EXHIBIT LIST - Parliament … · EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00535 Petitioner: James Darling Published to Collaboration Area: Thursday 01-Dec-2016 Page 1 of 27 No Exhibit Name

EXHIBIT LISTReference No: HOL/00535Petitioner: James DarlingPublished to Collaboration Area: Thursday 01-Dec-2016

Page 1 of 27

No Exhibit Name Page

1 P6023 Statement 1st Dec 2016 edit with appendices.pdf (P6023) 2 - 27

HOL/00535/0001

Petition no 535

Statement for hearing 1st December 2016

1. As the Committee will recall, the initial hearing of this Petition took place on 12th July 2016. The Petitioner’s case fell into three parts: (a) An objection based upon the impact of HS2 upon the development prospects of his land

at Stoneythorpe, and area of approximately 35 acres; (b) An objection based upon means chosen for the crossing within his land of the River

Itchen, which he submitted could be a short span bridge rather than a 90 metre viaduct; (c) An objection based upon the noise and vibration impact of the construction and

subsequent use of HS2 upon his residence, which is located just outside the Bill limits.

2. None of the above issues have been determined. The Promoter submitted and the Committee accepted that issues (a) and (b) could not be determined until the Promoter had reviewed the evidence produced by the Petitioner, including an opportunity to access the land for the purpose of such review. Regrettably, whilst the Promoter has had ample opportunity to review the evidence, and has done so, access has not occurred. For reasons which will be set out below, it will be submitted that this does not preclude the Committee determining the now more limited issues between the parties, though it will if necessary be the Petitioner’s case that discussions concerning access were not broken off by him. He apologises to the Committee for such responsibility as he may bear for the impasse which occurred.

3. In order to facilitate the resolution of this Petition, the parties have however discussed a number of possible assurances to be provided by the Promoter. The latest draft of the assurances offered by the Promoter is set out in the Appendix One to this statement, with an explanatory plan attached.

4. The following are the issues which at the time of writing have proved incapable of agreement, and on which the Petitioner therefore respectfully requests the Committee to express a view. The issues relate to the Petitioner’s suggested amendments to the list of assurances, as shown in Appendix Two.

5. The Committee will recall that under issue (b) above, the Petitioner explained that there would be several advantages in the public interest in favour of adopting the “bridge option”. These are described at paragraphs 77-90 of the transcript of the proceedings on 12th July (see Appendix Three). In addition, he adduced evidence in relation to the impact of the bridge option in terms of flood relief measures.

6. The Promoter has responded to this proposal – see pages 19-20 in his exhibits bundle. He is concerned that he has not had access to enable the flood modelling to be checked, and as to the implications for third parties.

7. The Petitioner puts forward a proposed assurance to address these concerns, which is contained in paragraph 5.1 of Appendix Two. It will be seen that the Petitioner seeks no more than an undertaking by the Promoter to continue to work on the bridge option,

P6023 (1) HOL/00535/0002

alongside the alternative shorter viaduct option, and acknowledges that it could proceed only subject to the proviso set out in the draft assurance. It is submitted that the potential advantages of the bridge option justify this assurance being provided, and in so doing the Promoter will be committed only to take reasonable steps towards this objective.

8. Referring now to paragraph 4 of Appendix Two, relating to the Pink Land, the Petitioner needs to retain this right of access for the purpose of progressing his own development. Invariably there may be a restriction or requirement by way of a planning condition imposed on the Petitioner’s planning permission to provide a programme of Ecological Mitigation Works over the Pink Land. The Committee will note, the absence of an assurance by the Promoter to provide such reasonable access would act as a bar on the Petitioner’s ability to meet the requirements of his planning permission. The Committee will further note the safeguards available to the Promoter over the Pink Land are found at paragraphs 4.2 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii), and granting the petitioner reasonable access does not interfere with these safeguards.

9. Finally, and in regard to noise/vibration impact, some modest adjustments are suggested to paragraph 6 of the assurances (see again Appendix Two), to ensure that appropriate levels are set for the Petitioner’s outdoor living spaces.

