sadler. I presume the response is the same as the
previous.
274. MR MOULD QC (DFT): Yes. What I will say, of course, is that having heard
both Mr Noble and Mrs Lachlan, the message is there loud and clear. We need to take
very great care in directing the vehicles that I mentioned to you through this village. It
has obviously been considered as a route that is acceptable for the limited amount of
work that we need to do on the west coast mainline, but, rest assured, we hear what you
say and we will take that very carefully on board in planning our detailed arrangements.
275. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just one point that it may be worth getting on the
record. On the issue of equity release, can you remind us what your situation is with the
Council of Mortgage Lenders?
276. MR MOULD QC (DFT): We have a policy arrangement for hardship cases and
that, as you’ve just heard, involves those concerned making an application to an
independent body set up by the project, which then reports its recommendation to the
Secretary of State. We have been liaising with the Council of Mortgage Lenders,
seeking to understand if they have concerns about the impact of the project, as part of
the process of developing our discretionary compensation policies. But the idea is that
we have this independent body that will deal with cases on their merits. In this case, I
suspect that Mrs Lachlan’s concerns really relate to the emerging plans for phase two,
which, as you can see on the plan in front of you, in the bottom right hand corner,
includes the Manchester spur. Do you see that? The consultation is still—the
consultation is just finished and the Government is considering carefully the responses,
but the phase 2 route on that, as you can see from the alignment, is routing, in very
broad terms, through this area of Mid-Staffordshire. I think that’s more of the concern.
There is already an exceptional hardship policy operating in relation to the phase two
route and so what I’ve just said to you applies in relation to that, as well as to phase
one.
277. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The essential point we should all understand is that
no one should be worse off because of the railway.
45
278. MR MOULD QC (DFT): No one should be worse off as a result of the railway.
That is absolutely right and, of course, the compensation and the statutory arrangements
are predicated on that. But you will, of course, know that this issue of more generalised
blight is one that is not covered by the statutory arrangements in the way that some of
those who live in the areas that might be affected by future proposals are concerned
about. The Government’s response to that in relation to phase two, as it has been for
phase one since 2010, is to have an exceptional hardship scheme, which is designed to
alleviate those cases that experience genuine hardship as a result of these nascent plans.
279. CHAIR: Thank you for reading that, Mr Sadler and saving your friend a journey
to London.
280. MR SADLER: Thank you.
281. CHAIR: Thank you for putting that on the record. I think that’s it for now until
tomorrow.