PARISH COUNCIL HS2 Information |
||||||||||
Application to petition the House of Lords -
August 2019
1.
Effects of Road Transport to HS2 during
construction ·
It
is
essential that access to Ingestre via Hoo Mill
crossroads is maintained 24/7 as it is the only
public road access to the community. In 12 months
there were 53 emergency calls to the ambulance
service to Ingestre ST18 0RE, and this does not
include Home Farm Court, 36 electors and Little
Ingestre Barns, 19 electors, which have different
postcodes.. ·
We
welcome
HS2s assurance to provide a permanent roundabout at
this dangerous junction, or other measures to
improve road safety such as better visibility
splays. ·
Similarly
access
to Ingestre Pavilion beyond Upper Hanyards Farm must
be maintained 24/7, including for large Timber HGVs
and Farm tractors and trailers. ·
We
are
concerned at the proposed use of Tixall road from
Hoo Mill crossroads to Blackheath Lane for transfer
of materials for HS2. The proposed temporary,
additional passing places and road widening between
Hoo Mill crossroads and Tixall Village do nothing to
solve the problems between Tixall obelisk and the
junction with Blackheath Lane. HS2 Drawing
2PT02-ARP-PT-DSK-000-100105 shows an additional 52
HGVs travelling along this Tixall Road in both
directions. ·
This
disruption could be partly compensated for by HS2
funding the provision of a wheelchair friendly
towpath from Holdiford Road to the Sow Aqueduct on
the Staffs & Worcs.Canal, and by improving the
land drainage at the lower end of Tixall Churchyard,
which periodically floods the path from the Lychgate
to the Church. ·
Major
adverse effects at The Blackheath Lane/Baswich
Lane/Tixall Rd traffic signals. In particular the
predicted 98% increase in traffic exiting Hanyards
Lane by 2023 (HS2 Drawing
2PT02-ARP-PT-DSK-000-100105) with many of these
ending up stuck across Tixall Rd and in the path of
traffic turning left from Blackheath Lane when the
lights change and who are not expecting another
junction 22.4m away. ·
An
additional solution would be to replace the deep
cuttings on either side of Upper Hanyards Farm with
a cut and cover tunnel to reduce the amount of spoil
to be transported away from the site. 2.
Noise Effects (E19
Vol.2 Map Book) ·
Increase
in airborne noise from new train services both
daytime and night-time in Ingestre and Tixall,
probably 12/hr in both directions. Residents of
Ingestre and Tixall have paid higher house prices to
be able to live in a quiet and peaceful location.
This will no longer be the case. ·
Basis for
assessment of noise levels in which the lower
cut-off for the equivalent continuous power level is
50dB for daytime LAeq.
The typical daytime LAeq is currently in the
low 30's dB (as your measurements should confirm)
so, even the lowest contour on your maps corresponds
to a sound level in excess of 15dB above
current background. ·
The
plans show the difference between Day and Night
noise, as the baseline at night is likely to be
lower: SV-02-106: More than 10dB - Possible
major adverse affect:
Lion Lodges (2), Hoo Mill Lane & Hoo Mill
(5) Tixall Manor Farmhouse (1) Night 40-55dB and Day 50 -65dB, 5 –
10dB – Possible moderate adverse affect Tixall
Farmhouse,(3) Tixall Court (12) and SV-02-107: 5 – 10dB –
Possible moderate adverse affect Lower
Hanyards (2)
Despite this none of these properties will
qualify for sound mitigation because HS2 has set the
bar so high for this. ·
We
believe that in Ingestre and Tixall, there are 8
business properties, 106 residences and 1 church
within 1 km of the proposed route. All will
encounter noise as a result of the construction and
operation of the proposed scheme. ·
Construction
traffic is likely to cause adverse noise effects on
occupants of residential
dwellings
adjacent to Tixall Road, and Hanyards Lane, between
the Proposed Scheme and Tixall Road ·
The HS2
line will require ongoing maintenance at night which
will result in more disturbance for local residents,
both from noise and lighting. ·
Ingestre
Church is now a significant venue for concerts and
weddings and any increase in noise levels will
impact on this. The number of bookings for weddings
has already significantly decreased with consequent
loss of income. See below for suitable compensation
to Church. ·
Solutions
to this would be to provide significant mitigation
packages to the most severely affected homes and to
provide a cut and cover tunnel in place of the deep
cuttings on either side of Upper Hanyards Farm ·
A
further solution is to provide adequate sound
barriers on the viaduct and embankments. 3.
Vibration ·
Effects
of vibration, during construction. Numerous listed
buildings are within a few hundred metres of the
route, e.g. Grade
I listed church of St Mary the Virgin, Ingestre,
400m from the area of the works; Ingestre Hall
(Grade II*) is closer, at 350m and Ingestre Pavilion
(Grade II) closer still at 150m. All in proximity to
the substantial Hanyards Cuttings, nearly 20m deep,
in hard sandstone. Until geological surveys have
been conducted, there is a possibility that blasting
might be required if particularly tough ground
conditions are encountered. There
is particular concern on the effects of any
vibration on the above Listed Buildings which have
no substantial foundations. 4.
Visual Effects ·
The
Viaduct with noise barrier and Brancote/Hanyards
North Cutting will be an unacceptable visual
intrusion on this historic landscape, especially the
Staffs & Worcs. Canal Conservation Area and
Tixall Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. The
visual impacts of the static components of the
railway will be (and need to be) assessed completely
differently from the dynamic components – i.e. the
trains. The visual impact of the viaduct and
its noise barriers can be reduced by using
transparent noise barriers as in Holland and by
having a sandstone effect over the concrete
structure. The National Trust is particularly
concerned at the visual impact from Hadrians Arch at
Shugborough. ·
We are
strongly opposed to joining Ingestre Wood to
Lamberts Coppice as we wish to maintain the historic
view across the deer park, at this site known
locally as Hell’s Gate. ·
A
millennium avenue of Horse chestnut trees was
planted on either side of Hoo Mill Lane with
protective fencing and bronze plaques recording the
dedications in 2000. The trees nearest the
crossroads will be removed by HS2, in addition some
of the Horse chestnuts have become diseased and need
replacing. Could additional Oak trees be planted
further along the lane and the missing plaques
reused. ·
The EIA
notes a medium adverse impact and moderate adverse
significant effect for the Ingestre Conservation
Area. Trent N embankment and Hanyards S cutting will
introduce noise into this quiet rural setting.
Outward and inward views from Ingestre Park’s
historic perimeter and buildings and its historic
relationship with Tixall Park to the south. Construction
activity will last at least 3 years, and will be
visible from the eastern boundary of the Ingestre
Conservation Area.
We strongly disagree that Ingestre
Conservation Area is only an asset of moderate
value, and are concerned at the significant adverse
impact and effect HS2 will have on it. ·
The
remnant Golf Course directly in front of Ingestre
Hall, will become wasteland, unless the Golf Club is
retained at Ingestre. ·
Absence
of controlled flight zones associated with any civil
or military airports in the area, makes this part of
the UK a hotspot for recreational air-borne
activities:- hot-air ballooning and other
enterprises offering: gliding, hang-gliding and
micro-light opportunities for the enthusiast and
public alike. HS2,
and the construction phase in particular, will
create an enormous and unnatural linear scar in the
landscape, visible for miles, that will seriously
degrade the pleasure currently enjoyed by this group
of people. ·
A cut
and cover tunnel instead of the Hanyards cuttings
could reduce the amount of spoil to be removed along
our local roads and improve the visual and noise
effects from both Ingestre and Tixall. 5.
Impacts on the communities of Ingestre and Tixall
and lack of any benefit to our residents ·
It is
still not clear how rail services from Stafford will
alter when HS2 is operational. It has been suggested
that there will be considerably fewer trains to
London with marginally shorter journey times than at
present. ·
HS2 has not included
Ingestre Stables equestrian training and examination
centre (which is a Riding for the Disabled
registered and has a cafe) or Ingestre Community
Open Space by Home Farm Court, in their list of
Community Facilities in Ingestre. In addition we now
have Ingestre Orangery and both the Orangery and the
Riding Stables are likely to have reduced patronage
and consequent financial loss due to problems
accessing them across the HS2 constructions at Hoo
Mill crossroads. ·
Failure to
acknowledge all businesses in Ingestre & Tixall
including: Ingestre Lodges, New Stables - Four Units
of self-catering accommodation; or Acorn Services,
Birch Hall Farm, Ingestre - Vintage tractor parts;
Car and Motorbike repair business on Trent Drive;
Tixall Heath Joinery; Tixall Heath Land Rover
Garage; Tixall Heath Caravan Store & Repairs,
and several arts and crafts businesses. ·
We
strongly object to the exclusion of the very real
issue of impacts on the community of generalised
property blight and reduction in property values. It is
unacceptable to make a pretence of assessing health
impacts while deliberately excluding the single most
important contributing factor to anxiety/mental
ill-health, especially due to the reduction in value
of their properties. ·
Potential
Loss of Ingestre Park Golf Club and it's social
facilities due to the 6 month period when the course
will not be available for play and members may join
other local clubs. The resulting financial loss
would encourage the club to move to an alternative
site. The Golf Club also provides employment
opportunities for local residents. ·
Adverse
effect on local
businesses/community facilities: Most
vulnerable are Ingestre Hall, St Mary's church and
Ingestre Orangery all of which have to stand alone
financially and for which the peace, tranquillity
and historic setting of the area are central to
their ability to raise funds. The number of weddings
at Ingestre Church has already significantly
decreased due to uncertainty about the effects of
HS2, especially on access to the Church and the
noise effects. ·
It
is
suggested that a contribution from HS2 towards the
£80,000 replacement of the current faulty organ
could help to ameliorate this. The church has
recently suffered a significant loss of lead from
the roof and will have to find funds for this as
well. ·
Similarly
a
contribution towards the repair of the Apple Store
at the Orangery would enable it to serve as a heritage
centre. ·
The
workers camp would impact on Community Services at
Gt Haywood such as Doctor's Surgery, Shops, etc.
which are shared by residents of Ingestre and Tixall
where there are none of these facilities. ·
Many of
the houses already purchased by HS2 have remained
empty. This has had a significant negative effect on
the local community. ·
Currently
the mobile phone coverage is variable throughout
Ingestre and Tixall, and similarly access to
superfast broadband. Some compensation for the
impact of HS2 would be to improve these
communications. 6. Failure to act
on previous requests by Parish Council - no 2-way
communications ·
We are
very concerned to find that most information
provided to HS2 Ltd in previous communications has
been ignored. This is partly because consultations
responses are combined in a report which just
summarises the main points raised, losing much of
the specific details. e.g. We have consistently said that the
deep cutting should be called Hanyards Cutting and
not Brancote Cutting. This error is no doubt due to
HS2 using an incorrect Google Map which wrongly
showed Brancote Farm at Upper Hanyards. Brancote S
cutting is actually N of Brancote. This will lead to
considerable confusion for local contractors, and in
the rare event of a major rail accident, e.g.
terrorist activity, in the cutting would hinder the
prompt arrival of emergency vehicles. More recently a utility compound has
been name as Hanyards Compound, although it is
nowhere near Hanyards. ·
HS2 Ltd
has pursued a route alignment in our area that is
more expensive to build, more environmentally
damaging and which has greater impact on communities
than available alternative alignments. Primarily
because HS2 Ltd have refused to carry out an
Appropriate Assessment to show that there would be
no significant effect on the Pasturefields SAC. This
would involve new borehole evidence, etc. and was
very different from the Habitat Regulations
Assessment (HRA) already carried out by HS2 with
regard to the SAC. The BGS (January 2014) said: "The review of
the information that has been presented leads us to
conclude that each phase of investigation of the
PSMSAC has built upon the previous phase. As a
consequence alternative conceptual ground models
have not been presented or tested. Furthermore,
there has been little resolution in issues regarding
the alleged deterioration in the quality of the
PSMSAC, e.g. whether or not leakage from the canal
is diluting the emerging groundwater, the impacts of
flooding of the River Trent and the source of
nutrients that impact on biodiversity. Without this
baseline data it is hard for anyone to predict the
potential impact of the proposed HS2 construction
along any of the proposed alignments." ·
We are
concerned that provisions to mitigate community
effects during construction have not worked well for
Phase 1. It is important that there is an efficient
procedure for us to report back problems which
arise, especially if they arise from issues which we
had previously identified to HS2. Some of the
changes to the local hydrology may take a long time
to become apparent. 7.
Failure to fully understand local hydrology ·
Route C
has been routed so that it passed directly through
the middle of a previously unrecognised historical
inland salt marsh whose brine springs remain active
today (and could well be linked with those at
Pasturefields). HS2 has not carried out sufficient
investigations to understand the complex hydrology
in this area.
The salt marsh part of the site is
non-designated yet is potentially of national
importance.
Apart from the corrosive nature of brine, it
appears that HS2 Ltd has created for itself
significant engineering challenges in maintaining
track stability in the face of the loss of
supporting ground amounting to several hundred cubic
metres per annum.
The proposed northern balancing pond by Hoo Mill
crossroads is positioned over a known culvert
(roughly aligned from Lion Lodges to Nos 1&2 Hoo
Mill Lane Cottages) that is part of the drainage
system for the salt marsh, CT-06-213.. The
map kindly forwarded by Mr
Simon
Dale-Lace - HS2 Hydrogeologist confirms that HS2 is
not aware of any springs in the area around Lion
Lodge Covert, contrary to the map previously sent to
HS2 by Mr M.Woodhouse, which suggests the presence
of springs near Congreves Plantation, Ingestre
Village, Flushing Covert and at Salt spring Pool in
Lion Lodge Covert:
In addition to these springs, we believe that
the presence of the Tixall Fault has a significant
effect on drainage in this area, and in particular
its effect on Pasturefields SAC. ·
an Appropriate
Assessment of the effect on Pasturefields SAC is
essential to determine if there would be any risk of
an adverse impact arising from Route B. ·
the
creation of deep cuttings through sandstone
aquifers, as in the vicinity of Upper Hanyards, has
the potential to lower the water table to the
detriment of the adjoining farmland and woodland.
