INGESTRE & TIXALL
PARISH COUNCIL
HS2 Information

Application to petition the House of Lords - August 2019


1. Effects of Road Transport to HS2 during construction


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.

            However, planning permission for a marina at Pasturefields has been passed, and there have been industrial development nearby, none of which appear to have had any effect on the SAC.


Select Committee report and HS2's response to it

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810733/high-speed-rail-select-committee-gov-response-3rd-report.pdf

 

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

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.


WHAT WE WANT DONE IN RESPONSE:

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

 

2. Alternative working plans from HS2 to minimise the time the Golf Course will not be available
Meeting between HS2 representatives and Parish Councillors 5.11.18

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & DELIVERY STRATEGY Consultation Workshop 31.10.2018

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


Ingestre with Tixall PC response to Environmental Impact Report Sept.2017


Report of informal meeeting with HS2 representatives


Environmental Impact Report


Ministerial Reply 4.7.17


Letter to Minister and Hydrogeological Assessment

HS2: Notes on costs and benefits from seeking a route change


Environmental Impact Assessment Report


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

 

1. Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council

2. St Mary's Ingestre Parochial Church Council

3. Friends of Ingestre Orangery

 

Details of individuals in organisations

First name(s)

Anne

 

 

Last name

Andrews   (Parish Clerk)

 

 

Address line 1

2, The Hanyards

 

 

Address line 2

Tixall, Stafford

 

 

Post Code

 

ST18 0XY

 

 

Phone

 

01785 246101

 

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.

 

 

1. Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council

c/o   Dr Andrews, 2, The Hanyards, Tixall, Stafford ST18 0XY

 

2. St Mary's Ingestre Parochial Church Council

c/o Mrs Susan Haenelt, The Lindens, Ingestre ST18 0RE

 

3. Friends of Ingestre Orangery

c/o Mrs Gill Broadbent, Maple Cottage, 8,Home Farm Court, Ingestre ST18 0PZ

 

 

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…”.

 

 

1. We are the Parish Council of Ingestre with Tixall both of which are directly affected by HS2 Phase 2a.

 

2. Ingestre Church will be directly affected by HS2 Phase 2a

 

3. Ingestre Orangery will be directly affected by HS2 Phase 2a

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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 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.

·         Alternative emergency access could be obtained by repairing the surface of Trent Drive and the River Bridge, although there is some local opposition to this.

·         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.

·         Major adverse effects at The Blackheath Lane/Baswich Lane/Tixall Rd signals. up to 90 HGVs exiting Hanyards Lane to try and join the queue at the traffic lights. Many of these will end up stuck across Tixall Rd and in the path of traffic turning left from Blackheath Lane when the lights change and they are not expecting another junction 22.4m away.

·         An alternative solution has been suggested by an Ingestre resident to have a temporary haul route from the A51 at Pasturefields , across a couple of Bailey Bridges over the fields direct to HS2. This would remove the need to use Tixall Rd except, initially Hanyards Lane to Blackheath Lane.

·         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 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. Further evidence will be required to support this.

 

·         Ingestre Church is now a significant venue for concerts and any increase in noise levels would impact on this.

·         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. While not expected, 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 & Worc 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.

 

·         We are strongly opposed to joining Ingestre Wood to Lamberts Coppice as we wish to maintain the historic view across the deerpark, at this site known locally as Hell’s Gate.

 

·         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 about 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 possibly ripe for development as a brownfield site.

 

·         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

 

·         Failure to acknowledge the following businesses: 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.

 

·         We strongly object to the exclusion of the very real issue of impacts on the community of generalised property blight. 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.

 

·         Potential Loss of Ingestre Park Golf Club and it's social facilities

 

·         Adverse effect on local businesses/community facilities:  Most vulnerable are Ingestre Hall and St Mary's church both 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 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 purchased by HS2 which are being let have remained empty. This has a significant negative effect on the local community.

 

 

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.

 

·      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 they 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.

     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 (See Fig).

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 above, previously sent to HS2 by Mr M.Woodhouse, which suggests the presence of springs near Congreves Plantation, Ingestre Village, Flushing Covert and at Saltspring 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.

            However, planning permission for a marina at Pasturefields has recently been passed, and there has been industrial development nearby, none of which appear to have had any effect on the SAC.

 

 

 

 

 


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


Ingestre with Tixall PC response to Environmental Impact Report Sept.2017


Report of informal meeeting with HS2 representatives


Environmental Impact Report


Ministerial Reply 4.7.17


Letter to Minister and Hydrogeological Assessment

HS2: Notes on costs and benefits from seeking a route change


Environmental Impact Assessment Report


Equality Impact Assessment Report


Property Consultation


HS2 Phase 2a: West Midlands to Crewe

Environmental Statement

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:

  • Provided details in the monthly parish newsletter (delivered to all properties in Ingestre and Tixall) and displayed on the relevant parish notice boards;
  • Posted details on the parish website and invited on-line comments/feedback
  • Obtained additional copies of the CA2 report and map books, lodged these in the parish churches of Ingestre and Tixall and invited feedback of comments to the parish council.
  • Ensured that hard copies of the consultation documents were available for inspection during community events at the Village Hall in Tixall (a shared facility with Ingestre), as well as having councillors on hand for guidance and to receive comments.
  •  One-to-one discussions.

 

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:

  • appointment of community relations personnel;
  • a community helpline to handle enquiries from the public;
  • sensitive layout of construction sites to reduce nuisance; and
  • maintenance of public roads, cycleways and PRoW around construction sites, where reasonably practicable, to avoid their deterioration due to construction traffic.

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.