10. The Petitioner’s case as to these impacts is entirely consistent with undertakings already offered elsewhere by the Promoter, as shown in the notes attached at Appendix Four.

STEPHEN HOCKMAN QC

P6023 (2) HOL/00535/0003

Appendix 1

P6023 (3) HOL/00535/0004

1

Abigail Rushforth

From: Alison Love <[email protected]>Sent: 30 November 2016 16:16To: Paul ZannaCc: Lee Fisher; [email protected]; Abigail RushforthSubject: RE: Stoneythorpe - Assurance LetterAttachments: LON_LIB1-#15307235-v3-HS2_-_James_Darling_-_assurances_30_11_16.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Paul, Please find attached a draft update to the proposed assurances. Please be aware I am sending this on a without prejudice basis, as the assurances are still going through internal governance here, and are therefore still subject to change. These assurances, if offered, would supersede previous offered assurances. Kind Regards, Alison Alison Love | Petition Advisor, Country North | HS2 Ltd Tel: 020 7944 0785 | mobile‐077 8000 5622 | [email protected] | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd, 5th Floor, Desk 30, Sanctuary Buildings, 20 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT | www.gov.uk/hs2 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Paul Zanna [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 November 2016 15:57 To: Alison Love <[email protected]> Cc: Lee Fisher <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Abigail Rushforth <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Stoneythorpe ‐ Assurance Letter Hi Alison. I am not chasing but I am just wonder when we can expect to hear from you so I can update Christopher Clarke. Many thanks. Paul Zanna Sent from my iPad > On 30 Nov 2016, at 13:41, Alison Love <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Paul, > > Thanks for this. We hope to revert shortly. > > Regards,

P6023 (4) HOL/00535/0005

2

> Alison > > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Paul Zanna [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 30 November 2016 12:39 > To: Alison Love <[email protected]>; Lee Fisher > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Abigail Rushforth > <[email protected]> > Subject: Stoneythorpe ‐ Assurance Letter > > Dear Alison > > Thank you for arranging this meeting and the time spent by Lee and Clare. > > I appreciate there are a couple of matters which require the Promoters internal governance, but we seem to be very close to be able to agree the Assurances. > > I briefly highlight the main points below; > > 1 ‐Clare will rework the final draft Assurances looking to issue to us via Alison during the course of this afternoon. > > 2 ‐ para 1.2(b) I believe you appreciate the need to apply a timescale to this. We have highlighted 6months, but further talking to Michael Robson we could extend this to 12months. > > 3‐ Assurance 2 ‐ agreed > > 4 ‐ Assurance 3 ‐ agreed > > 5 ‐ Assurances 4 para 4.2(d) we agreed that this would be taken forward as a separate agreement, which subject to the Petitioner improving the land beyond the environmental works planned by the Promoter would be acceptable. > > 6 ‐ Assurance 5 ‐ the principle of what we are seeking is understood and Clare will address the point over the 15m wording. > > 7 ‐ Assurance 6 ‐ agreed subject to the Assurances 5 being retained as discussed. > > 8 ‐ Assurance 7 ‐ to be altered to the HS2 wording, including > reference to E21 & E22 > > I trust we can conclude this matter as discussed this afternoon and I will then discuss with our Client to report back to Mr Clarke at the HoL Committee. > > Thanks. Paul > > Sent from my iPad > > > Paul Zanna, Technical Director > Mayer Brown Limited > Zellig 313 > The Custard Factory > Birmingham > B9 4AU >