We note that the solution to all the above
problems would be for HS2 to adopt the less
expensive and less environmentally intrusive route
up the Trent Valley, which was originally favoured
by HS2 technical advisors. The only reason we have
been given for not using this route is that it
required an appropriate assessment to ensure that it
would not have a detrimental effect on Pasturefields
SAC.
The British Geological Survey have pointed
out none of the routes proposed by HS2 can be
guaranteed not to have an effect on the SAC.
Ingestre
Park Golf Club (No. AP2–25) 79. In
our Second Special Report we directed HS2 to “come to
a solution that allows the golf club to continue as a
community asset.” This
was supported by Ingestre and Tixall Parish Council
who petitioned on AP2 and told us that they were
concerned that the loss of golf playing facilities (the temporary
reduction of holes) could result in the financial
collapse of the golf club as members may choose to
play golf elsewhere. There are two types of
construction compounds, main construction compounds
which act as strategic hubs for core project staff,
and satellite compounds, which will generally be
smaller and will be used as the base to manage
specific works along a section of the route
(Environmental Statement, p. 28). 24 Third Special Report of
Session 2017–19 80. When hearing the original petition
we heard challenges from both parties regarding the
other’s estimates of costs. Ingestre Park Golf Club
returned to petition against the proposal contained in
AP2 (to purchase land adjacent to the existing golf
course as a replacement for the land being taken by
the Scheme and thus build a new course adjacent to the
existing golf club). Ingestre Golf Club
petitioned, once again, for a replacement course,
clubhouse and carpark and demonstrated that they had
found an alternative site in Tixall which would be
suitable. The Parish Council was not in
favour of the proposal from the Golf Club as the Golf
Club’s proposed new site would impact on other
residents within the Parish who were not supportive of
this change. The Golf Club’s proposal raised a level
of risk as it would depend upon the Club obtaining the
land and obtaining planning permission. Ingestre with
Tixall Parish Council were content with the proposal
contained in AP2. HS2 told us that the proposal
contained in AP2 would cost £4.9m.51 The Golf Club
said that HS2’s proposals in AP2 would cost £13m52 but
that their option was cheaper. Ingestre Golf
Club argued that it would cost £10.9million for their
option but the net cost would be “£7.8 million on the
new proposed course because the £3 million
compensation would have to be deducted” from the
overall compensation figure which they would receive.
The figures provided by HS2 and Ingestre were not
comparing like with like. Having evaluated the
costings and taking into account the view of the
Parish Council we agree that the proposals set out in
AP2 will ensure that the golf course can continue as a
community asset. We understand that there will
be a reduced number of holes for golfers to play for a
6 month period and we are also aware that the Golf
Club is a source of local employment. Employees of the
golf club, those working both full and part-time, must
not be disadvantaged by the proposals contained in
AP2. We therefore emphasise that the golf club is
entitled to apply for compensation as part of the
existing compensation packages, which would enable the
golf club to continue to employ or pay compensation to
all staff who are employed at present. The Club could operate with
nine holes for six months and with 18 holes before and
after this period53 and perhaps offer attractive
subsidised and reduced fees to golfers whilst the new
course is created. The club was concerned that
the realignment would reduce the visibility at the
first Tee. Security cameras for this area could also
form part of the Golf Club’s claim for compensation. HS2 told us that the
Secretary of State would be happy to support this way
forward. We expect Ingestre Golf Club to work with HS2
to ensure that the proposals set out in AP2 are
delivered for the local community and that the Golf
Club maintain current levels of employment for all
their staff. HS2 Response The Promoter welcomes the
decision of the Select Committee and will work with
Ingestre Park Golf Club to take forward the proposals
in Additional Provision 2 to the Bill (AP2). The
proposals in AP2 were promoted with the aim of
providing an opportunity for the Golf Club to continue
as a local business and employer. The Promoter
confirms that the Golf Club will be able to apply
under the compensation code for losses arising from
the implementation of the proposals set out in the
Bill as amended by AP2 and those losses can include
staff costs. Ingestre with Tixall Parish
Council (No. AP2–21) Residents of
Ingestre will see an increase in construction traffic
during the building of the railway as construction
compounds will be sited at Trent North, Hanyards Lane
and Ingestre Park. The Parish Council
petitioned, on the grounds of road safety, for a new
footpath alongside Ingestre Road so that pedestrians,
those with pushchairs and wheelchair users would be
safe travelling along this section of road. HS2 has given an assurance
that a footpath will be provided and in Committee,
gave a further assurance that the footpath could be
extended westwards. We welcome
this. The Parish Council expressed
concern about the proposal for the new site found by
the Golf Club and as we have stated above we support
the view of the Parish Council. HS2 Response The full assurance to which
the Select Committee refers has been included in the
latest draft of the Phase 2A Register of Undertakings
and Assurances. Provision of broadband to
rural communities 75 In paragraph 145 of the
report the Select Committee said: “We heard from
petitioners that there were opportunities to carry out
the necessary infrastructure works whilst excavations
were taking place on their land. We would like to see
a joined-up approach to the Government’s commitments.
At detailed design stage, planners should incorporate
the necessary infrastructure to support super-fast
broadband in rural areas. We do not expect HS2 to
provide super-fast broadband but we do expect the
Government not to miss this opportunity to install the
necessary infrastructure to rural areas where such
opportunities arise. This could be HS2’s 21st Century
contribution to improved communications.” HS2 Response 76 The Promoter recognises
the need for a joined-up approach to realise wider
Government commitments and the benefits of
cross-Government working. The Promoter will engage
with the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport and infrastructure providers regarding current
plans for super-fast broadband and to understand how
the construction programme for Phase 2a may provide
any opportunities. Parish Councils 89 In paragraph 172 of the report the Select Committee said: “We regret that on
many occasions we heard from the Parish Councils that
the County and Borough Councils had not engaged
sufficiently with the local Parish Councils to seek
their views. We hope that as the legislation
progresses and the preparation work for the railway
continues this will be remedied locally. HS2 when
sending correspondence to the primary authorities
should copy the correspondence to the relevant
subsidiary authorities.” HS2 Response 90 During the delivery of Phase 2a, HS2 Ltd will ensure all key stakeholders are kept informed, involved and responded to, in accordance with the HS2 Community Engagement Strategy, including, where relevant and appropriate, copying correspondence with primary authorities to the relevant subsidiary authorities. As part of this engagement activity, HS2 Ltd will seek to ensure primary authorities and subsidiary authorities are engaged within the same, broad timescales. A recent example of HS2 Ltd’s engagement with parish councils is an invitation to visit ground investigation sites along the line of route, which has been taken up by six parish councils to date. 91 When HS2 Ltd engages or consults primary authorities as part of their statutory, technical function, such as those related to planning, highways or heritage, it would be for the primary authority to decide how they involve subsidiary authorities and other local representative groups or bodies. Canals and
Waterways 106 In paragraph 211 of the report the Select Committee said: “In our Second
Special Report we recommended that the Secretary of
State made provision for the construction of a 5-metre
high noise and visual barrier at the Great Haywood
Marina in order to protect narrow boat owners living
there. The Government told us that this would not be
possible as HS2 had already given assurances to the
National Trust about the viaduct in that the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty of Cannock Chase. The
Government’s response says “while HS2 Ltd gave an
indication of the engineering complexity of delivering
higher barriers here, this did not cover the trade-off
between barrier heights and their visual impacts” and
that the 5-metre high noise barriers would impact on
the view. We ask why this was not raised by Counsel
for HS2 in Committee at the time of petitioning. In
order for the process to work well for both
petitioners and HS2 the Committee requires such
evidence so that an informed and fair decision can be
made. We expect the Trent and Sow Parklands and
Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Group, (of which the Canal and River Trust is a
member) to work with HS2 to find a suitable solution
which will allay the concerns of the Inland Waterways
Association about noise.” HS2 Response 107 The Promoter agrees with the Select Committee’s view that the Trent, Sow Parklands and Cannock Chase AONB Group, of which the Inland Waterways Association is also a member, has a key role locally. The Promoter will ask the Group to consider this aspect as part of their consideration of the design principles for this structure which will inform the detailed design. Cycling Footpaths
and Bridleways Includes: 113 In paragraph 219 of the report the Select Committee said: “Colwich Parish Council petitioned the Committee on 1 May 2019 arguing for an upgrade of the towpath of the Trent and Mersey Canal and work to expose the footpath within the highway verge of the A51 for the benefit of walkers. HS2 are now in discussions about using the Community Fund to upgrade the towpath and we were told that HS2 would be agreeing with the Parish Council an assurance on the upgrade of this footpath.” HS2 Response 114 The Promoter has given an assurance to Colwich Parish Council that the nominated undertaker will be required to clear the vegetation obstructing the footpath alongside the A51 between Great Hayward and Hixon, and to repair the existing asphalt paving on the pathway that is currently paved with asphalt during the compound establishment period. 115 The Promoter is continuing to engage with Colwich Parish Council, working with the Canal and River Trust and Sustrans to help facilitate an alternative route for cyclists wishing to avoid construction traffic on the Great Haywood Road, including working with them to make a bid for HS2 Community and Environment Fund (CEF), Business and Local Economy Fund (BLEF) or Sustrans funding. Petition for AP2 submitted March 2019 OBJECTIONS TO AP2 1. Residents of Ingestre will be subjected to significantly increased traffic because of the additional Utility Compounds at: · Trent North, · Hanyards Lane, · and Ingestre Park; · and the construction of the temporary roundabout at Hoo Mill crossroads. The name Hanyards Lane Compound is confusing. The bottom of Hanyards Lane is 4½ miles away by road and a further 1½ miles to the top of the lane. In addition, Hanyards is in Tixall while Ingestre is in Tixall. 2. Ingestre Park Golf Club. We are concerned that loss of playing facilities for 15 months will result in the financial collapse of the golf club. Members will leave and go elsewhere in order to keep playing. Income from the Clubhouse facility will not be sufficient to maintain the club. As a result Ingestre and Tixall will then lose this important Community Asset, which provides the only licensed community space in the two parishes. The community is also greatly concerned about the future of the remnant of the golf course directly in front of the Grade II* Ingestre Hall. We worry about its potential use when it is no longer part of the golf course. 3. There will be much increased traffic on Hanyards Lane, a single track lane. There are very few passing places, and at certain times in the farming calendar there is very heavy farm traffic, e.g. during silaging and harvesting.
1a We would like to see a permanent improvement in road safety at these crossroads, e.g. a permanent roundabout or improved visibility splay. 1b There is a problem along Ingestre Park Road/BOAT 1 as there is nowhere for pedestrians, especially with pushchairs, etc. to be safe from the traffic. The fields are cultivated right up to the edge of the road. We would like to have a footway installed from the entrance to Ingestre Manor Farm to Home Farm corner - taking off a sliver of land from that proposed for the extension of the Golf Club. 1c Hanyards Lane Compound should be renamed Lion Lodge Compound Meeting between HS2 representatives and Parish Councillors 5.11.18 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & DELIVERY STRATEGY Consultation Workshop 31.10.2018 Meeting between Parish Council and HS2 representatives held on October 17th 2018. PETITION submitted Feb 26th 2018 Meeting with HS2 Representatives January 23rd 2018 Review of Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) screening assessment for Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation
(SAC) A report prepared for HS2 Ltd by Arup/ERM
Equality Impact Assessment Report Property Consultation
Informal
meeting
between HS2 representatives and Parish Councillors
5.11.18 Present: Malcolm SIndrey
(Chairman), Nicholas Bostock and Anne
Andrews representing Tixall . Sue
Haenelt, Nicola Woodhouse and Rob Hall representing
Ingestre Omar
Deedat and Charles Leprince from HS2 We
had the benefit of projecting from Charles's Laptop
onto the Village Hall wall using our new VGA-HDMI
adaptor. Charles
started by showing us a map with existing and
predicted HGV traffic flows. These included: The A51 Currently 1260 HGV/day with HS2
additions of 6 and 5 (busy period in months and peak
months) Tixall road " 81
HGV/day " 3
and 2 Hanyards Lane " 87
HGV/day " 4
and 1. More information is
available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/715722/Section_P_-_Traffic_Arrangements_-_Part_1.pdf (a
very large file) There
will be satellite HS2 compounds at the top of
Hanyards Lane and by Hoo Mill, these should be
restored to agricultural use when HS2 construction
has been completed. The main compound, with workers
accommodation will be just north of Haywood Marina,
at Farley corner adjacent to the A51. There will be
a new, temporary road to this compound from the Hoo
Mill compound with a temporary bridge over the West
Coast main line. Construction
of the HS2 viaduct over the river Trent will involve
pile driving. 8am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am
to 12noon on Saturdays. Hanyards
Lane will be used by traffic setting up the Hanyards
Satellite Compound and haul road adjacent to the
line of the HS2 track. No
work can be started until the Bill has been approved
by parliament, i.e. Royal Assent. Advanced work will
then start in 2019 with detailed designs being
prepared, and initial fencing, etc. installed along
the line of the track. Compulsory purchase can only
start after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The
second Additional Provision (AP2) Bill to clarify
details such as the accommodation of utility
services along the line of HS2 is scheduled to be
presented early next year in January or February
2019. A further round of petitioning by those
directly affected by these additional provisions
would then take place in March & April 2019.
