HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE - UK Parliament · 2015-06-09 · 28. MR STRAKER QC: So you ask and answer that question. And then you show the answer diagrammatically at 1057(13). 29

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

on the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON—WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Monday 8 June 2015 (Evening)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley

Ian Mearns

_____________

IN ATTENDANCE:

Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Timothy Straker QC, Counsel, South Bucks and Buckinghamshire County Council

Witnesses:

Mr Jerry Unsworth, Independent Planning Consultant

Mr Peter Miller, Head of Environment and Planning, HS2 Ltd Mr Richard Skehens, Colne Valley Park CIC

Mr Stewart Pomeroy, Colne Valley Team Manager, Groundwork Mr Robin Jones, Strategic Development Manager, Colne Valley Regional Park

_____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

2

INDEX

Subject Page Number

South Bucks and Buckinghamshire County Council (continued) Mr Unsworth, examined by Mr Straker 3 Mr Unsworth, examined by Mr Mould 16 Mr Unsworth, re-examined by Mr Straker 20 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Mould 24 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Straker 34 Closing submission by Mr Straker 43 Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company Submission by Mr Skehens 44 Submission by Mr Pomeroy 46 Submission by Mr Jones 52 Submission by Mr Mould 60 Closing submissions by Mr Skehens and Mr Pomeroy 64

3

(at 18.00)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. We continue with the Buckinghamshire County Council

and South Bucks District Council.

2. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you very much, Chair. Mr Unsworth is sitting to my

right. If slide A1057(1) could be put up, we can flip to that, which simply provides the

introduction then to slide 1057(2), so that Mr Unsworth to my right can introduce

himself.

3. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. Good evening. My name is Jerry Unsworth and I am a

Chartered Town Planner. I also have a diploma in Design and the Built Environment

with distinction. I’ve got some 38 years of broad planning experience across a range of

planning work, most of which has been with five District and County Councils in the

southern half of England. Until January last year, I was Head of Planning and

Sustainability for Wickham District Council. That’s a district that adjoins South Bucks

and I was closely involved there with a number of major projects, including a

£275 million Council-led town centre redevelopment project. I now operate as an

independent planning consultant for a mix of public and private sector clients. As well

as my part-time work with South Bucks District Council, I am retained as a planning

advisor to the District Councils’ Network. That is the umbrella body for the 200 District

Councils in England and a special interest group within the Local Government

Association.

4. MR STRAKER QC: Then if we look at 1057(3) please. You record, ‘The

evidence being given for’ and the list is there set out, ‘in collaboration with’ a list there

set out. And we can go straight from that list, unless there’s anything that’s necessary to

be said on that, to 1057(4), which shows the capital meeting the countryside. I suspect

we can go then straight to the question at 1057(5): what do we need to think about?

5. MR UNSWORTH: Yes, in terms of these issues and the viaduct, we suggest we

certainly need to think about its design, how important that design will be, and why we

need the best possible outcome, and clearly whether the present assurances are adequate

in that regard.

6. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(6) please. There you pose the question:

what’s the solution to the matter that we’re thinking about? And you record that as an

4

international design competition for an internationally important viaduct. Is there

anything to add to that orally?

7. MR UNSWORTH: I think it’s a simple ask, this one. There are no different

angles to it. A simple design competition is what we consider is required in this

situation. We think that is a mechanism to respond to the sensitivity of the Colne Valley

and would give the best opportunity to enhance the locality. I think it’s worth

reiterating a point that has been made earlier, that the District Council and its partners

support the principle of the tunnel, which you’ll be hearing about later and of course, if

you agree to that, then this competition approach for a viaduct wouldn’t be required—

probably stating the obvious, but it needs to be said.

8. MR STRAKER QC: Then 1057(7) please. We’ve seen this picture before and

you’ve identified some key points here: 3.4 kilometres, more than two miles, in terms of

a viaduct. Is that the longest on the HS2 route? Longest in England?

9. MR UNSWORTH: Certainly from our research, it’s the longest in the UK, yes.

10. MR STRAKER QC: Colne Valley Regional Park, edge of Metropolis; we’ve seen

these matters. Landscape character, critical nature and recreational resource, and

ecological and heritage interest of national importance. I suspect we can go straight on,

can we, to the ‘context continued’, 1057(8)?

11. MR UNSWORTH: Yeah. I think there’s probably one point I would like to just

say. There is the existing characteristics of the area, but I think it’s also an area that we

need to think about the potential that it’s got, looking into the future, as a landscape and

recreation and heritage resource.

12. MR STRAKER QC: So in this question of context, we’ve asked ourselves what

do we need to think about, we’ve asked ourselves what’s the solution, and you come to:

what does national policy tell us?

13. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. I think the context which we’ve heard on the edge of

London is important because it is an area of greenbelt, and greenbelt has certain

purposes and functions. Our enthusiasm for that area is not just a local thing; it is

enshrined in government policy. And as the Parliament is taking on the role of the local

planning authority in establishing the principle of the scheme, it’s important to reflect on

what the National Policy Planning Framework says. I’ll just read this extract, which is

5

that ‘local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of

the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide

opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual

amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.’ I think this is a

policy context that is important for the consideration, as I was mentioning before, not

just how it is now but the potential that the area has looking into the future.

14. MR STRAKER QC: Then 1057(9) please.

15. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. And returning to the local context, we see the

Environmental Statement recognises the dominant role that the corridors of open space,

waterways and lakes play in the landscape, in creating a sense of isolation. We see this

as a real asset of the area which the viaduct will fundamentally affect.

16. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(10).

17. MR UNSWORTH: And again in the Environmental Statement the condition of

tranquillity—and that’s something I’ll return to later—the regional value of the

landscape means that this area has a high sensitivity to change.

18. MR STRAKER QC: And that quotation comes from?

19. MR UNSWORTH: That is straight from the Environmental Statement.

20. MR STRAKER QC: And the preceding ones were also from the Environmental

Statement?

21. MR UNSWORTH: They are, yes.

22. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(11) please. You ask yourself another

question: should we be concerned? And you give an answer.

23. MR UNSWORTH: That answer really highlights the special characteristics of

this area, which you’ve had rehearsed by Stewart Pomeroy earlier, but it is worth

reflecting on the coincidence of these things in this area. It is something that is

important to highlight. This is not a degraded landscape; it may be a landscape that is in

need of some improvement, but it’s a landscape with some really significant assets.

24. MR STRAKER QC: I think this slide, number 11, draws attention—which hasn’t

been drawn before—to the Grade 1 building complex.

6

25. MR UNSWORTH: It does. And I’ll mention that in a little more detail in a

moment.

26. MR STRAKER QC: Number 12 please.

27. MR UNSWORTH: All of these assets we consider are affected by the viaduct.

28. MR STRAKER QC: So you ask and answer that question. And then you show

the answer diagrammatically at 1057(13).

29. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. Here just really highlights those examples of where the

impact occurs. I won’t go through each one, as Stewart Pomeroy has done this himself,

but you can see the coexistence of a lot of important recreational activities, conservation

area around the Grand Union Canal, and the SSSIs and all the recreational activities

going on there. But I would like to turn to the specific issue of Savay Farm. With

reference to that, I would draw attention to my supporting references document, which

has got reference A1058, pages 5 and 6. In that I highlight, on the first few pages here,

the listed building—sorry, not the first few pages, the pages 5 and 6—extracts from

listed building guidance. I think the significance of this is in that a Grade 1 listed

building has the highest level of protection in the country. It is a category where the

setting is important and we need to take opportunities to seek enhancements, not just the

status quo, when dealing with developments that affect their setting.

30. You may recall that there was evidence given by Sally Cakebread, the resident at

Savay Farm, on 11 March in the afternoon. And looking at the transcript from that day,

paragraphs 393 and 403, which were on pages 58 and 59, it’s worth reminding ourselves

what was said in answer to the points raised by Sally Cakebread by Mr Mould. This

included the comments that the viaduct, to quote, ‘will detract from its setting and will

have a major adverse effect on its significance as an historic asset.’ Now, as I say, a

Grade 1 listed building is top of the tree as far as listed building concerns. And

Mr Mould went on to say that there is unlikely to be anything further that can be done,

given the sensitivity of this building, to mitigate the noise effects. I think this highlights

the dilemma that you face, the need—we say—for the extra effort to be made on the

design front.

31. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you. If we go then back to the earlier sequence of

slides and go to 1057(14), where you ask the question to which in fact you have already

7

given the answer, or given an answer via some of the material to which you’ve referred,

as to ‘Will it be a substantial feature with an impact on the landscape? Yes.’ And that

takes us then on to 1057(15).

32. MR UNSWORTH: This is really just to remind ourselves of the significance of

the viaduct, which is highlighted in this slide taken from the Environmental Statement.

33. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(16) please. Here you ask some other

questions. First, what about peace and quiet?

34. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. And again, we see the Environmental Statement

acknowledges here that the scheme will reduce the sense of isolation and tranquillity in

the Valley.

35. MR STRAKER QC: And you ask whether peace and quiet is important.

36. MR UNSWORTH: We consider that it is important. It is one of the assets of the

area that people come to enjoy, as Stewart Pomeroy outlined earlier on.

37. MR STRAKER QC: If we go to 1057(17) we touch upon a matter which has been

spoken to in passing already, but may be thought to demonstrate why peace and

tranquillity is of some significance, it being controlled here by controls on the use of

water-skiing via planning permission. Can you help further the Committee on that

matter?

38. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. It’s an issue rather like was raised by Mr Bellingham

earlier. When I started looking at this I thought water-skiing is not a terribly friendly

activity within an SSSI, but actually when you delve into it there are a lot of controls

imposed on this to protect the environment. There was an appeal decision that goes

back to 1999. Interestingly, the appeal was not on the impact on the greenbelt or the

natural environment; it was about highway issues. But the inspector nevertheless

addressed the important issues, SSSI and the greenbelt, and he also considered a

grievance that had been put forward. He concluded that there was actually a net benefit

to the environment from this proposal because the particular set of measures to protect

the ecology, the SSSI, but also controls on the type of boats that were used within broad

LPG boats. I just highlight this because it is an area that has been subject to careful

management and control to ensure that the qualities of the area are protected for the

future.

8

39. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you. And then 1057(18) speaks as to tranquillity.

40. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. Now, this map is not the easiest to follow in terms of

the detail, but it’s really to convey a picture, which is one of recognising that the

tranquillity is a relative thing. You can see on this map the main area of North West

London and you can see a sort of circle around the area where the viaduct is. You can

see the line there. This map is actually taken from the national mapping that the CPRE

does of tranquillity. The reason, in looking at this, I included it is because I think it

captures the relative issue very well. In their report, they talk about the attention that is

given to protecting areas that—probably we would all think of the remote areas of the

country that you would recognise automatically as tranquil, but they go on and they say

that attention—picking up the end of the second line—’should not exclude a recognition

of the value of areas, often much smaller in size, that are closer to the centres of

population. Such areas would rate in raw and national terms a low tranquillity score,

but when considered in their local to regional context they have real significance for a

great many people.’ I think that is very pertinent to the area that we’re considering in

the Colne Valley.

41. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(19), the question is asked as to why we’re

concerned. Here a reference is made to noise. And we can remind ourselves, of course,

we are not dealing directly with all noise issues today, but you are raising this in

questions of tranquillity and matters of that sort. Can you help us then with 1057(19)

please?

42. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. The slide is an extract from the Environmental

Statement and the calculation of noise impacts. Really, on this plan I’ve just added the

location of some of the recreational activities which are going on this area and which

enjoy, as has been said, a sense of isolation, peace and calm. It is something that

clearly, in recent correspondence, the impact of the viaduct in terms of noise, HS2 is

clearly moving towards a position of assuring greater mitigation. And that, in principle,

is welcome. I’m not here to become embroiled in the details of this, because I’m not a

noise expert and noise will be addressed later on in your hearings, but the two key

points I would like to just make in relation to this is that we believe that value needs to

be attached to the relative tranquillity of the Colne Valley as a recreational and natural

area, and an area of national heritage interest. And noise is a factor that needs to be

9

borne in mind, not just in terms of residential activity but from the listed building, the

environment that that building has.

43. The inclusion of noise barriers, whilst welcome in their own right, heighten—

literally—the importance of achieving an excellent design in terms of appearance. The

latest information from HS2 is that we will have an indication of barrier heights varying

between 1.5 and 4.0 metres in height along this section in different parts. And I think

we need to start thinking ahead as to the design implications of this and what this

structure could look like. We would say that dealing with noise and dealing with the

design and appearance of the viaduct are not issues that are mutually exclusive. They

need to be looked at together.

44. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(20) asks and answers, in a simple affirmative

way, at 1057(20), whether more can be done to address wider noise issues. You then go

on, at 1057(21), to pose the question: what could happen?

45. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. We are not suggesting these are the designs that HS2

are envisaging, but they are examples and we think that we must do better. The Taiwan

example here looks as if it’s probably sponsored by the Concrete Association of Taiwan.

It has a rather heavyweight appearance. But the point is, as we are at this point in the

process, we have a really important issue to consider in terms of this structure, how it

will relate to the special character of the Colne Valley.

46. MR STRAKER QC: And the Medway Viaducts, they carry HS1, do they?

47. MR UNSWORTH: They do. This is the HS1.

48. MR STRAKER QC: So then you go on, 1057(22). You’ve already asked the

question whether more can be done to address wider noise issues. You then go on to

ask the question: can something be done about this?

49. MR UNSWORTH: And we believe it can.

50. MR STRAKER QC: And then, if we go on to ask some more questions please,

1057(23).

51. MR UNSWORTH: We are not confident that as things stand, this will not be an

intrusive feature in the Colne Valley. And we believe that the assurances offered, as

things stand, are not adequate to give us the confidence as to what structure will emerge.