P6023 (5) HOL/00535/0006

3

> M: 07769 171 240 > > E: [email protected] > Visit our New Website www.mayerbrown.co.uk > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/MayerBrownLtd > LinkedIn: > https://www.linkedin.com/company/372787?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertic > al%3Acompany%2CclickedEntityId%3A372787%2Cidx%3A1‐1‐1%2CtarId%3A146427 > 6476045%2Ctas%3Amayer%20brown%20ltd > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mayerbrownltd/ > Google+: https://plus.google.com/116545962752385580859/about > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you. > IMPORTANT: This message is private and confidential. If you received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. > > Mayer Brown is a limited company registered in England. > Registered number: 3531997. Registered office: Lion House, Oriental > Road, Woking Surrey, GU22 8AR > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the intended recipients and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author ([email protected]) and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the company. > > > > > > > This email is scanned and cleared by Websense. HS2 Ltd is registered in England and Wales. Registration Number 06791686, Registered office High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd, 2 Snowhill, Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6GA, England. The information contained in this e‐mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are within the original email) immediately by reply e‐mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.

P6023 (6) HOL/00535/0007

lon_lib1\15307235\3 1 30 November 2016 shawcl

“In these assurances: “the Red Land” means the land edged red on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 6 and 9 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford‐on‐Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2‐98 and 2‐99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the Green Land” means the land edged green on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 3 and 6 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford‐on‐Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2‐98 and 2‐99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the nominated undertaker” means a person whose name appears in an order made under clause 44 of the Bill; “the Pink Land” means the land edged pink on the attached plan being part of the land in plot 100 in the Parish of Southam in the District of Stratford‐on‐Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet No. 2‐98 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the Promoter” means the Secretary of State for Transport or any successor of the Secretary of State or Minister holding the Transport portfolio and includes so far as relevant any nominated undertaker exercising the powers or functions under the Bill by virtue of an order under clause 44 of the Bill; “the Proposed Scheme” means Phase One of HS2; “the Blue Land” means the land edged blue on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 1 and 6 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford‐on‐Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2‐98 and 2‐99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “Work. No. 2/111” means the work identified as Work No. 2/111 comprising an viaduct over the River Itchen to be authorised by the Bill together with all necessary works and conveniences to be authorised to be constructed by the Promoter; 1. Ecological mitigation 1.1 The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill over the Blue Land for the purposes of providing ecological mitigation at that location (the “ecological mitigation”) subject to the satisfaction of the conditions in paragraph 1.2. 1.2 Paragraph 1.1 is subject to the following conditions: (a) the Promoter being satisfied that the ecological mitigation can be delivered at the alternative site without giving rise to any new or different significant environmental effects from those assessed in the Environmental Statement deposited accompanying with the Bill; (b) the Promoter securing any and all necessary consents for delivering the ecological mitigation at the alternative site within 9 months of Royal Assent; and

P6023 (7) HOL/00535/0008


(c) the Promoter being of the view that the ecological mitigation can be delivered at the alternative site without prejudicing the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 2. Temporary possession 2.1 Subject to paragraph 2.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Red Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Red Land. 2.2 The assurance in paragraph 2.1 is subject to the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Red Land or any part of it. 3. Ecological mitigation and temporary possession 3.1 Subject to paragraph 3.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Green Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Green Land.

3.2 The assurance in paragraph 3.1 is subject to: (a) the Petitioner entering into an agreement in a form satisfactory to the Promoter which:‐ (i) provides that the Green Land or any part of it need not be restored to its former condition following completion of construction activity on the land; (ii) restricts removal or interference with land or works adjoining the railway which are to provide support or protection to the railway; and (iii) provides for the maintenance of the environmental mitigation to be provided on or by that land; (b) the Promoter being satisfied that the Petitioner is an appropriate person, having regard to the nature and objectives of the mitigation required to be provided, to be responsible for securing the maintenance of that mitigation; and (c) the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Green Land or any part of it. 4. Flood storage land 4.1 Subject to paragraph 4.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Pink Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Pink Land. 4.2 The assurance in paragraph 4.1 is subject to: (a) the Petitioner entering into an agreement in a form satisfactory to the Promoter which:‐