This includes changes to Ingestre Golf Course, and
other changes shown on the current draft plans. The
main construction work is expected to start in
2020/2021. The
works will be scheduled to minimise impact on the
farming programme wherever possible. The
suggested AP2 changes include: · Temporary
compounds for the Utility Contractors, e.g. by Hoo
Mill Lane while the gas pipeline is moved. These
will be restored to agricultural use with the stored
topsoil returned.; · More
land around the temporary roundabout near Hoo Mill
crossroads. It was suggested that we should petition
for this to be retained after the construction of
HS2, which would require constructing the roundabout
to a higher specification but would be partial
compensation to the disruption caused by HS2 to the
local community; · Using Mr
A.Collier's land on the far side of Ingestre road
between Ingestre Manor Farm and Trent Drive for the
Golf Course in compensation for the Golf Course land
taken by HS2. The Parish Council is strongly in
favour of retaining the Golf Club at Ingestre as
this retains the Clubhouse for community house and
safeguards the part of the course directly in front
of Ingestre Hall. · Ingestre
Access Bridge under HS2 to the Golf Clubhouse; · A
further Utility Contractor compound NW of Lion
Lodge Covert; · BT and
electric diversions down Hanyards Lane. All
these suggested changes will be subject to further
consultation and then the petitioning process as
before. If
there were any further major changes, Omar was happy
to come back and meet with the Parish Council with
relevant HS2 colleagues Details
on the draft maps are continually changing and it is
unusual for them to be shown to the public at this
stage. They also give a worst case scenario with
maximum potential land take. Mr
Bostock asked for details of the fencing along the
track boundary. It was suggested that we should
petition for this to include hedges, but the future
maintenance of these would have to be agreed between
HS2 and the adjacent landowner. Applications
for the Community & Environment Fund could only
be made after Royal Assent had been given, but we
were given details so that applications could be
prepared, e.g. for a footpath alongside Ingestre
Road from Ingestre Village to Home Farm corner. Mr Sindrey then thanked everyone for attending and the meeting closed at 8.05pm. HS2 Phase 2a HISTORIC
ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & DELIVERY STRATEGY (HERDS) Consultation Workshop
31.10.2018 Anne
Andrews was one of 12 people attending this workshop
at HS2 in Snow hill, Birmingham. Other
attendees were: Chris
Jordan HS2 Heritage Advisor; Jessica
McIver, Andrea, and Charles all ERM Cultural
Heritage Consultants; Shane and
Debbie - Staffs CC Archaeologists; Alan
Tayor - Stafford BC Conservation Officer and
Historic Parks representative; A
representative from Keele University; Neil
Davis from Manchester Industrial Archaeology; Stephanie
a Ceramics expert from Barbican Consultants. It
was noted that Phase 2a is scheduled to open in
2027, assuming the Hybrid Bill, equivalent to
outline planning permission, is passed. This is
scheduled to be completed by Christmas 2019 and
enables compulsory purchase by HS2. An
Environmental Impact Assessment Report, EIAR, has
already been completed. So far work by
ERM has involved: · Desk
based work and studying maps. They have no
permission to access private land. · Remote
sensing using aerial photos and LIDAR, · and
Field walking and Magnetometry where access was
allowed, although results from this have been
largely negative. · Constructing
a Geoarchaeological model of the Trent Valley, e.g.
showing Turnpike Roads, Canals and Railways; · Historic
landscape characterisation. All of this
information is available on the Government website
(not HS2) although it is difficult to locate
specific areas as the indexing is poor. It is hoped
that some direct links can be sent out for our area. The
Historic Environment research will cover all
historic assets within 500m of the route and all
scheduled structures, e.g. Listed Buildings and
Ancient Monuments, within 2km. HERDS
will have a commitment to Parliament to carry out
this research and report it, and it will be
delivered by a supply chain of subcontractors. The
aim is to create the maximum amount of knowledge
cost effectively for the tax payer, using a research
led approach underpinned by technical knowledge. There
was some discussion on the best ways to deliver the
information generated by the work, noting that it
will be a limited life project. Methods of how to
measure success need to be set out. It
was suggested that possible methods of public
engagement and dissemination of the findings could
be: · A
large monograph containing all the information; · Several
smaller, more user friendly documents; · Creating
a virtual museum; · Digital
games; · School
visits as part of the Science, Technology,
Engineering and Maths syllabus; · Engagement
with Community Groups Part of the
public engagement was to to learn new skills, etc. Works
reports would be available within a relatively short
time frame, e.g. 8 weeks, with monographs taking
much longer. Lessons
were being learnt on disseminating information from
HS1, Cross Rail and the Staffordshire Hoard. The
Post medieval period, which was the main focus of
this workshop, was taken as 1540 to the present,
although they were happy to accept discussion on
earlier features. ERM
were suggesting the following major topic: Landscape
Issues: Geographically
the area consisted of the Upper Trent Valley; the
Stoke & Stone uplands; and the Cheshire Plain. The
area crossed the E-W watershed which had had a
direct effect on human culture of all periods,
including with respect to resources and transport. When
had enclosure occurred, e.g. relatively early in
Ingestre and Tixall. A
characteristic landscape around the late 18C Listed
Moreton House whose Haha would be touched by HS2.
This landscape had been built on the profits of coal
mining on Cannock Chase. Water
meadows in the Trent Valley. Rural
industries including Glass making and Iron working. Turnpike
roads and milestones - many of these had been broken
or displaced, and some would need to be relocated
after HS2 road diversions. The following
broad themes for research were suggested: 1. Enclosure and
colonisation. 2. Rural
settlement/Built heritage. 3. Landscaped
Estates. 4. Transport
& Industry. 5. Conflict in
the landscape, e.g. WWI and WW2 remains. In addition, the
following research topics were suggested; 1. Development
& diversity of local industries including the
role of ceramics, e.g. Hoo Mill Flint Mill. 2. Rural
settlement patterns and vernacular building
traditions. 3. Landscapes of
display and power - e.g. Historic Parks. 4. Transport
corridors - the Trent, Canals and Railways. 5. Interaction
between the growing towns of Stafford, Lichfield and
Crewe, and the rural hinterland of the study area. We
then discussed a variety of topics and I was
pleasantly surprised at how aware ERM was of
Ingestre Hall and parkland; Ingestre Church; the Hoo
Mill tramway; St Erasmus Chapel and the earlier
church at Ingestre; the salt working by Lion Lodge,
and the ancient history of Upper Hanyards. Other
topics covered were: · The
Cistercian monastery at Yarlet and the original site
of the Hall in an oval woodland. The school is on
the site of a rebuilt Manor House. · Ceramic
related sites showing the growth of the Pottery
Industry. · The
interaction between Industrial activities and the
Agricultural revolution. · How
communities evolved. · The
movement of labour. · How
changes in the Poor Law impacted on the supply of
apprentices for industry from the workhouses. · Possible
sites of temporary camps for railway navies. · Small
coal mines. · Local
heritage such as the Abbots Bromley Horn Dance.
I have sold them a copy of my book on Tixall Farms, and they have requested a further copy. I am also sending them a copy of "The Short History of Ingestre", and relevant editions of the Staffordshire Industrial Archaeology Society, e.g. on Brickworks and quarries. Report of informal
meeting between members of the Parish Council
and HS2 representatives held on October
17th 2018. Present:
Mr Malcolm Sindrey (Chairman), Dr Anne Andrews, and
Mr Nicholas Bostock - Tixall Parish Councillors. Mrs
Susan Haenelt, Mrs Nicola Woodhouse and Mr Robert
Hall - Ingestre Parish Councillors. Representing
HS2: Omar Deedat,
Petition Advisor; Joe Wilson, HS2 Stakeholder; Beth
Chamberlin, Environment Consultant and Charles
Leprince, Civil and Structural Engineer. Apologies
had been received from Mrs Penny Brookes, a Tixall
Councillor. Omar
explained that following the completion of the last
round of consultations and petitions, the latest HS2
Hybrid Bill passed through Parliament. Matters
covered in this Bill including the actual route of
HS2 could not be changed. Since then HS2 has
developed the design, particularly in respect of
highways and utilities and needs to make some
changes to the Bill to reflect these. They have
already sought to make changes to the Hybrid Bill
through additional Provision submitted in March
2018. They are now seeking to make further changes
through a second Additional Provision (AP2) to
clarify details such as the accommodation of utility
services along the line of HS2. This was scheduled
to be presented early next year in January or
February 2019. A further round of petitioning by
those directly affected by these additional
provisions would then take place in March &
April 2019. Proposed
changes include a series of amendments to utilities
works including: · Revised
designs for gas and electricity diversions and
altered connections for water supplies, sewers and
telecommunication cables. · Provision
of a number of local placement sites for excavated
material that would otherwise be exported by road; · Provision
of maintenance access to a number of elements of
permanent railway infrastructure including the under
bridge at Ingestre; · Additional
land required temporarily for construction and
utility and railway system compounds; · And
changes brought forward at the request of local
agricultural businesses and other stakeholders, as
well as at the direction of the committee of MPS
considering the Bill. These include changes to
accommodate Ingestre Park Golf Club by extending it
across Ingestre Road onto Mr Andrew Collier's land. · Additional
land temporarily required alongside the track to
provide haul routes. HS2
was taking the unusual step of consulting with
interested parties before the final detailed plans
were published. This meant that the plans currently
being discussed were only drafts and provisional. There
were considerable difficulties viewing the plans on
a small laptop which could not be connected to the
Village Hall projector. It is hoped to resolve this
in the future. Hard
copies of these draft maps for our section of the
route will be available at Stafford Gatehouse on
Monday October 29th from 2 to 8pm., but they cannot
be taken away. A separate
meeting will be held with landowners directly
involved in early November. Red
"bubbles" showed the changes from the original
plans. These include: · The
exclusion zone alongside the diverted gas main near
the viaduct has been widened at their request, and a
temporary site compound for the diversion works has
been added. · The
temporary roundabout near Hoo Mill crossroads has
been widened. This will ensure that Ingestre Road
will never close. Various
other matters were raised: 1. Some
landowners including Mr Bostock, Tixall Heath Farm
and Halfway Cottage had received lengthy forms
asking them to confirm their ownership of the land
and any additional constraints on this, without
explaining why this information was required. This
had led to great concern. HS2 responded that these
letters had been sent out by a Manchester
sub-contractor. Mr
Sindrey noted that he had not been approached at all
by HS2 despite having told them on many occasions
that he owned the sporting rights on land required
by HS2 and land opposite Tixall Church required for
road widening in the Hybrid Bill. 2. It was noted
that the present works on the Hoo Mill side of the
canal and Haywood Marina was nothing to do with HS2,
but was purely to divert and underground the oil
pipeline from going over the adjacent canal bridge
where it was very vulnerable. 3. Concern was
expressed as to how golfers would cross Ingestre
road, and what would happen to the small area of
golf course to the SW which would be isolated by
HS2. It
was noted that Mr A.Collier's recent hedge clearance
work was necessary in order to sort out the drain
from Ingestre across these fields, which currently
had no outflow. 4. Mr Martin
Harrison, co-owner of Ingestre Wood had been assured
that large timber waggons would be able to pass over
the new over bridge. 5. Currently
drilling was being undertaken to investigate the
geology, etc. of Hanyards/Brancote South Cutting at
the edge of the large field below the track to
Ingestre Wood from Upper Hanyards, adjacent to the
belt of trees (Churchfield Belt) separating this
field from Ingestre Golf Course. 6. Excavated
material would either be placed in temporary soil
tips, where it could later be used for nearby
embankments, or if excess to requirements, made into
permanent local placement sites. These would be low
mounds, up to 3m high, with their contours
landscaped to merge in to existing land contours.
They would be covered with topsoil and then grassed
over. 7. HS2 was asked
about ongoing maintenance of compensatory tree
planting, e.g. at Hoo Mill crossroads. They had
replied that ongoing maintenance would be agreed
with Natural England, and funded by HS2 for up to 10
years. After this the future of the woodland would
be agreed, following case by
case discussions with the landowners. 8. It was noted
that HS2 Phase 1 was already 2 -3 years behind
schedule, and thus the various temporary works could
be in place for some time. HS2 replied that they
were currently on target, but could not predict what
would happen in the future.The main construction
work on Phase 2 was scheduled to start in 2021 with
the railway operating from 2027. 9. It was noted
that it had been agreed that Colwich and Ingestre
with Tixall Parish Councils and Shugborough would
have input into the final design of the viaduct by
Haywood Marina. Apparently this was being organised
by Cannock Chase AONB. The AONB boundary runs along
the S bank of the Staffs & Worc. Canal to
Haywood and then along the boundary of Shugborough
Park. 10. Dr Andrews
hoped to attend a Post-medieval and Built Heritage
workshop being led by the Staffordshire County
Archaeologist, Shane Kelleher, on October 31st from
11am to 3pm at HS2 offices nr Snowhill Station,
Birmingham. She had been confused to receive a
further invitation to a similar Communities, HERDS
workshop on November 8th, which she could not
attend. When
HS2 is up and running current service plans are for
one train an hour between Stafford and London taking
53 minutes, a saving of 22 minutes. Much needed
increased railway capacity would occur.
Staffordshire and Cheshire would be served by three
stations: Stafford, Stoke on Trent and Crewe.
Construction of HS2 would support thousands of new
jobs including 2,000 apprenticeships. There being no further business, Mr Sindrey thanked all those who had attended and the meeting closed at 8.55pm Report of meeting between
Parish Council and representatives of HS2 24.6.19 Present: Mr M.Sindrey, (Chairman), Mr
N.Bostock, Mrs P.Parrott and Dr A.Andrews,
representing Tixall Mrs
S.Haenelt, Mrs N.Woodhouse and Mr R.Hall
representing Ingestre
Omar Deedat, HS2 Petition Advisor and Joe
Wilson, HS2 Community Engagement Officer 1. House of Lords Petitioning
Process:
Omar said that the 3rd reading of the Bill
had been expected in June, but now was more likely
at the beginning of July, and this would trigger the
House of Lords Petitioning Process. This would have
a similar format to the Commons petitioning, but can
cover all issues. However, it was very unlikely that
it would promote any additional provisions which
would require further consultation and petitioning.
There would be a 30 day petitioning period.
The Lords petitioning would then start around
September with initial briefings on the route, etc.
by HS2. So it was likely that petitions would be
heard around October, and would be relatively quick.
Omar explained that the petitions could
include some blue sky thinking, e.g. The impact of
HS2 on the local community could be used to press
for money for the village hall, as at Hopton, or for
better sound barriers. The refusal of a tunnel at
Hopton could be used to support more community
benefit for Hopton. It would be important to check
with Omar which proposals would require Additional
Provisions, and were therefore less likely to
succeed.