10

52. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. And then you—

53. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s just worth—forgive me, but it might be a help to

us. The word ‘intrusive’; how is that different from the word ‘noticeable’?

54. MR UNSWORTH: I would say something that is intrusive is not pleasing to the

eye; it is not an experience that you would enjoy, whereas noticeable is something you

can see. I think this does unearth what lies at the heart of this, that we believe that if

there is to be a viaduct, there is an opportunity here to have something that is actually a

credit to the area, that people say, ‘Look, this is a really cracking piece of design,’ and

can actually become a tourist attraction perhaps even.

55. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So the Sydney Opera House alternative to the

Taiwanese example.

56. MR UNSWORTH: Yes, and bridges can achieve that.

57. MR STRAKER QC: So the Houses of Parliament would be regarded as

noticeable and desirable to be noticed, but not intrusive.

58. MR UNSWORTH: Certainly that would be the view.

59. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Except in the current climate.

60. MR UNSWORTH: On the inside.

61. MR STRAKER QC: Then if we go look on please to 1057(24).

62. MR UNSWORTH: We turn now to the assurances that have been offered. We’ve

had considerable exchanges around this and the information papers D1 and G6, the

design panel and the design vision, they’re all referred to. And we do welcome these as

statements. They are worthy words, so to speak, but I think the issue is that collectively

they leave much open to interpretation. The design panel itself has not got terms of

reference yet. And in considering this, the Environmental Statement has said that they

consider no other mitigation measures are considered practicable, but we do think that

more can be done to achieve a structure that we’re proud of here.

63. We’ve had two key letters. The first one really was on 24 March and within that

letter it did say that viaducts will be part of a broader geographical package and

separating a single structure from this overall approach would pose significant risk to

11

the project in terms of safety, aesthetics, cost and programme. We have not understood,

or had it explained to us, quite what those problems are. I think it’s important, this point

about it being part of a broader geographical package and how the design consideration

gets caught up in a wider issue.

64. MR STRAKER QC: Then if we go to the next slide please, 1057(25), the 1 June

letter which elaborates on general assurances and noise measures. You recall that the

promoter remains of the view that an international design competition may be possible,

but it’s not a decision that it wishes to take at this time.

65. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. So in a sense, the concern that was expressed in the

previous letter about significant risks—missing out a few words—to the programme

appears not to be something that is really being argued. They are saying it may be

possible, but they don’t wish to take the decision. You then go back to the previous

letter: it would leave you with concerns about safety, aesthetics and cost. We’re not

quite getting what the problem is.

66. MR STRAKER QC: Then 1057(26) please. This is a continuation by reference to

the letter with the challenge to be clearer on… You have identified for the Colne Valley

what is sought.

67. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. This is a challenge set out in that letter of 1 June. We

think what we’re after is very simple, really. It is to seek the best possible aesthetic

appearance which produces a legacy we’ll be proud of; the best possible noise

mitigation, which we would say is also to protect the recreational as well as residential

and other receptors; and it’s also a viaduct that is the best possible in terms of

environmental sensitivity. We’ve heard earlier from Dr Thornhill about some issues

which do interact with the design of the viaduct. We’ve got quite a complex set of

issues that viaduct will have to address, but what our concern is, in terms of design

objectives, is the best possible that we can achieve in these areas and to find the

technique that leads to that.

68. MR STRAKER QC: And 1057(27) asks that question, does it? What do we need

to achieve this?

69. MR UNSWORTH: This is where we conclude that an international design

competition is the technique to achieve that. We think it’s justified by the sheer scale of

12

this structure, over two miles long, and the complex issues that are being addressed in

the Colne Valley. But I think it’s that role that the Colne Valley needs to perform in

providing this outdoor resource for Londoners. You know, we are looking at a viaduct

that will be here for a long time, a legacy for London and the country, and a symbol of

our nation. So we think there are compelling reasons to require excellence in design and

a design that, as far as we can, enhances the area.

70. MR STRAKER QC: And 1057(28) please. Here you are indicating an

international design competition as the solution and you’re referring to certain matters

signifying this is not merely, so to speak, an idea of your own but derived from sources.

71. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. And these are reputable organisations: the Royal

Institute of British Architects and the International Association for Bridge and Structural

Engineering. They have done very recent reports which look at the specific issue of

design competitions. The RIBA one has two sort of daughter documents, both produced

in 2012, which are very pertinent and the fuller reference to those are in the supporting

references document A1058—which we don’t need to turn to, but I’d just point you to

those.

72. CHAIR: Can I ask, given your experience over 30-40 years, what would be the

cost of having a design competition? I mean, presumably you’d have a number of

people put in designs, they’d all have to be paid for designs, and then you’d use the one

which was perceived to be the best. Do you have any idea of cost, given your

experience?

73. MR UNSWORTH: Well, not from my direct experience here, but it is something

that’s addressed in the reports that I’m referring to. They pose two points, really. One

is that it is a minimal amount in the grand scheme of what is under consideration. Often

they will identify designs that actually can save money and the report, which is—as I

mentioned—one of the daughter documents of the RIBA report produced in 2012,

which is Design Competitions: Guidance for Clients, does look at the cost issue and

identifies that as, in project values over £10 million, it says it may be 0.05% to 0.09%.

That’s the best indication I can give you, but all these things have been analysed in these

research documents.

74. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you. And then if we could look at the next slide

13

please, 1057(29). Here you quote some advice which has been tendered.

75. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. These are from the two reports. Again, they are

advancing competitions as the technique to reduce effort and resource, promote good

design, give more choice, and give architects more opportunities. I think the bridge

engineers report of 2013 highlights that if a promoter is looking for high-quality design,

they want to demonstrate concern for quality in the public realm, they want public

involvement in the process, then they commend the competition route. And the RIBA

have identified that 57% of the built projects from RIBA competitions went on to win

awards for outstanding architecture. So they’ve actually looked at the way, as a

technique, this leads to something that is regarded nationally as outstanding products.

This is what we’re concerned about here, is what is the route to achieve that excellent

product?

76. MR MEARNS: Can I just follow up on that? 43% of RIBA competitions didn’t

lead to RIBA awards. I mean, these are RIBA competitions and RIBA awards, so it’s

not exactly an outstanding statistic from that perspective, if you don’t mind me saying

so.

77. MR UNSWORTH: Well, I’m quoting from their report. They identify it as

something that highlights that a very large proportion of those win awards. Obviously

not everything can win an award, but it’s a good reflection on the process.

78. MR MEARNS: I just wonder who else RIBA would give awards to, but actually

competitors in their own competitions.

79. MR UNSWORTH: I take your point.

80. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(30) please.

81. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. So these reports again look at how, across the world,

some of the structures that we may get to know have come about. The Millau Viaduct,

the Gateshead Millennium Bridge, both

82. MR MEARNS: It was a very good exception. I wasn’t meaning—

83. MR UNSWORTH: Threw that one in just for you. The important thing is these

come out of the competition process and they are features that actually become

attractions in their own right. And that’s something that we think we’ve got an

14

opportunity here in the Colne Valley to achieve the same thing.

84. There’s a lot of very good quotes, particularly in the RIBA 2012 report on

guidance for clients, the Design Competitions: Guidance for Clients document. That

gives a lot of reflections on people who have been involved in this, why they did it, and

the results that come from it. You can see here one of the quotes: ‘For a client, a

competition—by its very nature—drives up quality, stimulating creativity and

innovation, and gives a wide range of new ideas, improving choice.’ So we think this is

very applicable in this instance. And the structural engineers’ report of 2013 again

pointed out that, ‘By their very nature, design competitions encourage creativity and

innovation, and help the client to select a design that meets his particular needs.’ So we

think there’s a body of work here that gives us confidence that this is the right sort of

technique to use when you’re dealing with a piece of kit like this.

85. MR STRAKER QC: Then 1057(31) please, where you refer to the ability to

generate innovative ideas. You’re drawing attention here particularly to what?

86. MR UNSWORTH: Well, certainly not to the specifics of the diagram. It’s just

really to highlight that we see a competition as opening up the issue to invite a range of

innovative ideas that choices can be made from. We see that the challenges I outlined

before about noise, about the environment, bring something very special to bear and we

just think that this, as a technique, would produce a range of interesting ideas that

decisions could be made from.

87. MR STRAKER QC: And then 1057(32) please.

88. MR UNSWORTH: So I am sure, you know, in terms of asking why a

competition, what difference would it make from the procurement that is being

recommended? We see these characteristics here of a competition as being the vehicle

that would best ensure a discrete focus. I think this is important point. It goes back to

the wider geographical area that was referred to in an earlier letter. I think it’s a way of

generating alternatives to choose from. Involvement in consultation happens, connected

as part of that. And also, we see that this is a technique that would be very suited to the

skills of the design panel that is going to be established. That could be very much part

of this competition process. It is about being proactive rather than the community and

the local authorities being reactive to a scheme and trying to improve a design that may

15

come forward.

89. MR STRAKER QC: I just want to get clear here, if I may, the procurement which

is being recommended—i.e. the HS2 procurement—contrasted with the competition

which you’re providing for, or suggesting. The procurement that is recommended; is

that procurement of the viaduct or procurement of a longer length of track to include the

viaduct?

90. MR UNSWORTH: We don’t have any definitive information on this as yet, but if

I go back to that letter from 24 March, where they say the viaducts will be part of a

broader geographical package, it hasn’t been defined what the extent of that

geographical package would be. But that is a particular concern, because we don’t

know. And design of the viaduct I think undoubtedly would get caught up in a number

of other issues.

91. MR STRAKER QC: Then 1057(33) please.

92. MR UNSWORTH: We are suggesting that the competition is a technique to

generate excellence and options to choose from. We believe that there is a window that

can be used to include this in the project programme. And the letter from HS2 suggests

that that is the case. The next stage, if this was agreed, is clearly devising the brief,

addressing all of the issues there are to be addressed, and establishing some sort of

steering group that would bring in local involvement but centrally involving the design

panel and the community and the local bodies representing this area. Just to remind

ourselves, this is a structure that those living and using the Colne Valley will see, but

not the travellers who will be on the railway itself.

93. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. And then running towards the conclusion of your

examination in chief, 1057(34), ‘The way forward.’

94. MR UNSWORTH: I think it’s really coming to the end of what I’ve got to say

here. It’s just to remind ourselves that the planning policy statement issued in 2012

highlights that planning and exercises like this should not just be about scrutiny, but it

should be a creative exercise, finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which

we live our lives. This is what we are hoping for for the Colne Valley. We see that the

competition is the local interpretation of that.

95. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. And then I think with 1057(35) you ask whether the

16

Committee can help, to which you provide an answer. And then at 1057(36) you simply

thank, I think, the Committee and have a picture of the Ribblehead Viaduct.

96. MR UNSWORTH: Yes. I’m not suggesting it’s a suitable design or anything, but

it’s just a nice one to put on the last slide.

97. MR STRAKER QC: Yes.

98. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If everybody who signed the petition to save the

viaduct had gone on the train, it would have been a profitable line.

99. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you very much. That concludes the investigation in

chief.

100. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

101. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, can we just put up P61432 please? This is the

second page of the letter of 1 June, which Mr Unsworth touched on briefly. Just by way

of preface to this question, you told the Committee a few minutes ago that you were

particularly concerned that the project should deploy a procurement technique that

produced the highest quality aesthetic appearance, noise performance and environmental

sensitivity of the viaducts in the Colne Valley, if the railway is not in a tunnel. Yes. I

just draw attention to this letter. Can you see it on the screen?

102. MR UNSWORTH: I’m looking at the hard copy here.

103. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay. If I can just be forgiven just reading out a couple

of paragraphs. If you start towards the bottom of the page, there’s a paragraph which

begins, ‘Based on current timetable assumptions.’ It says this: ‘Based on current

timetable assumptions, the promoter is likely to start a process of procuring the design

and construction team for the railway and associated works in 2016. As part of the

procurement process, there will be three key stages where the essential design

credentials and requirements of any contractor will be specified and scrutinised. These

are firstly the prequalifying questionnaire stage, secondly the invitation to tender stage,

and thirdly the tender evaluation stage. With the appointment of the chair of the design

panel and the establishment of the design panel itself,’ the chair being Sadie Morgan,

the outgoing chair of the Architects’ Association, ‘With the appointment of the chair

and the establishment of the design panel, the promoter has shown his commitment to

17

embedding good design at the heart of all it does. The terms of reference for the design

panel,’ which are due to be published shortly, ‘are likely to identify that the design panel

will have a role in scrutinising how design requirements are incorporated into the key

stages of the procurement of our contracts. To this end, it’s anticipated that the design

panel will consider design specifications and design within the procurement process.’

104. And then it goes on to say this, and this is what I want you just to look at: ‘In

summary, the processes that the promoter will adopt will ensure that the procurement of

design will be highly competitive and will undoubtedly attract the best designers and

design teams in the world. The promoter therefore does not consider that there would

be any requirement to have a separate international design competition for the Colne

Valley viaduct, nor does it consider that this process would deliver any better design

outcomes than could be achieved by the processes it intends to deploy.’ Now, I think

probably it’s slightly overdoing it to say ‘will undoubtedly attract’ because perhaps that

would be better expressed as ‘are intended to attract’ the best designers and design

teams in the world. That’s the procurement route that is proposed.

105. I just wanted to know, in that last paragraph I read out in particular, it would be

helpful I think to all of us if you could just say what it is that an international design

competition would bring which that process, which I’ve just read out to you, doesn’t

bring to the output, which is a design for the Colne Valley viaduct that combines

aesthetic appearance, noise performance and environment sensitivity? What is it you

get from the international competition that you don’t get from what we have said we

intend to do?

106. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think he means, what might you get?

107. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Fine.

108. MR UNSWORTH: Right. I think the first thing, going back to this geographical

coverage point, is that we don’t have any indication in this process of what geographical

area would be under consideration and what other issues would be under consideration

as part of that procurement process. I think that’s a very, very important thing in that

we would say that this, as a structure, is worth pulling out and dealing with in its own

right.