P6023 (8) HOL/00535/0009


(i) provides that the Pink Land or any part of it need not be restored to its former condition following completion of construction activity on the land; (ii) restricts removal or interference with land or works adjoining the railway which are to provide support or protection to the railway; and (iii) provides for the maintenance of the environmental mitigation to be provided on or by that land; (b) the Promoter being satisfied that the Petitioner is an appropriate person, having regard to the nature and objectives of the mitigation required to be provided, to be responsible for securing the maintenance of that mitigation; and (c) the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable to the Petitioner in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Pink Land or any part of it.” 5. Viaduct length 5.1 The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to continue to engage with the Petitioner in the 12 months following Royal Assent in order to explore opportunities to reduce the length of the River Itchen Viaduct provided that the Promoter is satisfied that doing so would not prejudice the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 5.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 5.1 and sSubject to the conditions in paragraph 5.2 being met, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to use reasonable endeavours to reduce the length of the River Itchen Viaduct to approximately 65m (“the Shortened Viaduct”). 5.32 The assurance in paragraph 5.21 is subject to the following conditions: (a) the Promoter being satisfied that the Shortened Viaduct can be delivered as part of the works authorised by the Bill and without giving rise to any new or different significant environmental effects from those assessed in the Environmental Statement deposited accompanying with the Bill; (b) the Promoter securing any and all necessary consents for delivering the Shortened Viaduct and any associated replacement flood storage area; and (c) the Promoter being of the view that the Shortened Viaduct can be delivered without prejudicing the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 5.3 4 In this assurance, “River Itchen Viaduct” means that part of Work No. 2/111 comprising a 90m long viaduct over the River Itchen as described at paragraph 2.2.14 of the CFA 16 Report (November 2013) in the Environmental Statement deposited withaccompanying the Bill 6. Noise 6.1 Airborne noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E20, Control of Airborne

P6023 (9) HOL/00535/0010


Noise from Altered Roads and the Operational Railway, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, shall be put into effect. 6.2 Ground born noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E21, Control of Ground‐Borne Noise and Vibration from the Operation of Temporary and Permanent Railways, including paragraphs 3.1‐3.3 with reference to Table 1 in Appendix B, shall be put into effect. 6.3 Noise from stationary systems The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E22, Control of Noise from the Operation Of Stationary Systems, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, shall be put into effect. 6.4 Construction noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E23, Control of Construction Noise and Vibration, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Tables 1 and 3 of Appendix A, shall be put into effect.

P6023 (10) HOL/00535/0011

Drawn Checked Approved

Drawing No.

Date Scale Size

Rev.

DrawnRev Description

Project/Contract

Discipline/Function

ZoneLegends/Notes:

Drawing Title

Design Stage

Ordnance Survey Licence number 100049190

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. All rights reserved.

Registry under delegated authority from the Controller of HMSO.

© Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of Land

may be used for legal or other official purposes.

Only an official copy of a title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry

sold or published without the formal permission of Land Registry.

This material was last updated on 2016 and may not be copied, distributed,

Scale with caution as distortion can occur.

Creator/Originator

Checked Con App HS2 App

or if it is issued in part or issued incompletely in any way.

the reproduction of this document after alteration, amendment or abbreviation

HS2 accepts no responsibility for any circumstances which arise from

London, E14 5AB

One Canada Square,

Registered office:

Registration No. 06791686

Registered in England

James Darling

A311/10/2016

KT

Country North

Environmental

---

P00.1

AS SHOWN

DESIGN-FOR-PETITION

Capita Symonds Ineco JV

Country North Design

P00.1

C223-CSI-EV-DPL-030-617111-PETHOL0535

House of Lords Petitions HL:0535

Hybrid Layout

To Be Handed Back Post Construction

Not To Be Aquired



0 100 50050 200

@ 1:5000METRES

River Itchen

A425 L

EAMIN

GTO

N R

OAD

A425 S

OUTH

AM R

OA

D

Grounds

Dallas Burston Polo

WORK No. 2/147AWORK No. 2/146

WORK No. 2/147

0.2 km

0.4 km0.6 km

0.8 km

LOWER

FARM

A425 S

OUTHAM

RO

AD

A10

14

16

6

9

1519

18

28

29

26

1

Acquired or Used

Land Not to be

A425 LEAMINGTON ROAD

Footpath S

M19

WORK No. 2/133

LOWER FARM ENTRANCE

Commencement of Work No. 2/146

Total Length of Work 10.35 km

Termination of Work No. 2/133

17a

27a

35a

AP4-4

Work No. 2/147A

Commencement of

Work No. 2/147

Commencement of

34b

Commencement of Viaduct

Termination of Viaduct

WORK No. 2/133

Footpath S

M24

A

10.2 km

6

10

1

8

7

107

100

99

111

103

106

97

96

95 9491

92

25

A425 L

EAMIN

GTO

N R

OAD

Acquired or Used

Land Not to be

10.0 km 9.8 km9.6 km

9.4 km

Headway 3.50m

Work No. 2/111, Span 23.6m, Proposed Via

duct over River Itchen,

BRIDGE

THORPE

HYBRID LAYOUT

P1

P3

P2

PARISH OF LONG ITCHINGTON

PARISH OF SOUTHAM

PARISH OF LONG ITCHINGTON

13

25

24

12

232122 20

37

7

25

P1

P2

11a

AP4-2

AP4-1

AP4-1

AP4-2

AP4-3

AP4-3

AP4-3

A

A

5

118

102

104

109

88

2

112

98

1083

117

7a

4

P6023 (11) HOL/00535/0012

Appendix 2

P6023 (12) HOL/00535/0013

1

Abigail Rushforth

From: Paul ZannaSent: 01 December 2016 08:34To: Alison Love; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Abigail Rushforth

Subject: Darling Assurances - Amended Version 1st December 2016Attachments: LON_LIB1-#15307235-v3-HS2_-_James_Darling_-_assurances_1 dec

amended(1).pdf; ATT00001.txt

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Alison Issued without prejudice Thank you for the updated Assurances which we received yesterday and have overnight reviewed with the Team. The vast majority of the changes are fine. I have tracked a few modest changes in blue and purple which we feel can be added without presenting any delay, or cost to the Promoter. I briefly discuss below; 4.2 (d) ‐ As discussed yesterday we are seeking to use the pink land to enhance, beyond the environmental works planned by the Promoter, to allow this land to also accommodate ecological works, which are already planned on the Petitioners masterplan adjacent to this area. Given this was agreed yesterday on the understanding the environmental works the Promoter is planning are not removed or alter, I believe this addition can be agreed. 5.1 ‐ Thank you for including this, the basis of our Petition is there are savings which could be made by reducing the Viaduct to a short span bridge. As you know we have stated 15m is possible, this benefits the Promoter and also your Petitioners development plans. Notwithstanding this, I have removed reference to 15m, but feel reference is needed to the short span bridge. Again I do not feel this should present any difficultly to the Promoter and simply adds clarity for all parties to work to. We have also reduced the timescale to 9months in line with the other time constraint in paragraph 1.2(b). 6.0 Noise ‐ We have added reference to two tables which are also relevant. As discussed yesterday reference to these tables has been offered and agreed in other Assurances by the Promoter, so I cannot see any reason why these changes cannot be agreed. I have included David Walker and Christopher Clarke in this email as we are currently planned to appear at the House of Lords Select Committee over this matter at 1400. I personally feel the Promoter should be able to agree the above to avoid both parties attending to debate what are minor changes.

P6023 (13) HOL/00535/0014

2

I have committed to provide our Statement to David Walker by 1030 today and would hope we can agree the final Assurances before this. Alison / Clare ‐ it may be no telecom is necessary given we have now tracked changes and I will forward the word document. Clearly timing is against us and I would welcome your early response. Regards Paul Zanna Paul Zanna, Technical Director Mayer Brown Limited Zellig 313 The Custard Factory Birmingham B9 4AU M: 07769 171 240 E: [email protected] Visit our New Website www.mayerbrown.co.uk Twitter: https://twitter.com/MayerBrownLtd LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/372787?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Acompany%2CclickedEntityId%3A372787%2Cidx%3A1‐1‐1%2CtarId%3A1464276476045%2Ctas%3Amayer%20brown%20ltd Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mayerbrownltd/ Google+: https://plus.google.com/116545962752385580859/about Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you. IMPORTANT: This message is private and confidential. If you received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. Mayer Brown is a limited company registered in England. Registered number: 3531997. Registered office: Lion House, Oriental Road, Woking Surrey, GU22 8AR This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the intended recipients and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author ([email protected]) and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the company.