It would be helpful to repeat the key points
of our previous petition, and to contact Lord
Shrewsbury and Jeremy Lefroy to support us.
It was suggested that Ingestre Church could
petition for a new Organ as it was a concert venue
and there would be a fall in visitor s during HS2
construction with the increased traffic and this
would result in a loss of income. 2. Update on Ground
Investigations site visit offered by Joe Wilson on
April 15th:
Mr Sindrey and Mr Bostock were interested in
attending this, but had received no further
information.
Joe Wilson explained that Balfour Beatty had
the contract for these groundworks, which they had
sub-contracted to Soctec. Their preliminary
investigations of our area were almost complete, and
he hoped to arrange a planned visit during the 2nd
phase of investigations later this year.
Dr Andrews noted that there had been
considerable activity at the top of Hanyards Lane
with a series of bore holes along the proposed line
of HS2, on either side of the track leading to
Ingestre Wood, and one borehole in the field to the
left, at the far end of the Black Drive. 3. Membership of Trent
Sow Parklands HS2 Group:
Omar said that this was in the process of
being set up with terms of reference and an
independent chairman appointed, and the Project
Manager would be contacting Parish Councils in due
course. Currently the County Council, National
Trust, etc. were involved.
Dr Andrews noted that on June 5th on June 5th she
came a across a carload of people parked at Hoo
Mill crossroads and carrying OS Maps. They said
they were from the National Trust at Shugborough
and were identifying the proposed route of HS2. 4. Timetable for
Community Grant Applications:
After the Bill had finally been given Royal
Assent at the end of 2019 or early 2020, Community
Funds, CEF, would be available for local projects,
e.g. Road Safety, but these would require more
rigorous applications with tender, etc.
Applications would be assessed and monitored
by Groundworks, who were independent of HS2. Offers
of volunteer labour input or part funding from
elsewhere would be helpful.
Colwich had suggested funding for improving
the Trent & Mersey Canal Towpath. Applications
would be considered on merit rather than on the size
of the area applying. 5. AOB:
Dr Andrews asked if the Parish Council needed
to do anything further regarding the roundabout at
Hoo Mill crossroads and the new footway along
Ingestre Road. Omar said no, this was now in the
system.
Mr Hall asked how much the traffic along
Ingestre Road would increase during construction. It
was noted that in addition to Utility Compounds
accessed via Ingestre Gold Club, there was a further
Pipeline Utility and Satellite Compound by Hoo Mill
crossroads, accessed off Ingestre Road.
Omar said the Pipeline or Trent North Utility
would only be active for about 6 months, and the
Satellite Compound was not the main works site. He
agreed to send updated figures for traffic along
Ingestre and Tixall Roads.
Mrs Parrott noted that the plans provided by
Ingestre Golf Club for their proposed site at
Holdiford Road were still inaccurate, e.g. no
agreement had been reached to access the site from
Holdiford Road.
HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL - ADDITIONAL PROVISION 2- HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE: PETITION HS2-AP2-021 - INGESTRE WITH TIXALL PARISH COUNCIL 7 May 2019 I am writing to you in my capacity as the Director of Hybrid Bill Delivery at HS2 Ltd, which is acting on behalf of the Promoter of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill (the Bill') currently before Parliament I understand that Ingestre With Tixall Parish Council has a number of concerns about the impact of the proposals in Additional Provision 2 (AP2) to the Bill in the House of Commons and has submitted a petition on that basis. Following conversations with my colleague Omar Deedat, I am writing to you, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, to offer the Parish Council the following assurances: In these assurances: "the Footway" means a pedestrian footway to be provided along the part of Ingestre Park Road shown edged black on the plan attached to this assurance; "the Proposed Scheme" means Phase 2a of HS2; Visibility Splays 1. If the relevant highway authority does not retain the Temporary Roundabout permanently, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to engage with Staffordshire County Council during the detailed design of the Proposed Scheme in relation to the improvement of the visibility splays at the junction. 2. Subject to any proposals meeting the proposals in paragraph 3 below, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to implement any reasonable proposals put forward from the engagement with Staffordshire County Council to improve the visibility splays at the junction. 3. The conditions referred to in paragrph 2 above are: a. that the proposals can be implemented within the powers or limits of the Bill. b. the proposals do not give rise to any new or different environmental effects to those assessed in the Environmentall Statement or effect compliance with the Environmental Minimum Requirements: and c. the proposals can be implemented within the construction programme for the Proposed Scheme and do not prejudice the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. BOAT 1/Ingestre Park
Road Footway 1. Subject to the conditions in paragraph 2 below being satisfied, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to provide the Footway as part of the Proposed Scheme prior to the use of Ingestre Park Road by HS2 construction traffic. 2. The conditions referred to in paragraph 1 are: a. that the provisions contained in Additional Provision 2 relating to Ingestre Park Golf Course (AP2-002-010) receive Royal Assent and are implemented as part of the Proposed Scheme; b. that the Footway can be constructed and retained within the powers and limits of the Bill c. that Staffordshire County Council agree to the Footway being provided and agree to adopt the Footway; d. that the Footway does not give rise to any new or different environmental effects to those assessed in the Environmental Statement or effect compliance with the Environmental Minimum Requirements; and e. that the Footway can be constructed within the construction programme for the Proposed Scheme and does not prejudice the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. If accepted, these assurances will be included in the Register of Undertakings and Assurances, which is held by the Department for Transport. Drafts of the Register will be published regularly during the passage of the Bill and it will be finalised after Royal Assent. A nominated undertaker will be contractually obliged to comply with all relevant undertakings and assurances set out in the Register. The assurance process is set out in Annex A. Additionally, I wrote to you on 29 March offering the following assurances: 1. Use of Hanyards Lane 1.1 During the construction of the Proposed Scheme the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker in so far as reasonably practicable, after taking account of the relevant factors referred to in paragraph 1.2 below, to seek to utilise any Relevant Site Haul Roads as a construction route for Large Goods Vehicles between the public road network and the Compound for the purposes of mitigating the nominated undertakers expected frequency and/or period of use of Hanyards Lane as a construction route for Large Goods Vehiclles and Construction Vehicles between the public road network and the Compound. 1.2 The relevant factors referred t in paragraph 1.2 above are:- 1.2.1 compliance with all relevant approvals, permissions, undertakings and assurances regarding the operation and use of any Relevant Site Haul Roads; and 1.2.2 the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme 2. Hoo Mill roundabout
2.1 Recognising that lngestre and Tixall Parish Council would like the temporary roundabout proposed in the Bill at Hoo Mill Lane and shown on Map Number CT-05-212 in the CA2 Colwich to Yarlet Mapbook, in Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement ("the Temporary Roundabout") to be made permanent, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to design and construct the works to provide the Temporary Roundabout in a manner that does not preclude this subject to the satisfaction of the conditions in paragraph 2.2. 2.2 The conditions in paragraph 2.1 are: i. the nominated undertaker being satisfied that the permanent retention of the Temporary Roundabout can be delivered without the need for any additional land to that included within the limits of land to be acquired or used in the Bill; and ii. Staffordshire County Council securing the necessary consents and approvals to enable the permanent retention and adoption of the Temporary Roundabout under relevant legislation prior to the Temporary Roundabout being removed by the nominated undertaker. Yours sincerely Oliver Bayne Director, Hybrid Bill Delivery High Speed Two (HS2) Limited PETITION SUBMITTED 22.2.2018 Group of organisations’
details Names
of organisations
Details of individuals in
organisations First
name(s)
Last
name
Address
line 1
Address
line 2
Post
Code
Phone
Who
should be contacted about this petition? Individual
above x Terms and conditions Personal
information A copy
of this petition and information provided in the
online form will be: ·
kept in
the Private Bill Office and as a record in the
Parliamentary Archives. ·
sent to
the Department for Transport and High Speed Two
(HS2) Limited after the petition has been received
by the Private Bill Office. We will
publish your petition on UK Parliament’s website.
This will include your name and address. The
personal information you have provided may be kept
in a database by both Private Bill Offices. Communications Private
Bill Office staff may call or email any of the
people named in the petition to verify the
information provided. Communications
may be stored in databases to keep track of
information you have given or received. This
information may be shared between the Private Bill
Offices. Consent
and confirmation The
information you have provided in the petition and
online form is accurate. If you
have completed the form on behalf of an
individual, a group of individuals, an
organisation, or a group of organisations, you
have been authorised to do so. x☐ Check
this box if you agree to the terms and
conditions Hybrid Bill
Petition House
of Commons Session
2017-19 High
Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill Do not
include any images or graphics in your petition.
There will be an opportunity to present these
later if you give evidence to the committee. Your
bill petition does not need to be signed. Expand
the size of the text boxes as you need. 1.
Petitioner information In the
box below, give the name and address of each
individual, business or organisation(s) submitting
the petition.
In the
box below, give a description of the petitioners.
For example, “we are the owners/tenants of the
addresses above”; “my company has offices at the
address above”; “our organisation represents the
interests of…”; “we are the parish council of…”.
2.
Objections to the Bill In the
box below, write your objections to the Bill and
why your property or other interests are specially
and directly affected. Please number each
paragraph. Only
objections outlined in this petition can be
presented when giving evidence to the committee.
You will not be entitled to be heard on new
matters.
Meeting with HS2
Representatives January 23rd 2018 Present: Representing
the Parish Council: Malcolm Sindrey (Chairman), Dr
Anne Andrews (Parish Clerk & Cllr),
Nicholas Bostock (Cllr.), Sue Haenelt (Vice
Chairman), Nicola Woodhouse (Cllr.) Representing
Ingestre Church and Friends of Ingestre Orangery:
Gill Broadbent Representing
HS2: Adrian Osborne (HS2 responsible for
delivering the Hybrid Bill with regard to the
Environment),
Omar Deedat (HS2 Petition Management), Joe Wilson
(HS2 Stakeholder
Advisor),Jason Fairbairn (HS2
Hydrogeologist), Simon Dale-Lace (HS2
Hydrogeologist) Apologies: Penny
Brookes and David Cooke The
Petitioning Process
This was described by Omar Deedat with the
help of 2 handouts. The Hybrid Bill Delivery
Directorate is
composed of Oliver Bayne, Delivery Director; Simon
Knight, Head of Management & Technical teams;
and then two Senior Petition Managers: Martin
Wells for Complex Agreements, e.g. Staffs CC; and
Laura Wise for Individuals and Communities, e.g.
PCs.
The Hybrid Bill Process has now progressed
through the 1st Reading, which is a procedural
step authorising the printing of the bill, but
with no debate; A public Consultation on the
Environmental Statement; to the 2nd reading.
The 2nd reading is scheduled for the end of
January, and will establish the principles of the
Bill with debate in Parliament. It will also set
the length of the petitioning period and assure
the principle of the scheme.
This will be followed by a Petitioning
Period; Petitions being heard by a Select
Committee; a Public Bill Committee with further
consideration and possible amendments by MPs; and
then the 3rd reading when the House considers the
bill again with any possible amendments by MPs.
The Bill then goes through a similar
process in the House of Lords, before returning to
the Commons for further debate and approval of any
Lords amendments; and then finally Royal Assent.
Full petitioning guidance and template are
available from: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/high-speed-rail-west-midlands-crewe-bill-select-committee-commons/news-/
During this process the Bill can be amended
but not stopped. The design is evolving during
this process. Following the Phase 1 petitions it
has been suggested that generic objections should
be heard together.
The formal decision of the Select
Committees for Phase 1 is a useful guide and is
available at: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill-select-committee-commons/news-parliament-20151/hs2-london-west-midlands-bill-report-published-15-16/ and:
www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill-select-committee-lords/news-parliament-2015/hs2-bill-committee-publishes-report/
Some changes to the design will occur as
more information becomes available, e.g. from
further surveys. Any additional information that
changes the reported effects of the scheme by HS2
can be reported in Supplementary Environmental
Statement, (SES) but some human errors are
inevitable. There were 3 Supplementary
Environmental Statements for Phase 1.
During the course of Select Committee
process, changes to the Proposed Scheme maybe
identified as a result of discussions with
stakeholders, continued project development, and
in response to the Select Committee’s decisions.
In some cases these revisions involved the
acquisition or use of land outside of the current
limits of the Bill, additional access rights or
other extensions of the powers conferred by the
Bill, making it necessary to submit an Additional
Provision. There were 5 Additional Provisions for
Phase 1.
In addition Ground Investigations, or GIs,
such as boreholes, will be carried out if the land
can be accessed and these will feed into the
engineering design.
We questioned the continuing factual errors
in HS2 documents, eg. Brancote cf Hanyards Cutting
and calling the Tixall Rd to Hoo Mill crossroads,
Gt Haywood Rd. We were told that these names were
consistent with their initial guidelines, and it
seems cannot be changed. We
then continued to consider the various items
we had outlined to HS2 in advance of the meeting 1.
Why has ARUP/ERM not referred to the BGS report,
only Envireau ? It was explained that Envireau
included consideration of the BGS report. 2.
Why is the line of the ARUP/ERM section not shown
in Figs 2 & 3 ?
Because a different section line is used by
ARUP/ERM to that used by Envireau, it is difficult
to compare the two sections and the ARUP/ERM section
excludes
Lion Lodge Covert and the adjacent saltmarsh
which is known to have Common Saltmarsh Grass
growing on it, and the saline pool, possibly St
Erasmus Well in the wood.
HS2 said that as they were primarily
concerned to show that there would be no effect on
the Pasturefields SAC they had chosen a different
line. 3. Why is
HS2's knowledge of surface water and drainage in
this area so poor ?
Known land drains and watercourses were not
included in the map previously supplied by your
Hydrogeology expert following our last meeting,
despite HS2 having previously been given a map by
Mr M.Woodhouse 7.11.2016.
Similarly, during a recent visit by HS2 to
Lion Lodge Covert, with the owner's son, Mr Field,
HS2 were surprised to be shown the saline pool in
the wood.