109. It’s also then the way in which that procurement process, and we have had

18

discussions with HS2 about this, would in itself involve public consultation. My

understanding is that there wouldn’t be public consultation on this particular

procurement process, but there would be from the firm, the consortium that would be

appointed at the end of this would come up with a design, which would then be subject

to consultation. We did, as I say, have conversations about that. I think the key thing is

how the public and how the local authorities can engage in the design process. I think

this is again something that is repeated in correspondence we’ve had, to emphasise the

opportunity that the authority will have to negotiate on the design.

110. But I think when we are talking about something of this ilk, to negotiate changes

to a design we would suggest is not the best way of achieving an excellent outcome. It

is better to have consultation and engagement on a process that involves a range of

options that get narrowed down. I think there are skills that could be brought to bear on

that. And that, we think, is a better way of engaging people than actually engaging on

the product of a design that has itself resulted from a procurement process.

111. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay. Can I just ask a couple of follow-ups on that?

On the geographical area, clearly no one would suggest that we should be compromising

on the design unreasonably anywhere along the route. We should be aspiring to good

quality design throughout the length of the railway, shouldn’t we? You nodded

affirmatively to that question. But clearly the Colne Valley viaduct is a particular

feature, a key design element you might say, and your point really comes to this, I think.

You say ideally you would like to see whatever procurement technique is followed

singling out the Colne Valley viaduct as a particular feature that deserves the closest

attention. That’s your principle.

112. MR UNSWORTH: Yes, that’s the principle. I think it takes heed of advice that

we’ve identified in these documents, that I’ve referred to in our reference documents

that say how do you achieve that outcome. And that a competition process, which I

think is a different type of competition from the competition within the procurement

that’s envisaged here, how the public would engage in that. I think that they are slightly

different beasts.

113. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I just then come to that second point which is about

what I was going to say? You seem to envisage that as part of the competition, those

who participate as competitors, would each engage in some form of public consultation

19

on their emerging bid. So, supposing you had five or six separate competitors putting

together bids for the Colne Valley Viaduct contract, but as part of that process they

would go out to public consultation. That seems to be what you’re envisaging, isn’t it?

114. MR UNSWORTH: No. It’s not. I don’t see it as working like that. And again,

there is advice, there’s plenty of advice on how this could be managed. But, I think that

would be more done as a collective consultation. As to the outcomes of the invitation to

submit schemes to the competition. And there are all sorts of different ways in which

this can be managed. But, I think it would be done as a composite consultation before

decisions are made either on a long list or on a shortlist or on both.

115. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m certainly not aware of it being the norm that

international design competitions, that whilst the competition’s ongoing that the bids

that are proposed are subjected to public consultation. They are subjected to the

scrutiny of a jury or whoever it is who’s going to make the decision. But, they don’t

involve public consultation in the sense that you’ve outlined, do they, typically?

116. MR UNSWORTH: Well, they certainly can.

117. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They can? But, have you any experience of any that

have?

118. MR UNSWORTH: I don’t think so. I think it’s the stage at which it is done, how

it is managed, and it is, again, in the RIBA reports, it highlights that it actually is the

competition, and the engagement in the competition by the public, is a way of

stimulating interest and engaging people. It is one of the best ways of doing it.

119. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you very much.

120. CHAIR: I’m not sure actually you’re very much far apart. Because I mean

throughout the whole process, the issue of design has been raised at various points for

the obvious reason that you said, it’s local people look at the bridges and look at the

viaducts in their particular area. And HS2 has been alive to that as we’ve gone along.

And certainly the input of local authorities is pretty important. And of course every

time we look at any promotional literature, it has the computer generated image of a

railway going over the particular area that we are talking about today. So, clearly, it

20

wouldn’t be an area picked for a particularly bad design. But, I think, certainly. there’s

some food for thought here, which we’re going to have to think about as we go forward.

Is there any redirect, Mr Straker?

121. MR STRAKER QC: Just a couple of questions, if I may, by re-examination?

Could we put up 1057-30 again, please? And this touches upon the question asked

about involvement of the public in an international design competition. And here

you’ve given, on 1057-30, a couple of illustrations, I think, that’s right?

122. MR UNSWORTH: Yes.

123. MR STRAKER QC: And the top left one, please, and the quotation from that.

124. MR UNSWORTH: Which is connected to the Milau viaduct and in this instance

they identified the project from, as they said, from the administration would not have

been accepted and that these things are fought against and they say the best way was to

have a competition as the public accepts the decision of the jury.

125. MR STRAKER QC: And can the jury involve the public if it wishes to do so?

126. MR UNSWORTH: It can and it is actually recommended in our RIBA report.

127. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you. And I just want to ask one further question, if I

may? You were asked questions by reference to the letter of 1 June, 2015, E6143(1),

and in particular (2), 6143(2). And here, under a heading on 6143(2), we see reference

to competitive procurement and a assuring quality of design and you were asked

questions to the effect, well, part and parcel of the procurement of the railway will

involve design. Help the Committee if you will, please, as to the extent to which you

are seeing design as part of, necessarily part of, procurement of the railway, or

something which stands separate from that?

128. MR UNSWORTH: I’d answer that is both, really. That design, I’m not doubting

that design would be a serious consideration in the wider procurement process. But, the

wider that procurement process is, and the wider the issues are that under consideration,

the more it becomes questionable, the attention that be given to the specifics of design

for this viaduct. And I think what we’re saying is that you do need to have a focus on

the design of the viaduct as a discrete exercise, which a competition would give it. So,

21

hopefully you understand the point I’m making there.

129. CHAIR: Yes. Thank you very much. Sir Peter?

130. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is rather more for the promoters than it is for

you but forgive me hitch-hiking. It may be a series of questions which go properly to

one of your own witnesses. On that page we were looking at just now, 6143(2), the

process of going to get the team to do the design and building. Do we understand from

that that the viaduct is likely to be a contract? And if so, is it likely to be designed by a

outsiders or by insiders?

131. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ll ask Mr Miller to comment on that, I think, rather

than try to explain the myself. It would be better it comes from him, I think.

132. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the other thing which may be also useful to

note, is that in one of the things you’ve read, we had a quotation from the process that

viaducts were part of a broader geographical package. That could mean almost

anything. We hope I, I would hope, that the viaduct in the Colne Valley is not

necessarily going to look as though it’s part of a family, with some structure in North

Warwickshire.

133. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Again, can we touch on that when Mr. Miller gives his

evidence?

134. CHAIR: Alright?

135. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you very much, sir. Can I just, at this moment, draw

attention to the fact that, on my understanding, agreement has been reached as far as

ancient woodlands is concerned in relation to a particular assurance which has been

given, and as far as other matters under discussion which took place in the adjournment

of this Committee, I’m not sure what the precise position has been reached in

connection with matters which bore upon transport.

136. CHAIR: Do you want a minute or two, Mr Straker?

137. MR STRAKER QC: It may be sensible, sir, if that’s?

138. CHAIR: I adjourn for 10 minutes.

22

139. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you very much.

140. CHAIR: Order, order.

Sitting suspended

On resuming—

141. CHAIR: Committee come to order, please. Mr. Straker, do you feel confident in

telling us what has been agreed?

142. MR STRAKER QC: Yes sir. I hope I feel confident in telling you what’s agreed.

And I’m going to revert to the point about the woodlands because there was a matter

there in which I spoke shortly before you adjourned and didn’t give the full picture. As

far as the woodlands is concerned, agreement has been reached on ancient woodlands.

The assurance contained in relation to Pinnock’s Wood is as agreed as set out in HS2’s

letter of today’s date. The assurance relating to Battlesford Wood has been altered and

is as follows, namely that: ‘The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker

to use reasonable endeavours to reduce the physical impact of construction of the

railway and ancillary works upon ancient woodland located at Battlesford Wood, as

shown in an identified drawing, such that no more than 0.1 hectare of the ancient

woodlands area is physically’ I think that should be affected ‘by the construction works

and to implement the scheme of mitigation that is shown in relation to Battlesford

Wood in the environmental statement and described on a particular drawing in the

Colne Valley so far as reasonably practicable and in any event not to reduce the area,

type and quality of the landscape planting provided’. And HS2 will send to

Buckinghamshire a revised version of the letter with those amendments to which I’ve

referred.

143. As far as the M25 and traffic measures are concerned which was to be the

province of my next witness, the position is as follows. Agreement is very close to

being reached on the issue of the M25 slip roads. A letter was received today with

assurances about when those slip roads will be operational. Further detailed discussion

is required on when the slip roads will cease to be used. On additional traffic signalling

measures, details need to be settled on the involvement of the council and the

production of traffic assessments and on the undertaking of payments to be made to the

County Council should signalling measures be required. If any difficulties emerge in

23

connection with those matters, the right to return to the Committee later has been

reserved, but the expectation is, certainly, the hope is, that that will not be necessary.

144. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould?

145. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, thank you very much.

146. CHAIR: You’re happy with that?

147. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Thank you. I think the ducts are in place. It’s

what we’ve come to call the classic provision, I think probably. Yes.

148. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay.

149. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Being put in by the County Council or by someone at

their behest, I think, yes.

150. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, at some stage someone tell us?

151. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

152. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just so we know. Glad you agree. We’d like to

know what it is.

153. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Were we at cross purposes? Were you talking about the

highways?

154. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No. The cables in the woodland.

155. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Oh, I see. I’m so sorry. I was on highways.

156. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I imagine it was moles going through and dragging

cables with them, but that may cause difficulty.

157. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We have to put some cables. They’re reported in the

environmental statement as being subterranean, yes.

158. CHAIR: So, I take it then, we do not have your last witness?

159. MR STRAKER QC: That is right, sir.

24

160. CHAIR: But, you’re just about there, subject to wording and what has been

assurances given?

161. MR STRAKER QC: Sir, that’s absolutely right. And so, sir, with your leave, I

don’t propose then to call the fourth witness.

162. CHAIR: Poor fellow. He’s been sitting here all day for his day. Okay. Well,

thank you very much.

163. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you, sir.

164. CHAIR: I’m glad that our occasional evidence has generated some degree of

agreement. And thank you very much, Mr Unsworth. Mr Mould, do you have any

response to?

165. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If I may, I’m going to ask Mr. Miller just to comment

on one or two points

166. CHAIR: Okay. Alright.

167. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Miller, I wonder if we can deal, just turn to some of

these ecological points, that were raised earlier, and then come to design and master

planning.

168. So, if we perhaps get up P6113, which the Committee was shown a little bit

earlier? The Committee will recall this shows the mitigation works that are within the

bill scheme to mitigate, compensate for impacts on ecology and wildlife interests in the

vicinity of the council’s area, which is broadly speaking to the south of Broadwater

Lake. And I think what you wanted to do was to use this as a prompt, in particular

Battlesford Wood, as a prompt, to explain the process that the project will follow in

mitigating, and with a view to culminating in approved designs and plans under

Schedule 16, that have been properly scrutinised by the responsible authorities and

considered by others who have a stake in that.

169. MR MILLER: That’s right. It’s very useful that we’ve just got through that

assurance about the ancient woodland because I think that is a good demonstration of

the environmental assessment process in action. We have an environmental statement.

25

We’ve reported on significant environmental effects. And there are changes in the

offing through this process. And where this has taken to us with Battlesford Wood,

we’ve reduced the area or ancient woodlands that’s actually affected from one hectare

to we think around about 0.1 of a hectare, but using reasonable endeavours, it might be

inside of that figure. But, there’s a significant reduction. So, you can see there that the

progress that we’ve made, it reduces the environmental effect, so, that’s an

improvement, for ancient woodland, that’s a key point. But, also it means that we get

ourselves into a better position, well, the position is, we talked about no net loss, were

actually we’re having an improved position in respect of no net loss. And that together

with the woodland that we’ve spoken about on a previous occasion, we can see that we

have a plan, which is still emerging, that goes some way to affording better protection

and a better response for the natural environment in the Colne Valley. So, that’s, I

think, a good example of how this is improving.

170. Clearly, at the point where we need to bring these plans forward and what we’ve

said all the way through this process is that the designs will be taken forward under the

auspices of the planning regime of the Bill and we’ve mentioned on quite a number of

occasions, Schedule 16, and that ultimately goes to the local planning authority, the

qualifying authority, the district authorities who have responsibility to finally consent

the detailed plans. And there are a variety of measures that they will look at, the

finishes of the scheme, for example, and whether the scheme has been brought forward

to afford the right environmental of protection. So, I think we’re going in the right

direction with the ancient woodland in that respect.

171. If you think about the viaduct, what we’ve additionally done here, and what

we’ve been listening to through this process, is a number of views from local people

and from organisations, and organisations who are here today petitioning, that the Colne

Valley needs to be looked at in its own right. I would say it’s not just the viaduct. I

would say it’s the whole range of environmental features through here that people enjoy

in a whole variety of ways and we’ve listened to that in recent days. All of that’s got to

be joined up. So, somehow or other, through the procurement, we’re going to have to

find a way of making sure that this viaduct and the railway overall, probably between

the two tunnel portals, across the valley here, or between the two points Ruislip and up

by the M25, we’ve got to have a coordinated plan that’s actually going to work.

26

172. Now, what we’ve set out is a Colne Valley Panel and that will bring to, and we’ve

seen some evidence on that being brought up on slides, that will include the relevant

local planning authorities, it will include the county authority, with Bucks County

Council, and it will include the likes of Natural England. So, we have a really good mix

here of relevant bodies who are already taking care of this valley and that we will bring

them together and we’ll think about the Colne Valley as a coherent piece going

forward.