P6023 (14) HOL/00535/0015

lon_lib1\15307235\3 1 1 December 201630 November 2016 shawcl

“In these assurances: “the Red Land” means the land edged red on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 6 and 9 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford-on-Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2-98 and 2-99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the Green Land” means the land edged green on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 3 and 6 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford-on-Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2-98 and 2-99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the nominated undertaker” means a person whose name appears in an order made under clause 44 of the Bill; “the Pink Land” means the land edged pink on the attached plan being part of the land in plot 100 in the Parish of Southam in the District of Stratford-on-Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet No. 2-98 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “the Promoter” means the Secretary of State for Transport or any successor of the Secretary of State or Minister holding the Transport portfolio and includes so far as relevant any nominated undertaker exercising the powers or functions under the Bill by virtue of an order under clause 44 of the Bill; “the Proposed Scheme” means Phase One of HS2; “the Blue Land” means the land edged blue on the attached plan being part of the land in plots 1 and 6 in the Parish of Long Itchington in the District of Stratford-on-Avon in the County of Warwickshire as shown on Sheet Nos. 2-98 and 2-99 of the plans deposited in Parliament with the Bill; “Work. No. 2/111” means the work identified as Work No. 2/111 comprising an viaduct over the River Itchen to be authorised by the Bill together with all necessary works and conveniences to be authorised to be constructed by the Promoter; 1. Ecological mitigation 1.1 The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill over the Blue Land for the purposes of providing ecological mitigation at that location (the “ecological mitigation”) subject to the satisfaction of the conditions in paragraph 1.2. 1.2 Paragraph 1.1 is subject to the following conditions: (a) the Promoter being satisfied that the ecological mitigation can be delivered at the alternative site without giving rise to any new or different significant environmental effects from those assessed in the Environmental Statement deposited accompanying with the Bill; (b) the Promoter securing any and all necessary consents for delivering the ecological mitigation at the alternative site within 9 months of Royal Assent; and

P6023 (15) HOL/00535/0016


(c) the Promoter being of the view that the ecological mitigation can be delivered at the alternative site without prejudicing the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 2. Temporary possession 2.1 Subject to paragraph 2.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Red Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Red Land. 2.2 The assurance in paragraph 2.1 is subject to the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Red Land or any part of it. 3. Ecological mitigation and temporary possession 3.1 Subject to paragraph 3.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Green Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Green Land. 3.2 The assurance in paragraph 3.1 is subject to: (a) the Petitioner entering into an agreement in a form satisfactory to the Promoter which:- (i) provides that the Green Land or any part of it need not be restored to its former condition following completion of construction activity on the land; (ii) restricts removal or interference with land or works adjoining the railway which are to provide support or protection to the railway; and (iii) provides for the maintenance of the environmental mitigation to be provided on or by that land; (b) the Promoter being satisfied that the Petitioner is an appropriate person, having regard to the nature and objectives of the mitigation required to be provided, to be responsible for securing the maintenance of that mitigation; and (c) the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Green Land or any part of it. 4. Flood storage land 4.1 Subject to paragraph 4.2, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker not to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill in relation to the Pink Land but instead, the nominated undertaker may exercise the powers of Schedule 16 to the Bill to enter and take temporary possession of the Pink Land. 4.2 The assurance in paragraph 4.1 is subject to: (a) the Petitioner entering into an agreement in a form satisfactory to the Promoter which:-