We expressed concern that lack of knowledge
of local drainage could result in problems similar
to those resulting from recent work by Amys in
laying a new sewer nr St Thomas Priory, with field
drains being destroyed and having to be relaid at
considerable expense. 4.
Barker’s
map of groundwater salinity distribution, shown
in Figure 6 in his report, refers specifically
to his interpretation of groundwater salinity
within the uppermost bedrock alone (and
excludes salinity within the overlying
superficial geology, within which Pasturefields
SAC is situated).
Therefore why is the salinity shown in HS2
Fig.2 of the superficial geology ?
We did not get a satisfactory answer to
this question although HS2 had spoken to Barker
who has now retired. 5.
In ARUP/ERM 3.2.9 you
note that Barker also acknowledges that his
conclusions regarding the general role of the
Tixall Fault in this regard are inconclusive.
Coincidentally, however, it is at the
intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme
with the Tixall Fault where Barker’s
interpretation concerning the distribution of
saline groundwater is much more clearly aligned
with (and constrained by) the subcrop of the
Tixall fault (note that the Tixall Fault pre-dates
deposition of the superficial geology and
therefore does not extend into the drift geology
itself).
At this location saline groundwater within
the bedrock does not appear, according to Barker,
to extend westwards beyond the Tixall Fault. This
suggests that there is no pathway, at this
location, for westward migration of saline
groundwater towards Pasturefields SAC.
But Pasturefields SAC is N of this
intersection, not W - see HS2 Fig 3.
We
did not really get a satisfactory answer to this
question. We were refered to Envireau Fig 3, which
shows the possible saline groundwater flowing from
NE of Pasturefields SAC down to Lion Lodge Covert
and Barkers area of saline groundwater.
HS2 pointed out that the Environment Agency
in consultation with Natural England, were
satisfied that the current route would not affect
Pasturefields SAC.
If there was a potential effect on the SAC,
HS2 would take appropriate mitigation measures and
these would have to be passed by the Environment
Agency in conjunction with Natural England. 6.
It is not clear from ARUP/ERMs
report
how the
saline groundwater gets to Lion lodge LWS and
the pool in the wood ? This is directly in the
path of the proposed HS2 Route.
Envireau
Fig.3
shows saline groundwater flow in a NE
& SW direction towards the R.Trent beyond
Pasturefields SAC, but also in a SW and SE
direction towards the area of saline groundwater
shown on ARUP/ERMs
figures.
Again
if there was found to be a potential effect
on the SAC, HS2 would take appropriate mitigation
measures and these would have to be passed by the
Environment Agency in conjunction with Natural
England. 7.
What precautions will be taken to stop any long
term chemical effect of the viaduct pile concrete
polluting the local groundwater ?
The hydrochemistry of the piles would be
designed for a 120yr life. Different concrete
mixes would be used for different parts of the
scheme depending on local conditions. It was noted
that the saline ground water could have a direct
effect on piling. 8.
ARUP/ERM
states that the Hanyards
cutting will extend to a maximum depth of 17m
bgl in the Mercia Mudstone and a maximum depth
of 13.3m bgl within the Sherwood Sandstone in
the worst case.
Do these figures include the depth of
sub-base, ballast and track as suggested by
Envireau in their figure of 19m ?.
We were shown a picture of the proposed
Colne Viaduct in Buckinghamshire. Viaducts would
be to a standard design, which could then be
modified after consultation with the local
community, e.g. Noise barriers up to a certain
height and a sandstone finish on the concrete.
The Hanyards cutting would be an average of
9.6m deep, with an average of 10.5 through the
mudstone and 11.5 through the sandstone.
Soundproofing barriers would be at the trackside,
i.e. in the cutting. Due to the changing depth of
the cutting, trains would be visible in some
parts.
We then raised other areas of concern: 1. Road
Access to the construction sites. Tixall Rd is
unsuitable for any additional HGV traffic, it has
many blind bends and blind changes in elevation.
There are many lengths of the road where
overtaking is impossible. The proposed widening by
Tixall Church and Tixall Manor Farm, and 2
additional passing places will not solve these
problems. These problems had also been raised by
Staffs CC.
Instead we suggested a direct, temporary
haul route from the A51 at Pasturefields to HS2
with 2 Bailey Bridges over the canal and river.
HS2 agreed to investigate this further.
We also raised the problem of HGVs emerging
from or entering Hanyards Lane 25m from the
traffic lights at the bottom of Blackheath Lane.
HS2 said that designated construction
routes were still subject to approval, and would
be subject to maximum dust, noise, and visual
impacts. Haul routes, eg. from Hanyards to the
Weston Rd would run alongside the track without
any additional landtake.
We also noted again the need to have 24/7
access to Ingestre for emergency vehicles and
local residents. HS2 said this had been noted. 2.
Possible blasting to make the deep cuttings. We
expressed concern at the lack of knowledge of the
exact nature of the underlying sandstone and the
possible effect on buildings such as Ingestre
Church is blasting was necessary. HS2 said that
there were now various ways of making the cutting,
and the general design would set maximum limits ,
or the worst case for the impact of vibration and
noise. 3.
We noted that HS2s Noise baseline for Ingestre was
significantly higher than the actual level. People
had moved to Ingestre, and paid premium prices for
their houses, because of this peace and quiet. The
increase in noise level to HS2s baseline is
significant, let alone any additional noise from
the construction and operation of HS2.
Ingestre Church is an important national
and international concert venue, like St Marys
Church, Wendover, and Ingestre Hall Residential
Arts Centre has a strong music department.
It was noted that there was considerable
discussion on the methods of noise assessment
during the Phase 1 petitioning. This was reported
in the subsequent Phase 1 petitioning reports. In
addition, Historic England is also currently
assessing the effect of noise on heritage assets.
4.
We suggested that a cut and cover tunnel in place
of the cuttings would significantly reduce the
noise and visual impact of HS2, and reduce the
amount of material to be transported away from the
site. It would also do away with the need for the
green bridge and access bridge to the Pavilion.
Mr Bostock said that the views from this
area, which was part of the historic park
landscapes of Ingestre and Tixall, to the
Wrekin and over Staffordshire, were incredible and
should be preserved.
HS2 noted that to construct a cut and cover
tunnel would take longer and have to go deeper,
and there could be problems aligning it with the
level of viaduct. It would also need additional
land take at the entrance and entrance to provide
emergency evacuation facilities.
HS2 also noted that the greenbridge was a
unique , skewed design to link the two parklands
as well as the local wildlife. 5. In
conclusion we remained concerned that most
information provided to HS2 Ltd in previous
communications has been ignored. This is partly
because consultations responses are combined in a
report which just summarises the main points
raised, losing much of the specific details, e.g.
We have consistently said that the deep cutting
should be called Hanyards Cutting and not Brancote
Cutting. This error is no doubt due to HS2 using
an incorrect Google Map which wrongly showed
Brancote Farm at Upper Hanyards. Brancote S
cutting is actually N of Brancote. This is already
leading to confusion amongst local residents and
no doubt with contractors in the future.
The chairman then thanked everyone for
attending and for their contributions and the
meeting closed at 8.47m. Review of
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening
assessment for Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation
(SAC) A report prepared for HS2 Ltd by Arup/ERM Contents
1 Introduction 1 2 Context 3 3 Review and findings 4 3.1 Introduction 4 3.2 Envireau suggested hydrogeological mechanism 4 3.3 HS2 Ltd response to Envireau Suggested Mechanism 8 3.4 Individual concerns raised 9 4 Conclusions 14 5 References 15 6 Figures 16 1 Introduction 1.1.1 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening report1 was undertaken for the Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation (hereafter referred to as Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC) as part of the HS2 Phase 2 Appraisal of Sustainability2. The HRA screening report considered the potential construction and operational effects from the proposed route alignment on the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC due to hydrological processes. It concluded that the chosen route alignment option would have no likely significant effect, and this conclusion has been agreed with Natural England and the Environment Agency. 1.1.2 This report has now been prepared in response to additional information that has subsequently been made available to HS2 Ltd as a result of a representation by Mr Jeremy Lefroy, MP for Stafford Constituency. This comprised an interpretative report by Envireau Limited (hereafter referred to as the Envireau report)3 founded upon a geophysics report by Barker (1979)4. At the time that the HRA screening report and subsequent Environmental Statement5 were produced, Barker’s geophysics report was not in the public domain as it was a private report commissioned by the then Severn Trent Water Authority (STWA). 1.1.3 Barker’s objective was to characterise the distribution of saline groundwater in the bedrock surrounding STWA’s public water supply (PWS) borehole at Essex Bridge, approximately 1.25km south of the proposed Great Haywood viaduct, as shown in Figure 1, and from which water was derived for public supply. 1.1.4 Based on information contained within the Barker report, the Envireau report raises concern that a potential mechanism for the Proposed Scheme to impact Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC had not been adequately considered in the HRA screening report. The concerns raised within the Envireau report are now considered in this report and whether they change the conclusions of the HRA screening report for Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 1.1.5 HS2 Ltd has consulted with Natural England and the Environment Agency regarding the Envireau report and agreed to review the additional information provided and reported therein. Natural England has requested that the implications of this additional information for Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and/or the Proposed Scheme are reviewed and reported. 1.1.6 Whilst there are no changes to the route alignment option of the Proposed Scheme, additional design details and refinements are now available for the Proposed Scheme, 1 Introduction 1.1.1 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening report1 was undertaken for the Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation (hereafter referred to as Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC) as part of the HS2 Phase 2 Appraisal of Sustainability2. The HRA screening report considered the potential construction and operational effects from the proposed route alignment on the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC due to hydrological processes. It concluded that the chosen route alignment option would have no likely significant effect, and this conclusion has been agreed with Natural England and the Environment Agency. 1.1.2 This report has now been prepared in response to additional information that has subsequently been made available to HS2 Ltd as a result of a representation by Mr Jeremy Lefroy, MP for Stafford Constituency. This comprised an interpretative report by Envireau Limited (hereafter referred to as the Envireau report)3 founded upon a geophysics report by Barker (1979)4. At the time that the HRA screening report and subsequent Environmental Statement5 were produced, Barker’s geophysics report was not in the public domain as it was a private report commissioned by the then Severn Trent Water Authority (STWA). 1.1.3 Barker’s objective was to characterise the distribution of saline groundwater in the bedrock surrounding STWA’s public water supply (PWS) borehole at Essex Bridge, approximately 1.25km south of the proposed Great Haywood viaduct, as shown in Figure 1, and from which water was derived for public supply. 1.1.4 Based on information contained within the Barker report, the Envireau report raises concern that a potential mechanism for the Proposed Scheme to impact Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC had not been adequately considered in the HRA screening report. The concerns raised within the Envireau report are now considered in this report and whether they change the conclusions of the HRA screening report for Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 1.1.5 HS2 Ltd has consulted with Natural England and the Environment Agency regarding the Envireau report and agreed to review the additional information provided and reported therein. Natural England has requested that the implications of this additional information for Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and/or the Proposed Scheme are reviewed and reported. 1.1.6 Whilst there are no changes to the route alignment option of the Proposed Scheme, additional design details and refinements are now available for the Proposed Scheme, as well as an alternative opinion reported by Envireau regarding potential water borne pathways supporting Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. These have all now been reviewed in combination and potential concerns assessed. 1 High Speed 2 Ltd, (2012), Screening Report for Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation. 2 High Speed 2 Ltd , (2013), High Speed Rail: Consultation on the route from the West Midlands to Manchester, Leeds and beyond, Sustainability Statement, Volume 1: Appendix E4 Biodiversity 3 Envireau Water, (June 2017), Hydrogeological Conceptualisation of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC & Ingestre/Tixall Salt Marsh SBI Great Haywood, Staffordshire. 4 Barker, R.D., (1979), Geophysical surveys around Shugborough Park Staffordshire. Report Georun 10. Unpublished report prepared for Severn Trent Water Authority by Applied Geophysics Research Unit, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Birmingham, October 1979 5 HS2 Ltd (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 2: Community Area report, CA2: Colwich to Yarlet. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-environmental-statement. 2 Context 2.1.1 Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC is located approximately 7km to the east of the centre of Stafford, in between the Trent & Mersey Canal (also known as the Grand Trunk Canal) and the River Trent in the West Midlands. It is the only significant remaining example in the UK of a natural saline spring with inland saltmarsh vegetation. The primary reason for the designation of the SAC is the presence of inland salt meadows, a priority habitat which is listed on Annex I of the Habitats Directive6. Figure 1 shows the site location. 2.1.2 The HRA screening report considered route alignment options to the north and south of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. As part of the HS2 Phase 2 Appraisal of Sustainability the potential hydrological effects associated with these route alignment options on Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC were further considered. It was concluded that the chosen route alignment option to the south would have no likely significant effect on the SAC as it does not intersect with the surface water or groundwater catchment of the SAC. It was therefore concluded that an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations was not required. Route alignment options to the north were, however, assessed by HS2 Ltd as being unlikely to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. 2.1.3 The overall horizontal and vertical route alignment of the Proposed Scheme has therefore not subsequently changed. Note that an Addendum to the HRA Screening Report7 considered the potential for air quality effects due to the need to use the A51 Lichfield Road as a construction route for the Proposed Scheme. This report also concluded that there were no likely significant air quality effects on the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC during construction of the Proposed Scheme. 2.1.4 Due to the additional information presented within the Barker report, as identified and further interpreted within the Envireau report, and the concerns raised as a result, this report now provides a review of the original HRA screening conclusions in relation to surface water and groundwater. 6 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Strasbourg, European Parliament and European Council, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Publications/JNCC312/UK_habitat_list.asp 7 HS2 Ltd (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 5: Ecology and biodiversity technical appendices: Habitats Regulation Assessment screening report – Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation addendum. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627065/E55_EC-017-004_WEB.pdf 3 Review and findings 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 The Envireau report considers the potential geological and hydrogeological systems which may contribute to the saline water input that sustains Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. On the basis of these considerations, the Envireau report suggests that the Great Haywood viaduct, the Trent North embankment, and the Brancote South cutting could all affect the saltmarsh habitat within the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. The potential effect raised by the Envireau report in association with these design elements is considered in this section. 3.1.2 Figure 2 shows the British Geological Survey (BGS) mapped superficial geology in the area. Figure 3 shows the BGS bedrock geology in the area including mapped geological faults. Figure 4 shows a geological cross-section along the route of the Proposed Scheme from the River Trent viaduct to the Brancote South cutting. Figure 5 shows a schematic geological cross-section between the route of the Proposed Scheme at the Brancote South cutting and Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC including annotation regarding the proposed water supply pathways proposed within the Envireau report. Maps showing the key construction (Map Series CT-05) and operation (Map Series CT-06) features of the Proposed Scheme can be found in the Phase 2a Environmental Statement Volume 2 Map Book CA2: Colwich to Yarlet 8. 