173. Now, we’ve talked about the design panel and what you’ve heard today is I think

going to the quality of the design of the viaduct and the railway as it passes through the

Colne Valley itself. And the reason why we’ve got a design vision and the reason why

we’re going for a design panel on this project follows probably about four years’ worth

of work, largely driven out of, what I’ve described before, as the nongovernmental

organisation forum and the Ministerial Environmental Round Table. And what that has

done is got us into a place where we have then gone to the design community, and, if

you go to the design vision, which is on the website, I happen to have a booklet here,

and if you go to the back of the booklet, you’ll see there are a wide range of people that

have been brought into the process. And what we’re saying is that we are embedding

the quality of design within our processes and practices going forward. That’s why we

think that the procurement process that we’ve setup is appropriate. It is well informed

by these people. And as Mr Mould has explained, with the appointment of Sadie

Morgan coming on as the independent chair, we bring very high quality expertise into

the frame to scrutinise these plans.

174. Now, I think what that will mean in the Colne Valley is that the local Colne

Valley Panel will, in some way, work in parallel with the design panel going forward

and there is obviously mutual interest in what the outcome is. But, I think that the

Colne Valley Panel will probably be concentrating on the objectives and aims through

there and the design panel itself will be scrutinising those designs to make sure that

what the team have specified, to make sure that the viaduct can actually stand up and

carry a railway, and the number of trains and services that we’re proposing, all of those

engineering requirements are married appropriately to the landscape sensitivity of this

location and that we’ve heard about, and that we deliver the best outcome. But, that’s a

best outcome in a collaborative sense. And if you go to the design vision, it is very

27

clear, it is about people, place and time. And what that’s talking about is a

collaborative environment within which to work. And that is a superior approach. It

means that we can draw people in, listen to what the design is all about. We’ve said in

the draft assurances, that we will talk about and we will discuss things and we will

enable that conversation to take place about draft designs.

175. So, I think we’ve got what is a different approach to an international design

competition. It is a very well rounded approach. It’s been tested with the best

designers, certainly in the UK. They are of international prominence, if we want

comfort from an international or world perspective. They are all listed in the back of

that document. I might draw upon somebody like Professor Kathryn Moore, who’s the

president of the International Federation of Landscape Architects. Thomas

Heatherwick from the Heatherwick Studio, if you’ve been travelling around on a bus

today, you’ll realise that some of the buses are designed by him and you will have seen

the Olympic Cauldron in 2012. Unique designs.

176. So, I think that’s given you a flavour that we are very much of a mind to make

sure that this works locally but also we do have to be of a mind that it’s got to work as

an engineered range of structures along the line of the route and it’s got to be held

upright to make sure that those trains go as well. So, I think that’s probably where I

wanted to go to with that.

177. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we pick up on a couple of particular points? There

was a couple of points that Peter raised and I’m wondering if we can just pick up those.

If we can go to P6143(2), if we can? 6143(2). This was the summary of the

procurement process as set out in this letter of 1 June to the Councils.

178. MR MILLER: Yes.

179. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Sir Peter had two points. The first question was where

there’s a reference to the team undertaking various things in the context of that

procurement process, are we envisaging a design coming forward as part of the project

or are we envisaging that that there will be an invitation to the world to tender and then

tenders will be evaluated when they return in response to that invitation?

180. MR MILLER: That’s an invitation to the outside world.

28

181. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So, the design will be, we expect, will be something

that’s undertaken externally to the project, as it were?

182. MR MILLER: Yes. Yes.

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the second question was in relation to the package.

I think you’ve touched on this and the answer you gave a few moments ago when you

spoke about the need for a coherent design between the two tunnel portals. But, has any

decision been made as to whether the Colne Valley viaduct should be seen as part of a

larger package or it should follow some common design approach as it were, which is

reflected in Warwickshire or whatever it may be? What’s the approach on that?

184. MR MILLER: No. There’s no decision on a common approach. We recognise

that this is a key structure. There’s no doubt about it, the length of it. It will be one of

the longest structures in the UK, if not the longest. So, it’s clearly very important. It’s

going through a sensitive site. So, the way that we will come about the design will be

for the Colne Valley. So, that’s not to say that it would incorporate some standard

components and that sort of thing, but, that will be more the engineering type

components, I would guess. But, it’s, as I’ve described with the design approach, what

this means is, thinking about the structure as a coherent piece, I don’t think you could

look at the structure in its own right. You’ve got to look at the structure and what the

railway is doing either side and you’ve got to think about what is happening in the

valley itself, as we’ve described.

185. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just touching on the question of the public’s

involvement, which was of concern to Mr Unsworth. You’ll recall that way back, last

September, when the Committee raised the question of public engagement in the

development of design for particularly, for key components, key elements, of the

project?


187. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Is that something we have taken forward under the

auspices of our design policy set out in information paper D1?


29

189. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I think that’s been dealt with already in the record of the

proceedings of the Committee. There’s two other things I’d like to ask you about

briefly. For that purpose, if we can go to P6171, which I showed the Committee earlier?

Making clear that this is where we have a consolidated list of assurances on landscaping

design which was set out in the letter of 29 May. Now, I just make it clear, this has been

superseded by the list that was set out in the letter which was sent by the project to the

Councils today. But, I draw attention to this page, it’s on the system, because it

encapsulates the key elements which have been developed subsequently. You’ve dealt

with the first of them, I think, which is ongoing engagement in the design. I just wanted

to ask you about the question of the master –

190. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This was the letter to?

191. MR MOULD QC (DfT): This letter?

192. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: South Bucks was it?

193. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s to South Bucks. It was a letter of 29 May to South

Bucks.

194. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I guessed that from the postcode, but I wasn’t

absolutely certain.

195. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Request for a master plan. I think the Committee

noticed this earlier, that reference to it being a two way process. ‘The nominated

undertaker having regard to landscape proposals brought forward by the local planning

authority or authorities during the detailed development of the design of the railway’.

Mr. Miller, do you want to just comment on that? There’s been reference to a master

plan. What do you say about the need for that in the light of the approach that’s been

assured by the project in relation to joint working, if you will?

196. MR MILLER: Well, again, I think that the idea of forming a Colne Valley Panel,

bringing together those relevant authorities, statutory authorities, with us, is a superior

way of working. It enables appropriate collaboration. It affords the opportunity of

something along the lines of discussing mitigation and restoration schemes and we’ve

talked about design. So, what this was about, was actually getting those relevant people

30

together, to talk about that location. That’s its purpose. So, you don’t need a master

plan to have that conversation. You have that conversation through the panel. You

work out what your aims and objectives are. And we’ve heard a little bit about that

today. And you do your best to try and meet those aims and objectives.

197. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’re not looking to prevent the local authorities, if

they want to use their own planning powers to bring forward some supplementary

planning documentation, responding to HS2, but, we don’t see that as necessary for the

purposes of delivering a properly responsive projects through this area?

198. MR MILLER: No, we don’t see it as necessary because that can be dealt with

through the Panel. But, if the local authorities wanted to put something together

themselves and formalise that perhaps in a way that that might modify local plans, then,

clearly, that’s in their jurisdiction. And I know that local authorities along the line of

the route have been thinking about those sorts of things in light of the landscape design

response, for example.

199. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then, finally—

200. CHAIR: In effect, if the Panel were meeting, and everybody in the Panel said,

we’d like a master plan, then effectively, it would happen.

201. MR MILLER: The Panel would be the master plan essentially.

202. CHAIR: Oh, right. Yes.

203. MR MILLER: If we’re all talking about the same thing, at that moment in time.

And so what would be recorded and what would be taken into account with designs and

your plans for the landscaping and mitigation, aspirations for restoration and that sort of

thing, and we talked about restoration on the west side of the Colne Valley a month or

so back. So, all of those sorts of things could come to a head through that Panel. And

that seems to me to be the right forum for making that work. We don’t need to have a

master plan for that and glossy documents. What you need to do is to get to grips with

the real issues and make some decisions about it. And that Panel will inform that

approach.

204. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. And then the two other approaches here,

31

dealing with firstly with landscape principles and a reference to a landscape design

approach document. And then, as we touched on briefly earlier, the reference to a

collaboration in relation to taking forward restoration schemes. And just wanted the

Committee to see some of the emerging project material in relation to that. If we turn to

P6166(1)? Tell us what this document is?

205. MR MILLER: What this is about is a further elaboration of our approach to the

response that we’ve kind of set out in terms of, in environmental assessment terms, as

mitigation and compensation. And we are taking a route approach with this. We need

to think about what is the message that we want to give our contractors and others, to

say how we will go about the business of landscaping, in this particular instance. And

we’ve been working in the background on this landscape approach document. As the

word draft says, it’s a draft. And what we’re trying to do is think about what is the

response along the line of the route. And broadly what that means is a response to the

landscape design which is proportionate to the sensitivities of each location along the

line of the route and I think we’ve seen a little bit of that on the line of the route. Up at

Wormleighton, we know that that’s an attractive landscape and that will have to be

treated in a certain way. Up at Hints, we’ve looked at that landscape. And that will be

treated in a certain way. And we’ve had this discussion all the way along the route. So,

here is no different. And through the Colne Valley, we will be thinking about the

landscape design and all of the design elements which need to be accounted for through

the Colne Valley. What this document will do is help bring all of these elements

together, that designers then can take up. They can think about all the objectives and

aims that are discussed through the Panel. Take all of that into account, having had that

level of discussion, and then be able to respond in the detail.

206. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And if we just switch through to page 18 of this series if

we can? P6166(18)? I draw your attention to this page because it sets out the method in

this emerging document. And it’s a familiar, it’s quite a familiar approach to designing

a major schemes such as this into the landscape in which it’s going to sit, so that its

properly responsive to the character and appearance of that landscape. We see the stage

of the approach. Is that, putting it colloquially, standard stuff?

207. MR MILLER: It is. And this document has, I suppose in a way, been a bit of a

pilot for the pool of design panel members that we expect to bring to bear for these sorts

32

of documents and approaches. And so, Kathryn Moore, who I mentioned earlier, was

looking at thus document, amongst a number of notable landscape architects also

mentioned in this document, working alongside our internal team to think about what

the approach to the landscape design is all about. And Sadie Morgan was an observer in

taking this process and practice forward.

208. You are right, this is fairly standard practice. And talking about national

character areas for landscape and that is something that Natural England have been

promoting and there is recognised practice behind that. And then that practice

encourages local planning authorities to produce local landscape character areas, and

that’s done in consultation with a wide range of people. And in fact through the

Chilterns area, probably about four, maybe even five years ago now, Bucks County

Council looked very carefully at bringing forward the landscape character areas,

alongside the line of the HS2 route, as it was published at the time. So, in Bucks, there

are a number of landscape character areas which already help us with clues as to the

sensitivity of the location, matters like the setting, and that sort of thing, that was talked

about little earlier on, about listed buildings. What the ecology is all about, and how

this changes, even through Bucks. And we know that Colne Valley is one type of

landscape. It sits alongside the area of outstanding natural beauty, which is different to

the Aylesbury Vale. It’s different. And these various landscape character areas will

help inform the design and ultimately our response to the landscape.

209. And what I’ve talked about in past sessions is about how the railway will

ultimately fit into the grain of the landscape. Well, this is it. This is the way it will be

carried out. And that means that we are responding to the way that local people have

been consulted upon and how their area works for them. We play into that. And I think

that will mean that we’ve got the makings of a successful integrated design for this

railway.

210. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Then, just one more document to look at briefly. That

was P6168(1). This takes forward some material that the Committee were shown briefly

before the election in relation to the old shire country parks initiative. Just tell us what

this is, Mr Miller?

211. MR MILLER: Yes, again, what we’ve been thinking about is how can we convey

33

what an exemplar might look like for the mitigation. I don’t particularly like the word

mitigation. But, actually, integration or restoration plan. What might the outcome look

like? And this is a piece internally that we’re thinking about. It is in draft. But it’s a

think piece really. What would it include? And by way of illustration here, you can see

all the elements that we might consider in the Colne Valley. We might not have got all

of that right. But, that’s something that could be teased out with the Panel that’s

proposed. And if you want to scroll through.

212. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve just alighted on this page because you’ll see that by

way of introduction, it says, as you’ve just indicated, that it provides illustrative

information about mitigation and restoration of the proposed scheme as set out in the

environmental statement as it passes through the Colne Valley regional parks. Then it

goes on to say in this specific sentence: ‘The document is in draft to encourage

discussions with local authorities and other relevant stakeholders’. And you’ll see the

list of sites and areas that it encompasses. Those are the areas which are subject to

construction within the bill limits and is looking forward to the process of developing

restoration schemes for those areas after use, if you will, looking forward to the

Schedule 16, paragraph 12 process that Sir Peter asked me about at the beginning of the

hearing. So, it’s beginning to fill in some of the details, in terms of process.

213. MR MILLER: Yes. What we’re attempting to do is to give the construction and

final look of the scheme some shape, some substance, of what might actually happen,

and what it might look like. It might look entirely different from this. That’s up to

others to think about. But, it’s an idea. I don’t know if there are other pages we can

flip through just to?

214. MR MOULD QC (DfT): My final question was this. You’ve heard from Mr

Straker’s ecological witness, a theme that we’ve heard from other petitioners, that is

advocating the case for some form of biodiversity offsetting to be brought to bear on a

local basis in the context of HS2. Can you just help me? If that were done, would it, in

your view, would it actually help to secure the outcome that the petitioners want, which

is to see a more transparent balance between the impact of the scheme and the

remediation of those impacts on wildlife considerations? Or might it have the contrary

effect? Do you want to comment on that?

34

215. MR MILLER: What we’re going to do and I’ve given evidence on this before, is

we’ve been thinking about the environmental effect that the railway has and the

environmental statement then points to the most appropriate response. And in my

evidence, to date, and particularly with Warwickshire, what I’ve said is that our

approach is to respond to the effect where the effect occurs. That’s beneficial because it

helps those species which are affected and those habitats are affected and we try and

support those with the railway proposals. That approach benefits from the bill that we

put together. There is a range of plans and the limits of those plans all clearly set out

that there is land acquisition to ensure that those mitigations and compensation measures

come forward in the right way to address the effect.