P6023 (16) HOL/00535/0017


(i) provides that the Pink Land or any part of it need not be restored to its former condition following completion of construction activity on the land; (ii) restricts removal or interference with land or works adjoining the railway which are to provide support or protection to the railway; and (iii) provides for the maintenance of the environmental mitigation to be provided on or by that land; (b) the Promoter being satisfied that the Petitioner is an appropriate person, having regard to the nature and objectives of the mitigation required to be provided, to be responsible for securing the maintenance of that mitigation; and (c) the Promoter reaching agreement with the Petitioner, in a form acceptable to the Promoter, as to the level of compensation payable to the Petitioner in respect of the exercise of temporary powers of the Bill in advance of the nominated undertaker taking temporary possession of the Pink Land or any part of it.” (d) Subject to paragraph 4.2 (a) (iii) the Petitioner shall retaining sufficient rights of access and entry over the Pink Land to carry out any ecological works associated with the Petitioner’s development 5. Viaduct length 5.1 The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to continue to engage with the Petitioner in the 912 months following Royal Assent and to use its reasonable endeavours to explore and incorporate where evidence permits the replacement of the proposed River Itchen Viaduct with a Short Span Bridge provided that the Promoter is satisfied that doing so would not prejudice the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 5.2 Notwithstanding Subject to paragraph 5.1 and sSubject to the conditions in paragraph 5.23 being met, the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to use reasonable endeavours to reduce the length of the River Itchen Viaduct to approximately 65m (“the Shortened Viaduct”). 5.32 The assurance in paragraph 5.21 is subject to the following conditions: (a) the Promoter being satisfied that the Shortened Viaduct can be delivered as part of the works authorised by the Bill and without giving rise to any new or different significant environmental effects from those assessed in the Environmental Statement deposited accompanying with the Bill; (b) the Promoter securing any and all necessary consents for delivering the Shortened Viaduct and any associated replacement flood storage area; and (c) the Promoter being of the view that the Shortened Viaduct can be delivered without prejudicing the safe, timely and economic delivery of the Proposed Scheme. 5.3 4 In this assurance, “River Itchen Viaduct” means that part of Work No. 2/111 comprising a 90m long viaduct over the River Itchen as described at paragraph 2.2.14 of the CFA 16 Report (November 2013) in the Environmental Statement deposited withaccompanying the Bill

Formatted:Font:Corbel,11pt






Formatted:Font:Corbel,11pt,English(UK)

Formatted:English(UK)

P6023 (17) HOL/00535/0018


] 6. Noise 6.1 Airborne noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E20, Control of Airborne Noise from Altered Roads and the Operational Railway, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Table 1 of Appendix B and paragraph 3.5 with reference to Table 2 of Appendix B or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions , shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the duration of the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme. 6.2 Ground borne noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E21, Control of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration from the Operation of Temporary and Permanent Railways, including paragraphs 3.1-3.3 with reference to Table 1 in Appendix B or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions, shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme. 6.3 Noise from stationary systems The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E22, Control of Noise from the Operation Of Stationary Systems, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.. 6.4 Construction noise The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E23, Control of Construction Noise and Vibration, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Tables 1 and 3 of Appendix A, and paragraph 3.4 with reference to Table 2 of Appendix A or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.. .

P6023 (18) HOL/00535/0019

Appendix 3

P6023 (19) HOL/00535/0020

77. Now, thirdly, let me come to the viaduct case, and here our proposal, as you know, is that we submit that you should consider imposing a requirement on the promoter to substitute a bridge for aviaduct. We did wonder – let me say this at the outset. We did wonder whether in order to achievethat an amendment of the Bill would be required, but we are quite satisfied, and I think we agreewith the promoter about this, that an amendment is not required. Schedule 5 is framed quite broadly enough. Although schedule 5 refers to a viaduct at this location, schedule 5 is framed broadlyenough to allow a bridge to be substituted. So we don’t seek any amendment to the language of the Bill itself. We suggest that the promoter has powers under the Bill to build a bridge instead of aviaduct, and we’re going to lay out the reasons why we suggest that that should be done. And again,our motivation in making this suggestion is partly altruistic and partly based on the petitioner’s own interest, but there is, we say, a very clear public interest, a very clear reason, a series of reasonsactually, why in the public interest this Committee, with respect, might want to consider imposingthis requirement in the public interest.