3.2 Envireau suggested hydrogeological mechanism 3.2.1 As explained in Section 1, the Envireau report raises concern that a potential mechanism for the Proposed Scheme to impact Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC has not been adequately considered. In this regard Envireau’s proposed hydrogeological mechanism is founded upon the Barker report4. The mechanism suggested in the Envireau report, about the possible existence of a sub-surface water flowpath between the Proposed Scheme and Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, is first outlined below. Details of both the Barker and Envireau reports in relation to this proposed potential hydrogeological mechanism are thereafter also summarised below, in order to provide insight into the development of the suggested mechanism. 3.2.2 The components of the hydrogeological mechanism suggested in the Envireau report are illustrated in Figure 5 and include: 1. recharge from rainfall at outcrop into the Sherwood Sandstone Group; 2. downwards flow of recharge through the topographically higher and more permeable strata of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (compared to the Mercia Mudstone Group); 3. upward flow of groundwater due the suggested increase in permeability surrounding the Tixall Fault, resulting in a vertical hydraulic gradient from the confined Sherwood Sandstone Group up the Tixall Fault and through the Mercia Mudstone Group; 4. groundwater flowpath through the saliferous beds within the Mercia Mudstone Group resulting in saline groundwater; and 5. emergence of saline springs through the superficial deposits. Barker’s Geophysical Data and Salinity Results 3.2.3 As discussed in Paragraph 1.1.3, Barker’s objective was to characterise the distribution of saline groundwater in bedrock surrounding the STWA Essex Bridge groundwater supply borehole, 2km to the south of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC (immediately south of the confluence of the River Sow and River Trent), the locations of which are shown in Figure 1. In this regard, although Barker’s report presents information that is new to HS2 Ltd, the report itself is for the most part factual and therefore of a descriptive nature based upon interpretation of geophysical measurements aligned with salinity distribution. Whilst passing reference is made to saline springs in the area, Barker did not specifically investigate these, nor any aspect of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Regarding the role of any hydrogeological mechanism influencing the distribution of saline groundwater Barker is cautious, alluding to a potential partial role that the Tixall Fault may play in limiting this distribution (rather than being a conduit for saline groundwater flow in itself). At the end of Section 4.1 Barker’s report states: 3.2.4 “The area of strongly saline groundwater is approximately defined by the 25 ohm-m contour and is seen to cover the whole region between Tixall Farm and Essex Bridge and to extend northwards along the valley of the River Trent. It is presumably this zone of saline water that has been the source for saline springs which have been observed in the Tixall Farm area in the past and which have favoured the growth of halophytic plants”. 3.2.5 Furthermore, in the report’s conclusions, the following inference is made: 3.2.6 “The position of the saline groundwater plume appears to be controlled partly by the Tixall Fault in the north-west and possibly by other faults to the south of Essex Bridge”. 3.2.7 Barker therefore makes no comment on whether or not the Tixall Fault itself is material to the supply of saline groundwater to the general area, nor to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC in particular, merely that a zone of saline groundwater exists in the general area. 3.2.8 Although geophysical measurements within the overlying superficial geology, shown in Figure 2, are recorded by Barker, he acknowledges that these are uncertain due to a lack of adequate control (calibration) data and that the focus of his work is the underlying bedrock shown in Figure 3. This is because the Essex Bridge borehole abstracts groundwater from the underlying bedrock of the Sherwood Sandstone Group. The saliferous beds, from which high concentrations of salinity in the local groundwater are derived, are located within the Mercia Mudstone Group, which occur locally to the north and east of the Essex Bridge groundwater supply borehole, as shown in Figure 3. Note that Barker’s map of groundwater salinity distribution, shown in Figure 6 in his report, refers specifically to his interpretation of groundwater salinity within the uppermost bedrock alone (and excludes salinity within the overlying superficial geology, within which Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC is situated). 3.2.9 Whilst the Barker report offers some insights into the potential role of the local geology around Shugborough and the River Trent to help account for the distribution of saline groundwater in the area, the report also acknowledges that its conclusions regarding the general role of the Tixall Fault in this regard are inconclusive. Coincidentally, however, it is at the intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme with the Tixall Fault where Barker’s interpretation concerning the distribution of saline groundwater is much more clearly aligned with (and constrained by) the subcrop of the Tixall fault (note that the Tixall Fault pre-dates deposition of the superficial geology and therefore does not extend into the drift geology itself). At this location saline groundwater within the bedrock does not appear, according to Barker, to extend westwards beyond the Tixall Fault. This suggests that there is no pathway, at this location, for westward migration of saline groundwater towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 3.2.10 To the north and south of the Tixall Fault, Barker’s delineation of saline groundwater in the area diverges from the alignment of the fault subcrop, as shown in Figure 3, and this clearly demonstrates that the fault is not the sole factor in determining the distribution of saline groundwater in the bedrock within the wider area. 3.2.11 In many instances Barker’s narrative is from his primary focus around the Essex Bridge groundwater supply borehole, and then northwards towards the Mercia Mudstone Group, wherein lie the saliferous beds and thereby the predominant source of high salinity within local groundwater. At no point does Barker interpret this to be the direction of groundwater flow either within the bedrock or the drift deposits. 3.2.12 Similarly Barker alludes to the potential for the Tixall Fault to continue in a northeasterly direction from that which has been mapped by the BGS towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, as shown in Figure 3. At no point does Barker interpret this to be the direction of groundwater flow within the fault zone. 3.2.13 In summary: • Barker’s scope did not extend to investigating saline springs in the area, nor the role of the Tixall Fault in supplying saline groundwater to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC; • Barker acknowledges that he lacks control data (calibration data) for groundwater salinity within the drift deposits (upon which Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC is sited) and therefore does not extend his interpretation into the drift deposits; • Barker’s objective was to map the distribution (and not the supply) of saline groundwater in the uppermost layers of the bedrock (sub-drift) surrounding the STWA Essex Bridge groundwater supply borehole, 2km to the south of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. He makes only passing reference to saline springs in the area and acknowledges that information regarding the Tixall Fault is incomplete and would be enhanced by gravity survey; and Barker’s mapping of salinity distribution in the uppermost bedrock is mostly at variance with the subcrop of the Tixall Fault, except in the vicinity of the route of the Proposed Scheme where the presence of saline groundwater is limited to the east of the fault, in contrast to Pasturefields SAC which is located to the west of the fault. This clearly demonstrates that the fault is not the sole factor in determining the distribution of saline groundwater in the bedrock within the wider area. It also strongly suggests that there is no pathway, at this location, for westward migration of saline groundwater towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC via the Tixall Fault. Envireau’s hydrogeological interpretation based on salinity results 3.2.14 The Envireau report discusses the presence of saline groundwater inferred within the shallow drift deposits, as illustrated in Figure 2, and the bedrock, as illustrated in Figure 3, based upon geophysical data presented within the Barker report and located between the Tixall fault and the River Trent. The Envireau report describes this as a ‘pocket’ of saline groundwater apparently identified by Barker as being approximately 10 to 30m below ground level (bgl). This is not directly reported by Barker but is an inference made in the Envireau report based on Barker’s work. The apparent depth interval arises from limitations in the survey method employed by Barker to clearly distinguish between saline groundwater and bedrock at greater depths, and because of the overlying drift above 10 m bgl, which was not the focus of Barker’s work (and is poorly constrained due to a lack of reliable control data). The saline water body referred to in the Envireau report may therefore not be a discrete ‘pocket’ of saline groundwater between these depths. 3.2.15 Agreed Mechanism (Mechanism #1): Whilst not directly discussed within the Envireau report, the report’s Figure 3 clearly shows that at least a component of brine flow originates from the mapped salt subsidence area to the north, being brought to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC via the groundwater within the River Terrace Deposits. This is consistent with what is reported in the HRA Screening Assessment, which was supported by Natural England and the Environment Agency. Paragraph 5.4.1 of the HRA Screening Assessment states: This conclusion was discussed with the Environment Agency on 16th May 2012 and with Natural England on 20th May 2012, with agreement reached that the groundwater flows feeding the Pasturefields site originate to the north-east of the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, with no flow from the south or west. 3.2.16 Suggested Additional Mechanism (Mechanism #2): in addition to Mechanism #1, the Envireau report proposes that the origin of brine springs in the area are potentially facilitated by deep geological faults providing flowpaths and inter-connections between saliferous deposits in the Mercia Mudstone Group and groundwater in the underlying Sherwood Sandstone Group at depth, as shown in Figure 5. Envireau therefore suggest that there may be a connection between Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and Lionlodge Covert Local Wildlife Site (hereafter referred to Lionlodge Covert LWS), the latter being intersected by the route of the Proposed Scheme. 3.2.17 In summary: • Barker’s focus on groundwater salinity between 10 and 30 m bgl is on account of limitations in the geophysical survey techniques deployed, not on account of any hydrogeological processes. It is misleading for the Envireau report to suggest this particular horizon is more important or influential than any other or that it exists as a discrete ‘pocket’ of groundwater salinity; • the Envireau report acknowledges the Mechanism #1 pathway supplying saline groundwater to Pasturefields from the north-east; and • the additional pathway (Mechanism #2) that the Envireau report suggests ay potentially be supplying saline groundwater from the west of the Tixall Fault is speculative. 3.3 HS2 Ltd response to Envireau suggested mechanism 3.3.1 For an impact, or potential impact, upon the saline springs and salt marshes at Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC to be associated with the Proposed Scheme, there must be a waterborne pathway connecting the Proposed Scheme with the processes sustaining the springs and salt marshes at Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. This section considers the potential for such effects, bearing in mind that it is not necessary to understand the precise details of such pathways, so long as the Proposed Scheme can be shown to avoid any such potential pathways or to have no likely significant effect upon them if indeed they are active in the first place. 3.3.2 Note that a connection between the Proposed Scheme, and Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and Lionlodge Covert LWS, would need to occur at depth, i.e. flow component No. 4 as shown in Figure 5, in order to entrain saline groundwater from the deeper underlying geology, and is therefore not considered by HS2 Ltd to be a feature of any shallow surface pathway. 3.3.3 As discussed in Paragraph 3.2.3, the Barker report interprets the Tixall Fault to be a controlling mechanism on the distribution of brine within the vicinity of the route of the Proposed Scheme. The fault apparently limits the brine to the area directly to the east of the fault, coincidentally at the point at which the route of the Proposed Scheme crosses the subcrop of the fault on the Great Hayward viaduct. If Barker’s interpretation is correct, then there is no component of groundwater flow in a westerly direction at this location and therefore no groundwater flowpath at this location towards Lionlodge Covert, directly to the west of the fault. However, westerly components of groundwater flow may exist north of the route of the Proposed Scheme, closer to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, where the groundwater salinity distribution was interpreted to diverge from the projected subcrop of the Tixall Fault. Nevertheless in both cases, shallow groundwater flow around the intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme and the subcrop of the Tixall Fault will be influenced by the local topography and therefore likely to be in an easterly direction towards the River Trent (as shown in Figure 2). 3.3.4 In summary: • it is not necessary to understand the hydrogeological processes surrounding Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and the Tixall Fault if there is no likely significant impact arising from the Proposed Scheme upon the processes that may potentially sustain the SAC; and • if the hydrogeological mechanism suggested in the Envireau report is important in sustaining Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, the saline groundwater must originate from depth and upwell directly beneath the SAC. Any shallow emergence of saline groundwater around the intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme and the Tixall Fault will flow in an easterly direction towards the River Trent as illustrated in Figure 2 and not northwards towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Furthermore, the SAC is located west of the Tixall Fault as shown in Figure 3, whereas shallow groundwater flow surrounding the intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme with the subcrop of the Tixall Fault flows eastwards, towards the River Trent, as illustrated in Figure 2. On both counts there is no pathway for shallow groundwater surrounding the Proposed Scheme to make its way towards the SAC. 3.3.5 The intersection of the route of the Proposed Scheme with the subcrop of the Tixall Fault occurs at the surface. The potential impacts of which can, if deemed necessary as a precautionary measure, be readily mitigated (as explained below) and are unrelated to any deeper processes that may or may not be relevant to the maintenance of saline groundwater flow towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Within this context each individual design element identified within the Envireau report to be of concern to them is considered below. 3.4 Individual concerns raised Great Haywood viaduct 3.4.1 The Envireau report suggests that piling associated with the Great Haywood viaduct may intersect fault planes and high permeability zones serving as flowpaths for saline groundwater supplying Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and salt marsh habitat at Lionlodge Covert LWS. 3.4.2 It is important to note that the viaduct itself, and therefore the associated piles, will not extend as far west as the Tixall fault, as shown on Figure 3. At the location of the Tixall fault the Proposed Scheme will be in the form of an embankment (Trent North embankment) and there will be no requirement for deep piling at this location. No other faults have been identified within the area crossed by the viaduct. 3.4.3 The Envireau report describes the geological structures and associated hydrogeological conceptualisation potentially functioning over depths of several hundred metres below ground level, as shown in Figure 5. The fault planes discussed are identified as three dimensional structures, not only extending to several hundred metres in depth but also extending many kilometres in length and at varying angles, whilst the subject strata extend over many square kilometres in plan area, as shown in Figure 3. In contrast the piles required for the Great Haywood viaduct are singular ‘pillars’ penetrating relatively shallow depth, spatially separated by natural ground and installed in accordance with best practice and mitigation measures as set out in the Proposed Scheme’s draft Construction Code of Practice (CoCP)9. 3.4.4 In summary therefore: • the Great Haywood viaduct will not intersect the Tixall Fault; and • the intermittent nature and small scale of the piles will be insignificant when compared with the continuous and large scale structures, continuing over several hundred metres, associated with the underlying geology and any potential hydrogeological pathways. 3.4.5 Taking all of these factors into consideration, the piles for the Great Haywood viaduct will have no likely significant effect upon Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Trent North embankment (at Tixall) 3.4.6 At the time the HRA screening report was undertaken the foundation design for the Trent North embankment had still to be developed, and some options required piling. The Envireau report therefore identifies similar concerns regarding the use of piled foundations to stabilise the Trent North embankment as for the Great Haywood viaduct. 