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.

Petition for AP2 submitted March 2019

Meeting between  Parish Council and HS2 representatives held on October 17th 2018.

PETITION submitted Feb 26th 2018

Meeting with HS2 Representatives January 23rd 2018

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

 

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