216. Yes, you could look at offsetting. I think in a couple of locations we have

returned to that, further up north, where agricultural land has been affected. We

thought, can we think again, a little bit. But, that offset is not too far away. It’s within

proximity of the railway. There’s a danger that if you go to an offset, that the offset

then takes away the benefit of the response to the natural environment from the locality.

It’s all too easy then to say, well, we can offset that, pay that off, 5 miles down the road,

10 miles down the road. I’m not sure that’s precisely what people are saying here but

there is a risk that is detracts locally. As you mentioned before, the offsetting, it’s all

still in a pilot form, at the moment. It’s not without those hazards. And I think that

certainly a number of NGOs have put forward those views in terms of the pilots, which

Defra and Natural England have been operating. So, what I would say is that the bill

offers the opportunity to bring the land forward, provide the mitigation in the right way,

that secures it, and that affords the right protection for the natural environment.

217. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you.

218. CHAIR: Mr Straker?

219. MR STRAKER QC: Thank you very much. Could we look, please Mr Miller,

first, at the document dealing with procurements, 6143(2), P6143(2), which is within the

letter of 1 June, 2015? And there we see, don’t we, that on 6143(2), there’s a passage

within the letter, under the heading ‘Competitive procurement and assuring quality of

design’ and reference to the points raised by the Council. You’ve got that?

220. MR MILLER: Yes. Sorry, which paragraph are you pointing to?

35

221. MR STRAKER QC: Well, it’s not numbered, the paragraph but it’s on P6143(2).


223. MR STRAKER QC: And the middle of the page has got a heading.

224. MR MILLER: Yes, got that.

225. MR STRAKER QC: Yes? And the heading describes the competitive

procurement, and it talks through the competitive procurement exercise including

within that exercise a design panel having a role in scrutinising, bottom of page

6143(2), over the page to 6143(3), having a role in the procurement of the contracts.


227. MR STRAKER QC: And it contemplates the programme, doesn’t it, as part of the

procurement process, 6143(2), that what you would do is have certain stages, pre-

qualifying questionnaire stage, invitation to tender, and tender evaluation?


229. MR STRAKER QC: And so, what is going out and what is contemplated as

going out is an invitation to various people which may be a broad invitation, saying,

please, provide, under those procurement regulations, your offer to undertake a

particular proposed contract?


231. MR STRAKER QC: And the particular proposed contract would be a contract to

build a stretch of the railway?


233. MR STRAKER QC: And that stretch of the railway to be built, if one’s

concerned with hereabouts, the Colne Valley, would include that length of the viaduct?


235. MR STRAKER QC: And precisely what the overage would be in terms of beyond

36

the length of the viaduct has yet to be determined?

236. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right.

237. MR STRAKER QC: And the exercise in determination of who gets the contract

to build would result from a consideration of a number of factors including the cost

which was put forward by the proposed tenderer?

238. MR MILLER: Yes. It has to be a commercially aware.


240. MR MILLER: That’s why you tender.

241. CHAIR: Can I ask, will design be separate from the construction company? Or

will somebody design and build?

242. MR MILLER: The way it’s envisaged is, it’s kind of like a design and build. And

there’ll be various stages of what we call early contractually involvement. There’ll be

some design element to that and then there’ll be some construction element to that,

before you get to the point of finally agreeing the price and setting the contract run.

243. CHAIR: Okay. Sorry to interrupt.

244. MR STRAKER QC: Not at all. Because to follow on from the chairman’s

question, if one looks at P6143(3), which is within the same part of this letter, it’s made

perfectly plain, to this end it is anticipated, it’s expected, that the design panel will

consider the design specifications and design within the procurement process.


246. MR STRAKER QC: So, this is, as you indicated to the chairman, what is

effectively a design build procurement exercise?


248. MR STRAKER QC: And within that exercise, in terms of the procurement

process, there will be a marking exercise, won’t there?

37

249. MR MILLER: There will.

250. MR STRAKER QC: And that marking exercise will assign a value to cost and a

value to other considerations,


252. MR STRAKER QC: One of which will be design?

253. MR MILLER: It will.

254. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. And so that will be different from, won’t it, starting

from an exercise which says, please, can we have a design for a viaduct to see what it

looks like?

255. MR MILLER: Ah, that is different, yes.

256. MR STRAKER QC: And the exercise of simply seeking what’s the best design,

what’s the competitive result of the best design for a viaduct may well be different

because it will be scored, won’t it, in a different way from any procurement process?

257. MR MILLER: Well, you’re inferring that design, in the procurement process, is

somewhat inferior to what you’d get from a design competition. I don’t think you could

infer that.

258. MR STRAKER QC: I’m asking that the question is that the design of the viaduct,

if one’s simply seeking: ‘please, tell me what’s the best design you can come in with for

this viaduct?’ is going to be a different question and a different answer, potentially, from

a design and build procurement process.

259. MR MILLER: I don’t agree with that because you could ask that question in the

design and build process. Sorry. You could look at that question, and think about how

you weight your approach to the design and procurement. And if you look at the

example on the Olympics, where good practice has come out, balanced scorecards and

that sort of thing, in procurement, you may well see that, and encourage better design

through this audit process.

260. MR STRAKER QC: That’s going to envisage, isn’t it, a weighting in terms of

38

away from cost and in favour of design?

261. MR MILLER: Yes. But, you also infer that design, you only get good design

because you put money into it. That’s not true either.

262. MR STRAKER QC: Has this Committee had any evidence from HS2 as to how

that weighting in the procurement process is to be undertaken?

263. MR MILLER: No. That’s right.

264. MR STRAKER QC: And so we don’t know at the moment, as to whether the

weighting in terms of cost is going to be 75%, with 25% to design, or the other way

around?

265. MR MILLER: You don’t know that.

266. MR STRAKER QC: All we know at the moment is that the design of this viaduct,

the longest in England, is going to be dependent upon the views of the successful

tenderer, who wishes to build the railway including this stretch? That’s right, isn’t it?

267. MR MILLER: I think you’re right.

268. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. Thank you. Okay. Well, I’ll leave that matter there,

please. And can I then ask you some questions about 6171(7)? Now, you were asked

questions about 6171(7) in particular, two thirds of the way down the page, the

prospective assurance given in relation to a request for a master plan. And, as far as that

is concerned, this particular matter has yet to be agreed with, hasn’t it, with the

Councils that I represent?

269. MR MILLER: Sorry?

270. MR STRAKER QC: This particular matter, where you’re setting out at 1., under

the heading: ‘Request for a master plan’ has yet to be agreed with the councils that I

represent?

271. MR MILLER: Yes. I don’t believe you’ve agreed to that assurance. No.

272. MR STRAKER QC: And the Councils that I represent have indicated, haven’t

they, that they support the Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company’s request

39

for a Colne Valley master plan?

273. MR MILLER: I believe that’s right. Yes.

274. MR STRAKER QC: And they of course come immediately after us as far as this

Committee is concerned. Just if we go to the text of what you are suggesting, 1717, you

are suggesting, aren’t you, that there ought to be a matter of obligation in terms of

consideration of landscape proposals prior to the final development of the design?

275. MR MILLER: Sorry?

276. MR STRAKER QC: ‘As a matter of obligation, the Secretary of State will

require to have regard to landscape before design’.

277. MR MILLER: Yes. Sorry. Yes, you’re right.

278. MR STRAKER QC: Yes?


280. MR STRAKER QC: And so, you are saying to the Committee that the position is

one whereby there ought to be early steps taken in respect to landscape proposals?


282. MR STRAKER QC: And that those early steps taken in connection with

landscape proposals ought to be done on a basis which is done jointly?

283. MR MILLER: Yes. I’ve just described how we’d do that.

284. MR STRAKER QC: Exactly so. And that that could produce, you say, a

document such as the one which you indicated had come forward in draft, which is at

P6168(1)?

285. MR MILLER: That’s right.

286. MR STRAKER QC: Yes? And you envisage that document as being the product

of a variety of, I’ll call them stakeholders?


40

288. MR STRAKER QC: Yes? And you envisage that document as coming forward

and touching upon all the matters that bear upon the landscape of the Colne Valley

affected by the railway prior to design?

289. MR MILLER: Yes. In the way that the railway comes about, yes. Yes, that’s

right.

290. MR STRAKER QC: And you would object to that document at 6168(1) if it came

to bear the label master plan?

291. MR MILLER: Ah, well, maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. Because I

think what you’re saying is a broader master plan for the Colne Valley. I’m talking

about a restoration plan within the auspices of the bill and the limits and what that

means by way of the environmental effect. So, if we’re not a million miles away, then, I

don’t know. I don’t think we are million miles away.

292. MR STRAKER QC: I’m sure we’re not million miles away, because I’m sure it’s

the position, isn’t it, where HS2 would readily accept that it makes sense in considering

the landscape proposals within the bill limits to have regard to what happens outside the

bill limits because it may be affected by those matters?

293. MR MILLER: Yes. And what we’ve said is that we bring that forward as part of

the Colne Valley Panel.

294. MR STRAKER QC: And as far as the payment of the exercise is concerned to be

undertaken is that a matter which is going to be funded by HS2?

295. MR MILLER: I’m not sure of the answers to that, actually. I’m sorry. Have to

follow up.

296. MR STRAKER QC: Yes. And the joint working of the others involved with it.

Is that right, Mr Miller?

297. MR MILLER: I’m sorry, I’m not sure that we’ve indicated that.

298. MR STRAKER QC: No, you certainly haven’t indicated that in that letter which

is why I was prompted to ask it.

41

299. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, is this, you asked a question to which the

answer is number 6? Or are you asking some different question?

300. MR STRAKER QC: It’s a different question. It’s referable to the works which

we’ve just been discussing, under that heading, ‘Request for a master plan’. And leave

aside whether the outcome is called a master plan or not, my simple question is, who’s

paying for it?

301. MR MILLER: Well, I don’t think we are. I think, as you say, we looked at the

Colne Valley Panel, and we’ve been quite clear about how we’d manage that and where

those costs would go to.

302. MR STRAKER QC: And the exercise arises, doesn’t it, because of the arrival of

the railway and not otherwise?

303. MR MILLER: The Colne Valley Panel does, yes.


305. MR MILLER: As we’ve offered, yes. That’s right.

306. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I come in here? The document that we were shown

a minute ago, the restoration document, that’s an HS2 document. And the production of

that document will be funded by the project.

307. MR MILLER: Yes. That’s a product of our work.

308. MR STRAKER QC: I don’t take the matter further, in terms of questions. Can I

just then, finally, please, ask you some questions referable to 1056(30)? And this

touches upon the point which was canvassed with you by my learned friend referable to

offsetting. And as far as 30 is concerned, we see there an approximation of, on the one

hand, that which can be said to be either lost or affected, but not – no to the point about

standing water and that which is gained. Yes?

309. MR MILLER: Yes. These are our facts here. This is what your interpretation is

though.

310. MR STRAKER QC: They are all your figures, ultimately.

42

311. MR MILLER: Right.

312. MR STRAKER QC: And the position there is, we see, subject to, there are some

questions which arise, a deficiency in the order of 2 to 1.

313. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, we don’t.

314. MR MILLER: Sorry, that’s what you say. I don’t agree that there’s standing

water.

315. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I know this is a long day, but, you will recall,

perhaps you weren’t here, when we decided that putting some piers in didn’t destroy the

water around the piers.

316. MR STRAKER QC: No, no. I certainly was here, sir. And I said in my question,

subject to some deficiencies in the numbers.

317. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, that’s 21 of the—

318. MR STRAKER QC: Well, there’s still obviously an impact there.

319. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s about 80% of what we were talking about.

320. MR STRAKER QC: There’s still an impact. So, I’m interested to know, as far as

you’re exercise is concerned in saying that we will not be interested in producing the

metric which is being spoken to by my witness, you contemplate that provision can be

made anywhere in terms of no net loss as far as the railway is concerned. Is that what

you’re saying?

321. MR MILLER: No. What we’ve said is that the way that we’ve looked at

biodiversity as a whole, across the line of the route, is that our approach to no net loss is

a whole route consideration. There are areas along the line of the route where we won’t

be able to make an appropriate response. There are areas along the line of the route

where other petitioners have a view, and that is modifying what the railway in

mitigation actually looks like. And, so, what we said is that we would return to the

calculation at the end of the process, once we had a better idea of what the route looked

like and what the no net loss aspiration, our aspiration, how the route was going to

perform, at that point in time. And that’s the stage one of the process. So, we haven’t

43

said that there is a no net loss in any one particular location or area.

322. MR STRAKER QC: And this could lead, couldn’t it, as far as the Colne Valley is

concerned to an imbalance between that which is lost and that which is put back by way

of the gain?

323. MR MILLER: It could, and that’s what we brought forward in the environmental

assessment. And that’s the sort of thing that’s got to be decided through this

Committee, sorry, considered and then decided.

324. MR STRAKER QC: Very well. I can leave matters there. Thank you very

much, sir.

325. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould, any other questions?

326. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, thank you, sir.

327. CHAIR: Any final comments Mr Straker?

328. MR STRAKER QC: The only final comment I would make is that if you’ll go

back to that note which I put at the beginning, I do want those four things in the

forefront of the Committee’s mind: Importance of the characteristics of the Colne

Valley, absence of a tunnel, we’ve got this very long viaduct, and we can see how that

can be dealt with, and it could be dealt with by an international competition; we’ve got

this problem over mitigation; and we’ve dealt with the M25, or appear to have dealt

with the M25. So, we have those matters still for thought and consideration, upon

which we respectfully request the assistance of this Committee, probably simply in a

way to prompt HS2 just to go that little bit further than they’ve hitherto gone with us.

329. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Straker. Thank you very much for

your contribution today. We now move on to the next petitioner, which is the Colne

Valley Park Community Interest Company.

Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company

330. CHAIR: I know you’ve sat through most of the proceedings today. Are you still

in good humour? And we covered some of the area which no doubt you’re going to

cover, which means, you’re, I hope, going to be punchy and to the point at the end of

44

the day.

331. MR SKEHENS: Thank you, sir. If I could have slide 1062(1), please? Petition

by Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company. I’ll introduce myself. Richard

Skehens. I’m the chair of the Colne Valley Park CIC. And I’m supported by Mike

Nigh, who’s sitting behind me. And also speaking will be Stewart Pomeroy and Robin

Jones. If I can have the next slide, please? Thank you. I have asked my colleagues to

try not to cover ground that’s already been covered today because I do appreciate the

Select Committee must be getting slightly weary of the same information coming

forward. But, before I continue, I’d like to say that we represent about 10,000 people

through the CIC. And, as you can imagine, the majority of our members aren’t

desperately keen on HS2. However, we acknowledge that this is a national

infrastructure project and as such we’d like to take a pragmatic approach to it and we

hope that this approach can achieve the best outcomes for HS2 and our members, whilst

trying to protect this very fragile and important part of the Colne Valley Park.

332. CHAIR: May I ask? Are they shareholders or, how does it work?

333. MR SKEHENS: No. The Community Interest Company doesn’t have any

shareholders. It’s just a company formed by the community. I’ll go on to a little detail

about it in a moment.

334. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It does good without gain for individuals.

335. MR SKEHENS: Absolutely. The next slide, please. We’ve talked about the

Colne Valley Park and what’s the significance of it. Very briefly, it was formed

50 years ago – it’s our anniversary this year; Stewart Pomeroy’s already touched on that

– and it was formed originally by local authorities. About four years ago, they decided

that in fact it was more practical that the company was formed to continue their good

work and that’s what happened. In the same year that the Colne Valley Park was

formed, the Lea Valley Park was also formed, but, unfortunately for us, they had the

benefit of an Act of Parliament and, as you know, they’ve gone from strength to

strength, hosting part of the Olympics, etc. We’re much more modest than that,

unfortunately.

336. If I could have the next slide. Whilst being modest, some of our achievements are

45

pretty good on a very, very small budget. We’ve 50km of new paths and five country

parks, and for every pound invested by our partners we get external funding to the tune

of £6, so we do very well in that respect. Through Mike Nye and the Friends of the

Colne Valley Park, there are over 3,300 volunteer days each year and we have over

2 million visitors to the park. It is quite an enterprise and it’s well loved by all the

members.

337. Obviously, the longstanding partnership is with the local authorities who founded

the concept of the park, and we currently have 65 members of the CIC, which is

growing – if I could have the next slide, please – partly thanks to HS2. That has

attracted a number of new members for us. This gives you a list of the members that we

have. We literally represent tens of thousands of people within the Colne Valley Park.

As such, we feel that we need to do the best we can for the park. In particular, the piece

of land that HS2 is going to go across is very fragile; it’s a very, very important part of

the park to its members, hence the reason that we’re here today.

338. If I could have slide 1061, please. When HS2 was first mentioned, I don’t think

there was much acknowledgement of the Colne Valley Park. Actually, is that 1061?

Yes, okay. Could I have slide 1061(2) to start with, please? Right. It’s not that one.

Right. Okay. Can we go back to 101, please? Oh. Yes, sorry. 1060(1), please. Right.

Thank you. I got there eventually. As you know and as you’ve heard today, a number

of our asks are also linked in to our local partners’ – the local authorities in particular –

but I’d like to point out number three: that the nominated undertaker is obliged to

investigate and pursue the alternatives to the sustainable placement of soil. This is quite

important to us and Robin Jones will comment on that going forward.

339. If I could have 1062, please. As well as the common asks, we also have a number

of petition elements that are specifically related to the Colne Valley CIC. I’m not going

to do any more than let you look at the slide. They will be brought up at a later date by

my colleagues. However, we do have support from a number of people, including a

number of Members of Parliament. If I could have 1061(1), please. This is a letter that

has been forwarded to you, Mr Chairman, and no doubt you’ve seen. If I could have

1061(2). These are four of the local MPs who have signed the letter and also made

specific requests within the letter.

46

340. I will pass across to my colleagues, but I’d like to come back at the end just to

sum up if I may. If I could pass across to Stewart at the moment.

341. MR POMEROY: Thank you. I already introduced myself when I appeared called

by South Bucks and to save time I won’t do that again. If I could have slide 1062(7),

please. Again, to save time, because I’m aware of what the time is, I’m not going to go

through each of these. You can see what the requests are. It’s basically about

supporting the asks of others relating to a tunnel; abandonment of the Heathrow spur to

avoid land blight; and the viaduct that you’ve just heard about.

342. If I could have the next slide, please. Now, this is about presenting the case for a

Colne Valley Plan. I must admit it feels like an odd position to be in at the moment,

presenting this case to the Select Committee after High Speed 2 have questioned it and

we’ve had lots of discussion about it, but I hope what I say will set that discussion that

we’ve just had in context. This case is presented on behalf of the Colne Valley Park

CIC and the local authorities that High Speed 2 cuts across in this part of the park, and

the next few slides are based on the document that you’ve already heard about – the

Land Use Consultants landscape – their approach to HS2 in Bucks and the Colne

Valley. I’m going to focus today on the request for a Colne Valley Plan. You’ll hear

more about the document when Buckinghamshire County Council appear later.

343. The map on this slide shows the construction areas, which will have a huge impact

across the northern third of the Colne Valley Regional Park, and these impacts in the

Colne Valley Park are amongst, as you’ve previously heard, some of the most severe

and long term along the entire route, therefore the landscape and its function must be

protected in the best possible way.

344. Can I have the next slide, please? Without going into detail, this slide outlines the

landscape character of the Colne Valley and provides a few photographs of that

character.

345. If we could move on to 1062(10), please. This outlines the landscape impact of

High Speed 2. High Speed 2 will result in loss of and damage to recreation facilities,

wildlife and productive farmland; severance and fragmentation of landscape; and loss of

countryside experience. There’s more detail down on the slide, but I won’t go through

that.

47

346. Could I have the next one, please? This shows the key landscape principles for

the Colne Valley and the call for the Colne Valley Plan. I’d like to provide a summary

of the asks, focusing on the issues and our solutions. The first one is that we believe the

environmental statement is generic and engineering-led, and doesn’t acknowledge or

respond to the impacts on the Colne Valley Park – it isn’t Colne Valley specific. Our

solution is that it should be landscape-led and relate to the Colne Valley Park, adopting

the landscape principles from that document that can then be developed into practical

proposals.

347. Our second issue is that the environmental statement takes a top-down approach.

Our solution is we request that it needs proactive involvement of local organisations and

input of local knowledge into shaping design of mitigation for the area.

348. A third issue is about timing. At the moment, it appears like it’s going to be quite

a reactive approach post Royal Assent, when the pressure will be on High Speed 2 to

commence construction, which will mitigate against achieving local support for

innovative and imaginative solutions. We’re requesting that we make a start on this

process and involvement of local input at the earliest possible opportunity, to give time

for these locally-led solutions to be considered prior to Royal Assent, and these local

solutions can then inform and help the detailed design post Royal Assent.

349. The fourth is about local proactive involvement and bringing in local knowledge.

We’d like the opportunity to work with High Speed 2 to bring forward detailed

proposals and mechanisms for implementation for land and property impacted by

construction on the final scheme, in line with the objectives of the Colne Valley Park for

that multifunctional land use. That will include detail on design, land use and ongoing

management of the land. We’re very much focusing on use of the land and ensuring

that land retains productive use, which is what it has at the moment.

350. The fifth is about resourcing, requesting that funding provided by High Speed 2

shall cover the costs of preparation of the Colne Valley Plan and the participation of

stakeholders in the steering group, which you’ve heard referred to as ‘the panel’.

351. If I can move on to the next slide, please, to talk about the area for the approach.

Our issue is that the environmental statement only mitigates and compensates in a very

tight area within the land required for construction, our point being the impacts of High

48

Speed 2 will be felt across the whole landscape and can only be addressed on a

landscape scale rather than by working solely within the geographical confines of the

land required as part of the Hybrid Bill. The map shows the proposed area for the Colne

Valley Plan, which includes, firstly, land within the HS2 Bill limits that will be required

during construction; secondly, land within the Colne Valley Park that provides the

setting for High Speed 2 and will be affected by High Speed 2; and thirdly, land within

the Colne Valley Park where mitigation for the effects of High Speed 2 can take place.

352. The area for that plan as defined on that map has been defined by mapping lots of

issues and impacts on the Colne Valley and I’ll just focus on one or two. The Colne

Valley Trail and the National Cycle Network – I’ve already talked about the tranquillity

of this route previously and the promoted routes that share it. That will be severely

impacted by High Speed 2. There are no realistic diversions for that route that can be

made that do not avoid crossing the HS2 line. Therefore, we feel the route and

connections to the north and south of this new intrusion across the landscape must be

enhanced. We have reference on that map to Colne Valley circular walks and other

public rights of way outside of the Bill area so that alternatives to the Old Shire Lane,

Chalfont Park and Grand Union Canal circular walks that will be directly impacted by

High Speed 2 can be provided. This will ensure residents of Denham, Harefield, Maple

Cross, etc. plus visitors to the Colne Valley Park from further afield still have access to

attractive countryside routes on their doorstep.

353. Wetland habitats you have heard about from Dr Thornhill. I am going to talk

more about woodland later on in this presentation. The key point is that the impacts on

wildlife, community facilities, farmland and countryside attractions for residents and

visitors within the Colne Valley Park must be mitigated and compensated for within the

Colne Valley Park.

354. If I could have the next slide, please. We feel the Colne Valley Plan can provide

solutions to some of the Colne Valley Park CIC’s petitioning points. Strategy for

positive use of fragmented land. We’re concerned that land that currently has a viable

use, where that use has been made unviable because of High Speed 2, will decline in

future due to the unique pressures and challenges on land in this area in the rural-urban

fringe. It’s vital that land in the urban fringe retains a productive use – even more so

than in more rural areas. We request that High Speed 2 work with the Colne Valley

49

CIC, local authorities and other stakeholders to develop a strategy for positive use of

fragmented land, in line with the six objectives of the Colne Valley, to ensure that the

whole of sites that are partially within the construction boundary can be open for

mitigation and compensation.

355. With regard to mitigating the effects on biodiversity, I’ve mentioned Dr Thornhill;

he was quizzed on requesting more but not being specific on what ‘more’ is. We feel

the Colne Valley Plan can help all of us to bring forward proposals that are worked up,

costed and consented that can address some of those questions.

356. Moving on to compensation for loss of visitor sites and facilities, again, the

examples – HOAC, Denham Water Ski Club, Broadwater Lake, Savay Lake, the

fisheries, canal boating facilities – mitigation on these sites and others should be guided

by the landscape principles.

357. I’ll now, if I may, move on to some specific points and examples of what could be

achieved through this proposal, firstly relating to public rights of way, then looking at

woodland. Could I have the next slide, please? With regard to public rights of way, our

concerns are that the rights of way, Colne Valley circular walks and other promoted

routes will be unattractive for local users during construction and considerably less

attractive than they are now once the railway is operational. Secondly, the impact on

routes elsewhere in this part of the park – for instance, the far-reaching views across the

valley from the other sides. Our asks are for more practical diversions of the rights of

way and the request for alternative routes and viewpoints to be provided through

investment in upgrades of circular walks elsewhere in the north of the Colne Valley

Park. High Speed 2’s response in the PRD does not address our concerns. For example,

in paragraph 2 on page 20 of the PRD response, they state: ‘The shortest practical route

has normally been adopted’. We disagree with that, and I’ll come on to that on the next

slide.

358. With regard to our proposed solutions – if I could have the next slide, please – we

are going to focus on the permanent route diversions, as we feel that during construction

these paths will be so unattractive as to make them undesirable to visit. We’re therefore

looking at the park in the future. That’s based on the assumption that High Speed 2

accept our ask and are willing to work with us to ensure that the Colne Valley Park has a

50

future.

359. Our request for footpath diversions is to adopt two principles to make the paths

more attractive to users: firstly, to shorten the length of the permanent diversions; and,

secondly, to avoid stretches that run parallel to High Speed 2 or to associated

infrastructure, and that we should also take opportunities to enhance the connectivity of

the rights-of-way network in the Colne Valley.

360. This slide gives some examples of how those two principles can be adopted. If we

look in the top corner at CSP16 that’s labelled there, very simply, our request is that in

addition to the proposed diversion the existing route should be reopened post

construction. This will avoid walkers connecting between CSP16 and CSP44 and those

using the Chalfont Park Circular Walk having to double back on themselves along the

road there.

361. If we move on to Rickmansworth 04, we’ve presented the request depicted on the

map there to High Speed 2. The exact line shown has been rejected due to technical

issues that were not immediately apparent from looking at the environmental statement

map book; however, we would very much like to work with High Speed 2 and for High

Speed 2 to work with us to find a better solution than High Speed 2’s current proposed

diversion that adopts those two principles we’re putting forward.

362. Finally on this slide, Denham 3, in the bottom corner: we request a shorter

permanent diversion that’s entirely within HS2’s existing land take. In addition in

relation to this area, we support the ask of The Ramblers for a diversion of CSP43 west

of the M25 during construction.

363. If I could move on to the next slide, please. The map on this slide shows the area

from Denham Quarry to Brakespear Road South. Looking at U34, the environmental

statement appears to show the diversion along a site access road and adjacent to the

proposed Ickenham auto-transformer feeder station, which would, to understate slightly,

not be an attractive route. Our preferred option would be to follow the Newyears Green

Bourne, which would keep the route closer to its existing line and offer a much more

attractive experience to the user.