3.4.7 The design for the embankment has now been further developed and there is no longer any requirement for deep piled foundations. The foundations will be shallow, around 1m in depth, and so would not interfere with faulting in the bedrock. 3.4.8 If it is concluded at the detailed design stage (i.e. following further ground investigation), that the embankment will prevent brine discharge at the Lionlodge Covert LWS, precautionary drainage measures (such as a granular drainage blanket) or other appropriate mitigation measures, would be included within the embankment foundations to enable shallow groundwater to pass beneath the structure. Note that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of Lionlodge Covert LWS will generally be in an easterly direction, towards the River Trent, as shown in Figure 2, and therefore will not have any bearing on the supply of saline water to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 3.4.9 In summary therefore: • the Trent North embankment will not require deep piled foundations, so these will not interfere with any shallow groundwater pathways conveying brine, nor deeper pathways associated with faulting; and • although considered unlikely to be needed, standard construction measures to more closely preserve the general pattern of shallow groundwater flow beneath the embankment are available. 3.4.10 Taking all of the above factors into account, there will be no likely significant effect from the North Trent embankment upon Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Brancote South cutting 3.4.11 The North Trent embankment described above will transition into the Brancote South cutting to the west of Lionlodge Covert LWS and approximately 1km south-west of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, as shown in Figure 3. The cutting will be approximately 1.5km in length. Travelling from east to west, the cutting will be in low permeability Mercia Mudstone Group for 795m and only penetrate the Sherwood Sandstone Group in the latter half of its extent, as shown in Figure 4. Approximately 50m of the Sherwood Sandstone Group will be further exposed as the cutting will remove a small portion of the overlying Mercia Mudstone Group as it passes west into the Sherwood Sandstone Group, as shown in Figure 4. 3.4.12 The cutting will extend to a maximum depth of 17m bgl in the Mercia Mudstone Group and a maximum depth of 13.3m bgl within the Sherwood Sandstone Group. Whilst these depths are approximate, they are based upon likely maxima and are therefore precautionary in their nature. More accurate depths will be confirmed in future during preliminary ground investigation, during detailed design and in consultation with the Environment Agency. 3.4.13 The Envireau report raises concern that the cutting will drain groundwater in this area, lower the water table and thereby reduce the groundwater elevation that potentially drives flow downwards through deeper deposits and then upwards through saliferous (saline) deposits towards the ground beneath Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. These potential groundwater and surface water flowpaths to the east and west of Pasturefields are shown in a schematic cross-section and inset at Figure 5 (note that the vertical scale is exaggerated for clarity). 3.4.14 The potential impact on groundwater immediately surrounding the Brancote South cutting, as illustrated in Figure 5 and associated inset, is considered in the Phase 2a, Community Area 2, Volume 5, Technical Appendix WR-002-00210. In this instance a reasonable worst case numerical analysis of the likely extent of groundwater impact due to the cutting within the Sherwood Sandstone Group has been undertaken. The assessment concludes that the maximum likely drawdown of groundwater level within the Sherwood Sandstone Group at the Brancote South cutting would be 3.3m and that this would gradually diminish over a distance of approximately 25m, as shown in Inset 1 on Figure 5; whilst the exposed Sherwood Sandstone Group is located at an approximate minimum distance of 1.8km south of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. This analysis is based upon a precautionary, reasonable worst case scenario. The precise impacts to local groundwater levels are subject to detailed design, including a focussed ground investigation. Potential impacts to local groundwater may therefore be less than reported due to the precautionary nature of this assessment. 3.4.15 Based on the above analysis it is clear that the likely reduction in groundwater elevation at the cutting is very small and in the worst case only 3.3m in relation to the several hundred metres depth of sandstone over which the groundwater flowpath required to activate this pathway would be required. Based on topography alone, the cutting will be at an elevation of 102 to 120m above ordnance datum (AOD) within the sandstone, whereas Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC is at an elevation of around 70m AOD. Therefore, the difference in elevation alone that may contribute to driving flow along any such potential pathway is around 30 to 50m and therefore significantly larger than the maximum drawdown of 3.3m, as illustrated in Figure 5. In addition, the areal extent of the drawdown in groundwater levels around the cutting is small (approximately 25ha), in relation to the overall outcrop area of the Sherwood Sandstone Group, therefore the recharge area over which groundwater in the sandstone is replenished will be mostly unaffected. 3.4.16 In general terms, and for all cuttings, HS2 Ltd has proposed a range of potential mitigation measures designed to protect the water environment. No specific measures are currently envisaged as being necessary to protect Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. However, if, following the preliminary ground investigation described in Paragraph 3.4.12, for the avoidance of any doubt and as a precautionary measure, it is concluded that additional mitigation should be incorporated at the Brancote South cutting, then these measures can be incorporated during the detailed design stages of the Proposed Scheme. The measures could be put in place as advanced works, before any potential harm could arise. The design of these measures may require further ground investigation to support and build on the findings of the preliminary ground investigation. 3.4.17 The Phase 2a Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Community Area Report CA2: Colwich to Yarlet5, states in paragraphs 15.4.12 and 15.4.13 that: Measures will be introduced, as required, to mitigate the temporary and permanent effects on groundwater flows and water quality during excavation and construction of foundations and cuttings as far as is reasonably practicable. The types of measures likely to be adopted could include (paragraph 15.4.12): • installation of cut-off structures around excavations [this measure would maintain runoff from adjacent land flowing over natural ground]; • ensuring cut-off structures are driven to sufficient depths to meet an underlying strata or zone of lower permeability [this measure would prevent the excavation dewatering adjacent permeable strata, as if it were a drain. An example could be the sealing (tanking) of a cutting]; • promoting groundwater recharge, such as discharging pumped water to recharge trenches around excavations to maintain baseline groundwater and surface water conditions [this measure would help to preserve local groundwater table elevations and thereby local groundwater flowpaths and the volume of groundwater available locally]; and • incorporation of passive bypasses within the design, which could comprise a ‘blanket’ of permeable material, such as gravel, placed around temporary structures, allowing groundwater to bypass the below-ground works, without a rise in groundwater levels on the upstream side [this measure would help to maintain the natural distribution of groundwater levels and flowpaths]. The exact requirements will be refined and method of mitigation will be designed following ground investigation at cutting locations. (paragraph 15.4.13) 3.4.18 In summary, therefore: • potential impacts to groundwater levels around the Brancote South cutting have been assessed on a precautionary basis and assessed to be very small and localised in relation to the significant groundwater recharge areas and the thickness of sandstone; reasonable worst case numerical analysis indicates a maximum radius of impact perpendicular to the cutting of 25m, 1.8km away from Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC; • the maximum drawdown of groundwater level within this 25m distance is 3.3m, compared to a groundwater level difference between the cutting and Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC (i.e. driving head) of significantly more and at least 30m. In addition, a sandstone pathway of several hundred metres in thickness would also need to be active; and • although not currently considered necessary to protect Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, a range of standard construction mitigation measures exist which could fully mitigate these localised impacts, if further investigation identifies their requirement to prevent impacts on Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 3.4.19 Taking all of the above into account there will be no likely significant impact on account of the Brancote South cutting upon Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. 4 Conclusions 4.1.1 The HRA screening assessment undertaken as part of the HS2 Phase 2 Appraisal of Sustainability concluded that there are no likely significant effects on Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC due to the Proposed Scheme. This conclusion has been questioned by the Envireau report. 4.1.2 The Envireau report’s suggested conceptualisation of the hydrogeology around Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, and the potential pathways discussed therein, has been considered in light of three key design elements within the area. 4.1.3 After detailed consideration of the points raised in the Envireau report and consideration of the available mitigation measures, it remains HS2 Ltd’s view that no potential impacts on Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC have been identified, and therefore the original conclusion that there are no likely significant effects on the SAC due to the Proposed Scheme remains. 4.1.4 All parties (HS2 Ltd, Natural England, Environment Agency and Envireau Ltd) agree that the available evidence indicates that there is a supply of saline groundwater towards Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC from the north-east. 4.1.5 Route alignment options to the north of Pasturefields do have the potential to cause a likely significant effect on the SAC, and would therefore require an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations. HS2 Ltd considers that, based on current information, including the availability of the Proposed Scheme’s route alignment as an alternative, such an assessment is unlikely to satisfy these regulations. 4.1.6 By contrast, the Proposed Scheme’s southerly alignment avoids the flowpaths from the north east and any potential interference of the route with other hydrogeological mechanisms that could impact Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC can be effectively avoided or mitigated. This means that there is no risk of the Proposed Scheme having a significant effect on the SAC and therefore no requirement for an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations. 5 References Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Strasbourg, European Parliament and European Council. Available online at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Publications/JNCC312/UK_habitat_list.asp Barker, R.D., (1979), Geophysical surveys around Shugborough Park Staffordshire. Report Georun 10. Unpublished report prepared for Severn Trent Water Authority by Applied Geophysics Research Unit, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Birmingham, October 1979. Conservation objectives of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. Available online at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/5376597540470784 Envireau Water, (2017), Hydrogeological Conceptualisation of Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC & Ingestre/Tixall Salt Marsh SBI Great Haywood, Staffordshire HS2 Ltd, (2012), HRA Screening Report for Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC HS2 Ltd, (2013), High Speed Rail: Consultation on the route from the West Midlands to Manchester, Leeds and beyond, Sustainability Statement, Volume 1: Appendix E4 Biodiversity HS2 Ltd, (2017), Phase 2a Environmental Statement Habitats Regulations Assessment screening report for Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation, Volume 5: Appendix EC-017-003. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2- phase-2a-environmental-statement. HS2 Ltd, (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 2: Map Book, CA2: Colwich to Yarlet. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-environmental-statement. HS2 Ltd, (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 2: Community Area report, CA2: Colwich to Yarlet. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-environmental-statement. HS2 Ltd, (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 5: Technical appendices, CA2: Colwich to Yarlet, Water resources assessment (WR-002-002). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2aenvironmental- statement. HS2 Ltd, (2017), High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Environmental Statement, Volume 5: Technical appendices, Draft Code of Construction Practice (CT-003-000). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-environmental-statement. Figures available on request
Equality Impact Assessment Report
HS2
Phase 2a: West Midlands to Crewe Response
by Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council 29.9.2017 Introduction: Tixall
and Ingestre are rural parishes, set in tranquil
estate parkland, located approximately 5km east of the
town of Stafford.
We have a combined resident population of
approximately 400. The
parishes are directly affected by the proposals for
HS2 Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe), which is the
subject of this consultation. The
Parish Council is opposed to the current preferred
route of HS2 but wants to make sure that, should it
proceed, the impacts of construction and operation of
HS2 are minimised and that residents who are adversely
affected are properly and fairly compensated. The
comments
that follow relate to the draft Environmental Impact
Assessment Report (EIA) for Phase 2a (West Midland to
Crewe) published on 17th July 2017. The
parishes
of Ingestre and Tixall are located within Community
Area 2 (CA2): Colwich to Yarlet. The substantive body
of comments below is specific to CA2. We
are
only commenting on sections of the EIA where we feel
we are able to offer an informed opinion. The absence
of a comment on any particular part of the document
should not be taken as an indication of agreement with
the contents, in whole or in part. It
has been agreed that the road between Mill Lane at Hoo
Mill crossroads and Tixall Village should be called
Tixall Rd and not Gt Haywood Rd. Tixall Rd then
continues to Blackheath Lane
See pp84 and 88 in E113 Landscape and
visual assessment and photomontages (LV-001-002) ES
3.5.2.2.11
and E12 Vol.4 Map Book .
Off-route effects ES 3.4.2 (A3) Drawing
CT-28-105 Environmental Baseline including Heritage
Assets. All
references to Great Haywood Road have been changed
to Tixall Road and all references to Brancote
cutting changed to Hanyards, see below. General: a) Ingestre
with Tixall Parish Council has responded in detail to
numerous previous consultations. We are very
concerned to find that most information provided to
HS2 Ltd in previous communications has been overlooked
or misrepresented in the subsequent documents
including the current EIA, e.g. We have consistently
said that the deep cutting should be called Hanyards
Cutting and not Brancote Cutting. This error is no
doubt due to HS2 using an incorrect Google Map which
wrongly showed Brancote Farm at Upper Hanyards.
Continuing to use Brancote Cutting will only lead to
confusion if and when construction starts. b)
HS2
Ltd has pursued a route alignment in our area that is
more expensive to build, more environmentally damaging
and which has greater impact on communities than
available alternative alignments. More
favourable alignments have been set aside to the
detriment of the tax-paying public and the country in
general. Comments
below that are specific to the proposed route do not
signify acceptance of the proposed route. Our position
remains that, should the project proceed, it should do
so on the basis of a different alignment, generally
following route HSM03 (south of Weston option) as
described in the March 2012 HS2 Phase 2 Route Options
Report. c) As per our
response to the Phase 2 Route Consultation, should the
alternative alignment per b) above, be rejected, then
the negative impacts on our communities should be
minimised, beyond that set out in the current
proposals, by providing a twin-bored tunnel between
Ingestre Park Golf Club and Hopton Lane. d) Shortage of
time precludes a detailed response to all points
across all documents associated with this consultation
(and those of the other consultation that is being run
concurrently). There
are many areas of overlap, with the same issues being
raised multiple times in different places. Please take
our responses to below as the definitive set and,
where appropriate, ensure that these are rolled out
for inclusion in the other associated documents. e)
We
remain concerned that not all owner-occupiers have
been contacted by HS2 and regularly updated. f)
Notwithstanding
e), we have taken the following actions to inform our
parishioners of the consultations and obtain their
views:
Question
1: Please let us know your comments on the
Non-technical Summary (NTS). p18
We welcome the inclusion of Green bridges in order to
maintain habitat connectivity, and to enable the safe
movement of animals, although a cut and cover tunnel
would be even better. p23 Road,
public right of way, utility and watercourse
diversions We
are concerned that "Where new roads, bridges and public
rights of way are required to cross the route, they
will, where reasonably
practicable, be constructed in advance and offline to
allow the existing route to continue in use until its
replacement is ready to be brought into public use."