364. If I may just briefly outline three opportunities to enhance the connectivity of the

51

rights-of-way network. I’d like to point out all of these are entirely within the existing

HS2 land take. U31: we request an additional diversion around the north side of the

National Grid feeder station in addition to the proposed diversion round the south side.

This will reduce the route length for walkers arriving along the paths from the Colne

Valley Trail from South Harefield to the north. Then looking back at U34 – the red

dotted lines here on the map – there’s a requested extension of U34 across Harvil Road,

including a safe crossing point, through the habitat creation area that will be created

after the scheme, to link up with another footpath, U42, south of Braemar Farm. The

dotted line there is solely indicative; how we get from A to B can be discussed as part of

this Colne Valley Plan process. Finally with rights of way, we request a new path from

the same point at U34 on the new footway heading south on the proposed Harvil Road

diversion and the new bridge and then through, again, the habitat creation area that will

be created after construction to link up with U49 south-west of Brackenbury Farm.

Again, the same principles apply; that’s just an A-to-B line on the map and we’d be very

happy to work out the detail in the future.

365. I’ll only briefly mention temporary diversions. Only to say that we support the

asks of the London Borough of Hillingdon, who you’re going to hear next week, that

will be brought up as part of their petition relating to the temporary diversions of

footpaths in this and the wider part of the Colne Valley. I have written support for the

proposals that I’ve just described on the last two slides from Buckinghamshire County

Council, Hertfordshire County Council, the London Borough of Hillingdon and The

Ramblers.

366. If I may try to speed on, if I could move to the last slide in the section that I’ll be

presenting, which is 17, please. This is a focus on woodland. I’d like to talk about High

Speed 2’s proposed woodland planting, as identified in the environmental statement.

We believe that the landscape master plan approach we are providing can result in some

of this woodland planting being better located if we can work with High Speed 2 to

come up with that. I’ll give you two examples. The first is the Tilehouse Lane

woodland creation area, which is the area just about there, outlined in brown on the

map. We do support the proposals to link up the existing woodlands in this area by

woodland planting. However, the woodland planting on Mrs Dutfield’s land, tenanted

to Mr Sheriff, should be reduced to a smaller strip to ensure that the land is not

52

unnecessarily taken out of agricultural production. We’re already losing quite a lot of

agricultural land in the Colne Valley anyway. The size of the connecting strip between

Juniper Wood and Little Halings Wood to provide that connectivity should be based on

evidenced ecological advice, and we’re happy to have more discussions with the

landowners on that. Secondly – the map’s vanished on the screen in front of me, but the

Broadwater Lake tree planting area, which you previously heard about from the Herts

and Middlesex Wildlife Trust. We request that proposed woodland planting is removed

from the area of Broadwater Lake that the trust have been managing to reduce tree cover

shading the lake edge over the last few years.

367. Some of this woodland planting as proposed by High Speed 2 from the above sites

could be relocated to other sites within the Colne Valley Park that are already being lost

to agricultural use due to construction activity. Locations of appropriate sites can be

agreed as part of this Colne Valley Plan approach. This could include planting to

recreate historic woodland that has been lost since the first edition OS map. There are

some areas of woodland that have been lost since then that are within HS2’s existing

land take, which are indicated in the green-blue on the map. This, with the rights of

way, is an example of how the overview can create solutions if we have local input and

local involvement.

368. We’re also requesting a different approach to mitigation and compensation in the

Colne Valley through an endowment for surviving ancient woodland adjacent to the

route, to improve it for the benefit of people and wildlife. Northmoor Hill Wood and

Wyatts Covert, as outlined in blue on the map – you can see that. You’ll hear more

about this from my colleague Robin Jones as part of his evidence. I’d like to pass on to

Robin now, please.

369. MR JONES: Thank you to the Select Committee for indulging us in another take

on the Colne Valley. What Stewart has just done for you is just to clarify the issues for

which we’re looking for specific mitigation from HS2 in the Colne Valley. My take on

this is slightly different, in that I’m trying to advocate some pragmatic, practical but

nonetheless ambitious ways in which resilience could be built into the Colne Valley as

an environment, as an economy and where people live, for which we’re seeking some

specific remedies. I shall try to entice you with those.

53

370. Just briefly about that myself, like Stewart, I’m also employed by the

environmental charity Groundwork, acting as managing agents for the Colne Valley

Park. I personally have over 30 years’ experience of involvement with community-

based regeneration and conversation schemes, and that’s actually included being

co-author of the feasibility study into the countryside management scheme for High

Speed 1, commissioned by Union Railways some 20 years ago, so some familiar

territory. At that time, I was living in north Kent – I still am, in fact – close by where

the first high-speed rail line was built, and so I have personally experienced first-hand

the reality of how infrastructure projects of this kind impact on the environment and on

the lives of local communities in the firing line.

371. What are we asking for? We’re looking for a package of mitigation, as Stewart’s

outlined, but in addition to that we’re seeking investment into specific initiatives

designed to produce a better environmental and social outcome for Colne Valley and its

communities. Just to reiterate, it’s an ask not just of ourselves but also of our local

authority partners and, indeed, as you saw earlier, the local MPs whose constituencies

coincide with the Colne Valley Park.

372. In terms of the basis of our concern, this might sound a little repetitive but I think

one or two things need emphasis, because, by HS2’s own admission, the northern

section of the Colne Valley is going to be impacted more intensively and for longer

during the construction phase than any locality along the entire line outside of the

extremities in London and Birmingham. That’s a pretty key point. When you took

evidence from Damian Green MP last year, I think he very much highlighted the

particular pressures that will be experienced in localities during the years of

construction, and certainly we’d concur with that assessment, bearing in mind it’s the

full 10 years.

373. But as well as the physical impacts to the Colne Valley that already many

petitioners have described in detail to the Select Committee since the middle of March,

we’re equally concerned about the reputational damage the Colne Valley will inevitably

sustain as a consequence of High Speed 2 construction and the consequent impact on

businesses that serve the leisure and recreational needs and interests of local residents

and visitors alike. Furthermore, although the Colne Valley Park doesn’t enjoy the same

level of legal protection as designated national parks or areas of outstanding natural

54

beauty, we feel quite piqued, actually, about the rather dismissive way in which High

Speed 2 has been and continues to be dismissive about the Colne Valley. That has, I

have to say, improved of late, but we can’t get away from statements like about flooded

former gravel workings. They may be former flooded gravel workings, but I think such

a negative connotation wouldn’t be applied to maybe the flooded former peat workings

of the Norfolk Broads, for example.

374. This extends to the Colne Valley Park itself whose rationale and core support on

which its viability depends as a business is going to be severely threatened. Even if the

extended Northolt tunnel option due to be presented by Hillingdon to you next week

were to be adopted by HS2, the Colne Valley will still be dramatically impacted, as the

construction footprint around West Hyde, as illustrated on the slide – which I don’t

think you’ve got there, but is pretty familiar, I think, to you – and the need for

mitigation and compensation would therefore remain even with the tunnel option.

375. We believe that the provisions made for compensation in the Hybrid Bill are not

adequate or well aligned to address this type of impact, and that’s about enabling a

locality to adapt to change. The CIC believes that experience from other projects of this

type where solutions have been found elsewhere and where there’s been a willingness to

accommodate a greater degree of flexibility can provide a few bits of inspiration for

ourselves and HS2.

376. What has HS2’s response been so far? Well, this will be quite familiar.

Obviously, last autumn, the Government announced its intention to make available two

linked funds – a community and environment fund and a business and local economy

fund – to offset community impacts as a consequence of the railway being built. Taken

together, these funds as announced total £30 million, albeit that the proportion of that

total that will be dedicated to each of those two strands is as yet unspecified, and it is to

be made available through a process which is yet to be confirmed. HS2’s response to

the CIC via their PRD and recent meetings predictably made reference to these funds as

providing the answers to our grievance. The CIC, along with many other local

authorities, conservation bodies and community organisation, believe that this level of

resource and the criteria currently being applied to them will in practice be wholly

inadequate to meet the legitimate aspirations of communities along the 230km of the

route.

55

377. We’re very conscious that Buckinghamshire County Council are leading on this

topic as a route-wide issue and therefore will be presenting to the Select Committee in

due course, but, without stealing their thunder, the CIC would wish to highlight the

potential consequences for the Colne Valley if the proposals for the CEF and the BLEF

remain unchanged, and to contrast what has been achieved elsewhere with different

thinking.

378. When only £2 million was made available to fund High Speed 1’s Rail Link

Countryside Initiative some 15 years ago – incidentally, the bottom-up, demand-led

feasibility study, of which I was a part, had revealed an aspiration for projects totalling

10 times that value – an immediate consequence was that the locations in tunnel on High

Speed 1 were not eligible to apply for this available funding because it was so limited.

The local authorities from London to Birmingham engaged in this process have already

made it quite clear that an equivalent approach to rationing is not going to be tolerated

this time around.

379. Making an assumption that the CEF and the BLEF combined are applied pro rata

to High Speed 2, the value that would stick to the small number of kilometres in the

Colne Valley would be the equivalent of a fairly derisory £35,000 to £50,000 per annum

over the anticipated 10-year life of the funds. Such a level of resource could in no way

compensate for the intensity and the breadth of the impacts that are proposed. Just by

contrast, the Hillingdon Community Trust was not so long ago endowed with £1 million

per annum over 15 years by Heathrow to compensate for the local impacts just from the

building of Terminal 5.

380. What are our proposed solutions? We’re very mindful, having said all that, that

the pressure on public finance very much remains and that there’s obviously a natural

reluctance by HS2 and the Select Committee to support demands that could lead to an

increase in the overall costs of the project. That’s entirely understandable. In seeking a

remedy for the Colne Valley, we’ve sought to relate our demands to existing provisions

or activities that HS2 can control or influence and to achieve value for money on any

additional investment that would perhaps be made available.

381. The minimum that the CIC would expect to receive as an assurance would be a

dedicated or ring-fenced allocation to the Colne Valley Park from the CEF and BLEF

56

funds. The current proposals, which are now back to December 2014, made by

consultants employed by HS2 called NPC, include a ‘strategic project’ category, which

is about delivering strategic outcomes for multiple communities, with a value of

£150,000 to £1 million. The top end of this scale would be required to make a

difference in the Colne Valley, given the level and duration of blight that will have to be

endured there, invested in activities that I will just outline briefly for you now. But the

CIC are requesting, actually, a higher level of provision for community and

environmental compensation, in the same way that Union Railways committed

£750,000 over five years to the Cobham and National Bank special landscape area for

conservation and landscape enhancement over and above the £2 million set aside for the

High Speed 1 Rail Link Countryside Initiative, in recognition of its significance and

level of local impact. That was proposed over and above the original Hybrid Bill for

HS1, and that’s what happened there. Now, it’s interesting, obviously, with inflation

that that figure would be worth about £1.2 million today.

382. Such an ask obviously needs to be placed in context. It’s very well talking about

large sums of money. HS2’s reference route budget for mitigation works and planting

in the Colne Valley – or at least the CFA7 part of the Colne Valley – alone we believe to

be some £23 million. That’s a figure that was obtained by London Borough of

Hillingdon via a Freedom of Information request that they made last year. So, just to

briefly run through the kinds of activities that we would seek to undertake through a

dedicated funding package and benefits that might be derived from a similar scheme.

383. Firstly, about investment in recreational routes and infrastructure. Stewart has

already outlined about a better approach to getting outcomes for public rights of way,

but the construction and management of High Speed 2 is also going to have a profound

impact on the attractiveness and usability of many other non-statutory recreational

routes – footpaths, cycle routes and bridleways – in this part of the Colne Valley. These

are the kinds of facilities that visitors expect to find in the park and, indeed, for many

it’s the reason why they choose to visit in the first place. Of course, leisure interests,

including the Denham Country Park visitors’ centre, which the CIC manages, shops,

pubs and cafes, etc., are clearly going to be impacted as a by-product of that. There are

at least 10 recreational routes, including very popular circular walks promoted by the

CIC, the Grand Union Canal towpath and the National Cycle Route, that will be affected

57

either temporarily or permanently, for which solutions and alternatives need to be found

and paid for right from the start of building works if visitors are not to be deterred – lost

for good. Our preliminary cost estimate is a figure of at least £100,000 for suitable

remedies, subject to detailed designs.

384. By their very nature, these kinds of solutions are to be found outside of HS2’s

development boundary and therefore deemed to be enhancements that others should pay

for, yet without the imposition of the new railway in the valley they would clearly not be

required. HS2’s own information paper E6, covering mitigation of significant effects on

public open space and community facilities, makes provision for compensation in these

circumstances, but they’re clearly not aimed at places on the scale of Colne Valley Park,

although, equally, maybe they ought to be.

385. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How many more pages have you got?

386. MR JONES: Literally just one or two, Peter. Sorry; I will try and be –

387. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Not for you, but for anybody else who presents:

don’t read out page after page. You lose us.

388. MR JONES: I appreciate that. I understand that.

389. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you circulate your words and then talk to them,

we’ll do better. We’ll keep going.

390. MR JONES: Thank you very much. I do take the point entirely, yes. The next

area is around investment solutions to land damaged or fragmented by construction

impacts. Again, Stewart has already outlined some of the solutions that can be

achieved. This is on slide 21. Again, the reason why I think a proactive approach to

looking at landscape not just as a visual entity but in terms of its land use is useful at this

time is because you could easily get, for example, uses that could help to bolster the

notion of the Colne Valley as a place to visit by having new facilities that are maybe

noisy that could go along next to HS2 which might not otherwise be there.

391. The next area is around the management of ancient woodland. Although it’s been

brought up as a general topic, the particular take here is the notion that rather than just

invest the environmental mitigation, which clearly HS2 have got the provision for, into

58

new planting and various other measures, we are advocating – and from recent meetings

with HS2 this has been, I think, responded to quite positively – that improving the

quality and the management of existing ancient woodland in proximity to the line should

be part of the mix. The CIC themselves actually own such ancient woodland

immediately adjacent to the line at Northmoor Hill Wood and Wyatts Covert, just

opposite the water ski club, and that would be a prime example of where one could carry

that out. We have done the plans and costings of that.