It is essential that access to Ingestre via Hoo Mill
crossroads is maintained 24/7 as it is the only public
road access to the community. In the last 12 months
there were 53 emergency calls to the ambulance service
to Ingestre ST18 0RE, and this does not include Home
Farm Court, 36 electors and Little Ingestre Barns, 19
electors, and not all residents are registered to
vote. Site
Haul routes "Where reasonably
practicable, movement of construction material,
construction machinery and/or construction workers
between the construction compounds and worksites will
be on designated temporary roads within the area of
land required for construction (known as site haul
routes), along the line of the route of the Proposed
Scheme, or running parallel to it. Using
site haul routes will reduce the need for construction
vehicles to use the existing public highway network,
thereby reducing traffic related impacts on the road
network and local communities." We
are
concerned at the proposed use of Tixall road from Hoo
Mill crossroads to Blackheath Lane for transfer of
materials for HS2. Despite the proposed passing places
and road widening between Hoo Mill crossroads and
Tixall Village, this road is unsuitable for increased
use by HGVs. In addition to the bus service, school
buses and farm traffic, it is increasingly used by
cyclists, especially by groups at weekends. Many
sections of the road do not allow any overtaking due
to bends and blind summits. This will lead to
increased delays to HS2 and other traffic. p 27 4.2 Construction management It
is
essential that HS2 Ltd and the nominated contractors
engage with the Parish Council so that local
residents, businesses and community facilities are
kept fully informed in advance of any road or public
right of way realignments, diversions or closures.
p30
It is noted that Core working hours will be from
08:00-18:00 on weekdays (excluding bank holidays) and
from 08:00-13:00 on Saturdays. p31
"Certain activities, such as
earthworks, are season and weather dependent.
Contractors may seek to extend the core working hours
and/or days for such operations to take advantage of
daylight hours and weather conditions, subject to the
approval of the relevant local authority. Certain other specific construction
activities will require extended working hours for
reasons of engineering practicability. Abnormal loads,
or those requiring a police escort, may be delivered
outside core working hours subject to the requirements
and approval of the relevant authorities. Guidance on site-specific variations
to core working hours and/or additional hours likely
to be required will be included within the local
environmental management plans following consultation
with the relevant local authority.
To maximise productivity within the core
working hours, the contractors will require a period
of up to one hour before and up to one hour after core
working hours for start-up and closedown of
activities. Activities within these periods will
include (but not be limited to) deliveries, movement
to place of work, unloading, maintenance and general
preparation works." It is
essential that HS2 Ltd and the nominated contractors
engage with the Parish Council so that local
residents, businesses and community facilities are
warned of any temporary changes to the working hours. Other
points
mentioned in the Non-Technical Summary, eg. Transport
and Noise, will be considered in the relevant sections
below. Question
2: Please let us know your comments on the documents
that form Volume 1 Introduction and Methodology
pix
Figure
1: Structure of the HS2 Phase 2a ES is a useful guide
to the documentation, and p6, Figure 3 is helpful on
the Hybrid Bill process, although no suggested dates
are given. p19
2.3 Releasing capacity and improving performance
and reliability on the WCML. and p38 Section
4.3 Services and operating characteristics. It
is still not clear how rail services from Stafford
will alter when HS2 is operational. It has been
suggested that there will be considerably fewer trains
to London with marginally shorter journey times than
at present. p25
3 Stakeholder engagement and consultation. We
disagree that "Stakeholder engagement
has been an integral and ongoing part of the process
of designing and assessing the Proposed Scheme from
its inception. It has enabled the general public,
local authorities, statutory bodies and technical and
specialist stakeholders to respond to, and inform."
As we have already said, HS2 has consistently
disregarded any responses from this Parish Council,
and the consultations appear to have been a largely
one way process. p47
Permanent features of the proposed scheme will
be considered in relation to our area in Volume 2 CA2.
The outline descriptions of the permanent features of
the Proposed Scheme (Section 5) and the overview of
the way that construction will proceed (Section 6) is
a useful and helpful introduction. p69
6.3.15 - 17 Community Relations. It is
essential that the nominated and its contractor are in
regular contact with our Parish Council, so that we
can keep our local electors informed of what is going
on, any potential problems and give advance notice of
any works. This can be done via our website and via
our monthly Newsheet delivered to all local
households. p71
6.3.30 Management of construction traffic will
be considered in relation to our area in Volume 2. p89
6.13 Highways (roads) and public rights of way.
It is essential that Access to Ingestre and Ingestre
Pavilion is maintained 24/7. In
the last 12 months there were 53 emergency calls to
the ambulance service to Ingestre ST18 0RE, and this
does not include Home Farm Court, 36 electors and
Little Ingestre Barns, 19 electors, and not all
residents are registered to vote. p105
6.23 Site restoration and landscape treatment.
We welcome the early installation of landscape
mitigation, e.g. for the viaduct and Trent north
embankment. p107
6.26 Train control and telecommunications. We
would like early notice of the siting of any radio
masts so that the best locations can be chosen. 7
Environmental Impact Assessment
and 8
Scope and methodology summary for environmental
topics will be
considered in relation to our area in Volume 2 CA2. p163
9.6 Community 9.6.2. We
welcome the provisions to mitigate community effects
during construction, including:
However,
we understand that these provisions have not worked
well in the past, eg for Phase 1. p184
10.4 Route-wide alternatives It is very
difficult to assess these in the absence of maps
showing the proposed routes, e.g. the high cost
alternative of new high speed alignment to Baldwins
Gate and the low cost new conventional speed
alignment. p187
10.4.16. We note that: "..more recent work by HS2 Ltd with the
Environment Agency and Natural England showed that
effects on the Pasturefields SAC and SSSI could not be
ruled out due to complex hydrological issues. This is
because research
suggested that there was a possibility that the salt
marsh could be fed by brine flows located to the
north of the site. There was therefore a risk
that construction works associated with proposed
routes to the north of Pasturefields SAC and SSSI
could have interfered with groundwater flows that feed
the salt marsh, which could have caused adverse
effects on the site. This led HS2 Ltd to reject
potential routes to the north of Pasturefields SAC and
SSSI in advice to Government because of the high risk
associated with ensuring compliance with the Habitats
Directive214. HS2 Ltd, the Environment Agency and
Natural England are in agreement with this approach." We
believe that this assumption that the brine flows are
located to the north of the site is incorrect, as
shown in our Envireau Consultants Report of 2017 which
was forwarded to HS2. From
the moment that the Initial Preferred Route (IPR) for
Phase 2 was announced in January 2013 it appeared to
us that HS2 Ltd had made a fundamental misjudgement in
deciding to divert the route alignment away from the
lowest cost, lowest impact route up the Trent Valley
(route HSM03, south of Weston option, per the March
2012 Route Options Report) to a more southerly
alignment. Commencing
in June 2013 and on multiple occasions thereafter,
information has been provided to HS2 Ltd presenting
evidence-based arguments why the decision to divert
the route was a bad one.
Our comprehensive response to the Phase 2 Route
Consultation (21 pages and 6 appendices), in January
2014, contains a consolidated presentation of the
arguments. It is
with great concern and frustration to find that this
information has been ignored, that contra-indicated
arguments have been fed into the route review process
and, consequently, that the Secretary of State for
Transport appears to have been misled into approving a
section of the Phase 2a route without full benefit of
the known evidence.
We
believe that this is unacceptable – to an extent that
it could be argued that HS2 Ltd has been
professionally negligent. The
decision to proceed with Route C was taken, regardless
that, at the time, Route C had been shown to cost
£154m more to construct than Route B and would have
greater sustainability impacts. No appraisal
of the cost and sustainability benefits of Route B was
made against the need for an Appropriate Assessment. Subsequent
events, including a review of the HRA Screening report
by the British Geological Survey (BGS), undermined HS2
Ltd's original presumptions by showing: a)
that
the HRA Screening Report was too narrowly focused; b)
that
there was insufficient base-line data to predict the
potential impact of the proposed HS2 construction
along any of the proposed routes; c)
that
an alternative conceptual model for the hydrology of
Pasturefields should be considered; d)
that
Route C had been routed so that it passed directly
through the middle of a previously unrecognised
historical inland salt marsh whose brine springs
remain active today (and could well be linked with
those at Pasturefields); see
2.3 of Q3 below, for more details. e)
that,
unrecognised by HS2 Ltd, Route C had been routed so
that it passes through a region, near Marston, that is
at risk of subsidence as a result of the historical
pumping of brine near Stafford
(see 10.3.41
of Q3 Part A, below, for more details). NB
1: c) follows directly from a). This is because the
HRA Screening Report considered only a near-surface
brine feed to Pasturefields SAC, from the north-east,
whereas BGS believe it was just as likely (if not more
so) that the brine had a deep ground origin, brought
to the surface locally by Artesian pressure from the
underlying Sherwood sandstone aquifer. The BGS
suggested some additional work to evidence the likely
source. None has been carried out. NB
2: BGS noted that if the deep ground source for the
brine was correct then depletion of the Sherwood
sandstone aquifer could affect the brine flow at
Pasturefields (also at Ingestre). The
case was put to HS2 Ltd that there was compelling
evidence that the decision to use Route C was unsound
and that an Appropriate Assessment of Pasturefields
SAC was essential to determine if there would be any
risk of an adverse impact arising from Route B. It is to be
noted that the HRA Screening Report states that Route
B would be acceptable to Natural England as long as
the necessary ground investigations were carried out
and mitigation by design used, if required, to ensure
that no significant risk to the SAC would occur. HS2 Ltd has
persistently declined to undertake this work even
though, as we pointed out, this information was
essential to inform the route selection process. Not
only have the necessary ground investigations not been
carried out but the contra-indicating facts outlined
above have been ignored by HS2 Ltd in all on-going
work. The
result
is that the Proposed Scheme is: i)
more
expensive and more damaging to communities and the
environment than it should be; ii)
facing
major engineering challenges as a result of being
routed through a rare inland salt marsh about which
HS2 Ltd has been forewarned but ignored; iii)
facing
similar engineering challenges as a consequence of
being routed through an area vulnerable to subsidence
caused by historic brine pumping, about which HS2 Ltd
has also been forewarned but ignored; iv)
has
every probability of adversely affecting Pasturefields
SAC, contrary to the stated objective behind the
selection of Route C; i.e. we contend that the
Proposed Scheme fails the HRA requirement that: “no
reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence
of [any significant adverse] effects” and therefore
the conclusion of the HRA Screening Report is invalid. p190
Section
11 Local Alternatives. We note that alternatives
between Gt Haywood and Yarlet were not adopted because
none of the options delivered sufficient
sustainability benefits to outweigh the additional
anticipated costs. Question
3: Please let us know your comments on Vol. 2:
Community Area (CA) reports We
will confine our response to our area, Volume 2:
Community Area Report CA2: Colwich to Yarlet We
continue to correct the use of Brancote for the deep
Hanyards cutting, despite telling HS2 about this error
on numerous occasions. We believe the error arose
because HS2 used a Google Map which incorrectly showed
Brancote Farm at Upper Hanyards, rather than the
Ordnance Survey Map.
The
road between Mill Lane at Hoo Mill crossroads and
Tixall Village should be called Tixall Rd and not Gt
Haywood Rd. Tixall Rd then continues to Blackheath
Lane
Q3
Response:
Part A: Volume 2: Community Area Report CA2: Colwich
to Yarlet p8 Notable
community facilities p9 2.1.14
Community Facilities in Ingestre lists: Ingestre
Church and Hall, Little Ingestre Care Home, The
Orangery, Ingestre Park Golf Club. We are
pleased to see that Little Ingestre Care Home,
Ingestre Orangery and Ingestre Park Golf Club have been
added as we suggested in our response to the draft
EIA. However, as we previously suggested Ingestre
Stables equestrian training and examination centre
(which is a Riding for the Disabled registered and has
a cafe) should also be added.
Recreation, leisure and open space p9 2.1.20 Mentions
Ingestre Hall Residential Arts Centre and Ingestre
Golf Club, but not Ingestre (Home Farm ) Community
Open Space.
p11 (Committed
development): We
note that developments with planning permission or
sites allocated in adopted development plans are not
included in this draft EIA. However, we
believe that this should mean that completed
developments are included. Housing developments known
to us in the neighbouring community but not appearing
on any of the maps of the Proposed Scheme are: 76
houses at Millers
Croft, Main Rd Great Haywood;
9 houses at The Shires, Main Road, Great Haywood
(adjacent to land required for construction) and 45
houses at Devereux Grange, Little Tixall Lane, Great
Haywood (approximately 500m distant – 100m if taken
from an altered road).
There have also been
large developments, 620 houses, on the Stafford side
of the Tixall Road beyond the junction with
Blackheath Lane which will contribute to
significantly to traffic flows, e.g. on Blackheath
Lane. Between them, they account for 6330 homes. p11
Section 2.1.33 Changes
to design since working draft EIA Report: We welcome
the following changes to design since the working
draft EIA Report:- 1. Reduction
in height of Gt Haywood viaduct from 16.5m to 15.4m
above existing ground level in central section 2. Introduction
of
Ingestre Green Overbridge to facilitate ecological
connectivity between fragmented habitats. We urge HS2
to reconsider a cut & cover Tunnel which would be
a much better solution with many additional benefits
for local residents. |