392. Just to reach the end quickly, also, in building that resilience, we’re advocating

things like a marketing post and an events programme – basically, things that can

practically make sure that the valley remains an attractive place to visit, particularly in

the first two or three years of construction, which is the time when people are most

likely to be turned off visiting it.

393. Another deviation is the idea to do with employment creation and skills

development. Clearly, HS2 have made a virtue of the employment creation and skills

development potential of building and operating the railway, and of course that’s very

much to be welcomed, but of course in devoting so much attention to the National

College for High Speed Rail, which is very remote from localities like the Colne Valley,

we and many others would advocate more of a kind of hub-and-spoke model for how

apprenticeships and work experience could be provided through the construction

programme. As a particular example, Groundwork as a charity, as you may know, are

very heavily involved in training for unemployed particularly young people – providing

apprenticeships and training, enabling them to get work – literally thousands of people a

year. The idea of green teams being able to undertake works on the back of the

enormous HS2 landscaping and maintenance contracts on the face of it is a no-brainer.

We know that clearly there are some provisions during the procurement process for

tenderers to take account of local providers, but on the face of it we think they’re overly

vague and are not necessarily going to deliver the kind of outcome that one could really

achieve with a bit of imagination.

394. The final point is a different thought, or take, on looking at sustainable placement.

Although we oppose the principle of sustainable placement of waste materials within the

Colne Valley Park – there will be three sites within Hillingdon of that type –

Buckinghamshire County Council are leading on it as a route-wide issue so we’re not

59

really talking about that principle. The particular issue that I wanted to finish up on is

the idea that where local use can be found for some of this surplus material – and we

have been investigating with industry experts S Walsh, who have been responsible for

creatively using a proportion of the arisings from Crossrail, for example, where they’ve

created nature reserves with the RSPB on a former landfill at Pitsea and also been using

it for great development sites. We’ve looked at a couple of sites locally in the Colne

Valley which have the potential for restoration – Langley and Slough – which could

even be accessed by a canal. We realise that it’s one thing saying ‘restore local sites’

but because of the impacts on the local road network of course they’ve got to be

practical and technically sound, which we fully appreciate.

395. The final point associated with that is any net revenue that can be derived from

schemes like this, which we’re willing to invest ourselves in in creating those solutions

– rather than just disappear back into HS2’s budget, can they actually stick to local

objectives? Indeed, it might be the way in which the kind of extra investment that I’ve

been advocating for the last few minutes could be paid for. Again, hopefully a sign that

we’re thinking about this whole thing in a very pragmatic and practical way. I will stop

there and our chair will now perhaps provide a few concluding remarks.

396. MR SKEHENS: Thank you. If I can have the next slide to highlight the issues.

Firstly, I’ve never really been involved in a community interest company before and I

think they’re a reasonably new concept. I’ve been absolutely delighted by the

enthusiasm of our members. They’re passionate about the area where they live and they

want to improve it. I’ve been quite humbled by them, actually, and the amount of work

the volunteers are prepared to do.

I want to point out we’re not anti HS2. We’re realists. We know it’s going to happen.

What we want to do is say: if it does happen, how can we mitigate the effects on the

Colne Valley Park? We’re hosting this infrastructure of national significance but there

doesn’t appear to be any great major local benefit. Mitigation obviously is important,

but it has to be the right mitigation and it has to be how and when it’s delivered as well.

We acknowledge there are constraints with a hybrid bill process and pressures the public

finances, but we do believe there is a better outcome – it is possible.

397. As a company, we’re trusted by our members, by our landowners and, as you will

60

have seen today, by the local authorities, and we believe that we have a role to play

almost as an honest broker. People believe us in the area. They know that we’re

looking after the Colne Valley Park, and I would hope that HS2 could work very closely

with us to try and mitigate the damage that, inevitably, is going to be caused by such a

project. We would be very happy to work with them in order to achieve the best

outcome that we can for the Colne Valley Park.

398. CHAIR: Thank you very much. We’ve had a canter over some of this earlier, and

I suspect we’ll back dealing with a lot of these issues again over the next few weeks, but

Mr Mould?

399. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and I very much have those thoughts in mind. It

was helpful indeed that Mr Skehens should have ended as he did, because he

emphasised that the Bill is but part of a process of developing the scheme for this

railway line, and the Bill, in part, sets out the framework in which the detail of

mitigating the railway not only through the Colne Valley but elsewhere – but

particularly through the Colne Valley – how that is going to be achieved, and everybody

is looking to do so to achieve the best results that can reasonably be achieved. Now, I

say ‘reasonably achieved’ because, as the petitioners have rightly acknowledged,

everything comes at a cost and the railway has to be delivered in an effective way,

which means it has to be cost-effective, but we all understand that and there’s no issue

about that.

400. What the project has sought to do in the discussions it’s been having not only with

this company but also with the local authorities from whom you’ve heard earlier – and

others, indeed – is to focus in recent weeks and days upon putting forward a coherent

process whereby the plans for mitigating the effects of the railway through the Colne

Valley both in terms of design, landscape treatment and so on, and indeed compensating

for those effects through the provisions of the bill, those are dealt with in a coherent and

collaborative way, as Mr Miller has described when he gave evidence to you earlier.

The Colne Valley Panel is intended to be the vehicle through which the powers in the

Bill and the procedures set up in the Bill can, indeed, deliver in an effective way, as this

company and others wish to see.

401. So, rather than go through again some of the detail of the assurances that we have

61

offered in relation to that, which are, themselves, in the process of actively being

discussed and negotiated between those who have appeared before you today, I simply

draw attention to one of the matters that’s been included in the letter that has gone today

both to the councils and also, indeed, to the company, which says that the Secretary of

State will require the initiation of the panel if more than four of the stakeholders agree to

its initiation. Amongst those whom are listed are the company and the councils you

have heard from today.

402. Now, clearly, the assurances need to be in a form that is acceptable to all parties

before the process can take effect, but I draw attention to that because the idea is that

this is a vehicle that, if parties agree to it, should start its work sooner rather than later.

It’s not intended that it should await Royal Assent for the Bill; it’s intended that it

should assist at an early stage in the development of the detail of the Bill as it passes

through the Colne Valley. If that is done, I would suggest and submit that, broadly

speaking, the matters that you’ve heard about just now that were canvassed by the

company would fall naturally within the ambit of the discussions that would take place,

with a view to delivering a set of proposals for approval under Schedule 16 to the Bill

with regard to cost and Bill powers and so forth, which we have to take into account – a

set of proposals that will be informed by the views of this company and will be

informed by the views of the councils as well. So, as I say, I think that’s as far as I want

to go now without repeating what Mr Miller said to you earlier.

403. CHAIR: On the issue of rights of way, there were some specific – I don’t want to

go into each individual right of way but I presume that, if the company and if the local

authorities broadly want to discuss this, and particularly within the Bill limit, that HS2

are happy to do that.

404. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Indeed, as was mentioned, we’ve already had some

discussions with the company about the specific proposals they have put forward. Some

of them are more limited than others, and the ones which are more ambitious do raise

the question that Sir Peter raised earlier regarding whether it’s better, on balance, to

leave the promotion of enhancements to public rights of way to the local authorities who

have powers for that purpose, rather than seek to extend a railway bill, if you like,

beyond its logical limits. And we have got some concerns –

62

405. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It was actually put the other way round: whether it

was better to use the Bill to get something through that the local authorities wanted, or

whether to leave it out. There are alternative ways –

406. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There is a balance to be struck, and certainly there are a

couple of those which are mentioned on the slides you’ve been shown. I’m not going to

take time going through it now. We’re concerned they perhaps go to the limit, or

beyond the limit, of what would one seek, but we, of course, are happy to discuss those

matters. The other thing, of course, is that, because public rights of way, obviously,

involve creating new rights over, often, private land, they are rather more technical in

terms of the way in which the Bill has to be adjusted to achieve them, and one is alive to

the risk of relatively minor matters delaying the passage of the Bill through the

parliamentary process. That’s why I mention the possibility that, if people want to

secure a wider enhancement, it may be better to deal with it through existing general

powers.

407. CHAIR: And the two funds which were discussed, clearly it’s still a little early

days in terms of how they would dispense their money in terms of upper line and…

408. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I think it is right to reiterate the point that the

Government and the promoter have made, which is that the delivery of the Bill through

the detailed design process will be funded by the promoter, and that will include the

preparation of designs through the collaborative work that the panel initiative is

designed to achieve. The corollary to that is that the fund is there to provide something

outside the Bill to fund meritorious proposals from the local communities along the

route, and we’ve given you some indication of how that’s – it is still, as we say, work in

progress. But it’s not presently intended that there should any wider funding beyond

those two elements. So, you’ve got the cost of delivering on the Bill, you’ve got the

business and community fund. We’re not proposing that there should be anything

beyond that which is by way of funding through the promotion of HS2.

409. CHAIR: We had the discussion earlier about the difficulty that we’ve got Bill

limits, and others want a master plan which exceeds the Bill limits. Clearly, there is

some public benefit beyond the Bill limits, and this is one area of the country where

there are millions of people that access this particular area, because it’s right next to

63

London and a heavy population area, so, clearly, I think the area would have quite a

high claim on additional moneys in order to improve what was there.

410. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But of course, one shouldn’t forget that, if the local

planning authority is prompted, perhaps, by the company, if they take the view that they

should devote some of their resources as a local planning authority to a wider planning

initiative in response to the railway, then that is something that is open to them under

their own planning powers. And obviously, the broader settlement of funding which

local planning authorities seek is, in principle, available for that purpose.

411. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think I recall, perhaps, that, in some other parts of

the line in other counties, there have been agreements that the promoters will do some

things to help fund a local authority or county doing something which is… the idea has

come up because of the existence of the railway. One of the impressive things about

today’s presentation – one of the many impressive things about today’s presentations –

is the concept of the local area hosting the railway and looking for things that can be

done which will meet the local needs as well as accepting the needs of the railway itself.

But this may not be the right time of day to go into it in any detail, and we can probably

expect, whatever the result, that the promoters and the Secretary of State would, for

example, over footpaths, think whether some initiative is worthwhile in trying to say,

“Can there be benefits to walkers as well as to passengers on the railway from the

railway going through so many of them?”

412. Now may not be the right time to look too closely at A1062/15, where there may

be a reason for the footpath designed by an engineer – so, it’s got three straight lines –

going further out. And the red line, for example, is, I think, 20-25% shorter than the

yellow line, and whatever way you want to get to a place across the railway, that…

That’s just a minor modification. The major issue I’m after is, on footpaths and similar

kinds of things, using Colne Valley as an illustrative example – perhaps one of the most

important ones – whether the promoters and the Secretary of State will reflect on some

of the points that have been made by the petitioners today or those representing them,

and other places, and see whether an initiative, whether within the Bill or around it,

would be possible and worthwhile.

413. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No doubt, but one sometimes feels that those things that

64

the promoter is already saying that he will do somehow get lost in the mix, and Mr

Miller showed you that very early draft of the restoration and mitigation plan. That

process will, I have no doubt at all, involve consideration, amongst other things, of the

fine-tuning of arrangements for public rights of way and so forth which are affected by

the Bill. And whilst this looks like it might have been drawn by an engineer – and I

can’t say whether it was or not – what I can say is that, whether the engineers like it or

not, they’re going to have sit down with the environmentalists and the others within the

company, as well as those who participate, we hope, in the Colne Valley Panel, to

balance the engineering needs of the railway, which are important, with the

environmental effects that it has.

414. If I can just finish with this, no one doubts – least of all the promoter – that, if we

are to maintain a surface route through the Colne Valley, which we know we say we

should, that it will involve very extensive construction works, and permanent impacts

will be of some substance. Therefore, we are very much alive to the need to focus

attention on a coherent response to that, and that is what some of the materials we have

shown you today are designed to take through.

415. CHAIR: Thank you. Very final comments.

416. MR SKEHENS: Yes. I think I must have missed the answer earlier on. I think, in

principle, we welcome the idea of the Colne Valley Panel, as long as its objectives are

similar to ours, obvious, but we can have an assurance that HS2 will fund it, please?

We’re a very poor company and we would like some funding allocated to it.

417. MR MOULD QC (DfT): An assurance has been put forward that the reasonable

administrative costs for the panel will be met by the nominated undertaker.

418. MR POMEROY: If I could come in there and say that I think that falls short of

what’s required here, because the key outcome from that panel is the ability… or the

principle would be that we can use local knowledge to bring some site-specific

proposals for the key locations that could be put forward that include landowner

consents, costings, funding opportunity and delivery mechanisms, and we need time to

work those up. I talked about some of the issues of alternative sites for woodland

planting or restoration plans, for instance, for the HOAC Lake or some of these footpath

proposals – the extensions of the footpaths – we just need the time and effort to bring

65

that up. When we have these bilateral meetings with High Speed 2, we have been

asked, “So, what do you need? Give us specific examples.’ As Richard said, a very

poor company. We simply do not have the resources to do that. We have the will, we

have the knowledge, we have the ability, we have the connections.

419. MR SKEHENS: We have made some suggestions and I think we’re awaiting a

response from HS2.

420. CHAIR: Thank you. You’ve raised an important issue and, clearly, the panel is a

starting point. They might well to commission you or others to do work, but I think

we’re finished tonight. You’ve made your case, you’ve made some important points,

and I think it gives us some further things to think about. Order, order. If you could

clear the room and give my Committee just to have five minutes’ before we disappear to

the dining room.

Documents

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE - UK Parliament · 2015-06-09 · 28. MR STRAKER QC: So you ask and answer that question. And then you show the answer diagrammatically at 1057(13). 29