78. And let me try and set out and summarise what those reasons are, and then show you a little bitof visual material to illustrate the points that I’m making. So in summary, and first and foremost, weshow that there would be a very significant saving of cost if one were to cross the river by means ofa bridge rather than a viaduct, and the reason for that is very simple. A short span bridge, which we say – and I very much doubt if this will be disputed. A short span bridge, which we say will only beabout 15 metres across will be far cheaper than the 90 metre viaduct, 90 metres, which is currentlyproposed under the HS2 scheme, with a number of individual piers. So this would be a bridge, andwe’ll show you a diagram which illustrates it in a moment, of the kind that one sees very commonlyaround the countryside carrying a road or a railway, 15 metres across, rather than the 90 metreviaduct which has been suggested so far.

79. Secondly, apart from the major saving in cost there would be significant visual and amenitybenefits, because the proposed bridge will blend much better with the surrounding countryside andbe far less intrusive. And thirdly, there will be significant benefits in terms of construction,maintenance and health and safety, and finally some benefit as regards ecology as well.

80. Now, let me give you some – let me take you straight away to some references, which you willfind, I hope, useful. Firstly, on the issue of cost, and forgive me if this is material with which you’re already very familiar, but let me just touch upon the point, there is the very recent National AuditOffice report at A136(54), please. You may well be very familiar with this document already, butthere is the frontispiece. And if we go to page A136(58), at paragraph 12 please, we read, and this is very up to date, that there is a risk that the combined impact of cost and schedule pressures result inreduced programme scope and lower the benefit cost ratio and so on. I rely on the whole of thatparagraph but in particular the final sentence: ‘To help manage costs, the Department has asked HS2Limited to explore options for reducing the programme’s scope in ways that do not have a significant impact on programme benefits.’ What we are respectfully putting forward for your considerationfulfils that request and requirement perfectly. We are precisely putting forward an option for

Page 12 of 19Oral evidence - High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill - 12 Jul 2016

13/10/2016file:///H:/Birmingham/Current%20Jobs/4%20-%20Live%20Jobs/Stoneythorpe,%20S...P6023 (20) HOL/00535/0021

reducing the programme’s scope in ways that do not have a significant impact on programmebenefits, and that’s a main reason – a major reason why, in the public interest, we invite you to adopt this suggestion.

81. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this from an executive summary of the report as a whole?

82. MR HOCKMAN QC: It is indeed, yes.

83. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

84. MR HOCKMAN QC: The executive summary is before you as an appendix to Mr Zanna’s written evidence. The full report I’m sure can easily be accessed online. My witness who deals with the reasons why a bridge is feasible and infinitely more desirable than a viaduct is Mr Brian Madden, an appropriately qualified and competent engineer, and if I can take you to some diagrams that he produces, firstly at A140(20), please. That is an illustration of what the bridge might look like, and A140(21) please, that gives you the comparison, the single span bridge option at the top and theviaduct option below, and diagrammatically the options overlapping. And you can see what is, no doubt, in any event obvious, that the viaduct creates a vastly greater swathe across the land. It is, as Isay, 90 metres across, several piers, including one very close to the river itself, and the structureitself, not to mention the excavation and all the attendant works, are obviously vastly more expensive than the single span bridge.

85. Now, Mr Madden’s full evidence is before you, but for present purposes it may be easiest if we go to his summary – and I should have made clear that each of the witnesses has produced a roughlytwo page summary as well, and Mr Madden’s summary is at page 140(2). And forgive me while I just turn this up so that I limit my references appropriately. So if we first look at the section a little lower down the page headed ‘The proposed structure’, what you will read there is the total length of the structure is – this is as things stand. The total length of the structure is approximately 90 metres,consisting of four spans which have been scaled as 22, 25, 25 and 22 respectively. The supportsconsist of an abutment at each end of the viaduct and three piers which will be situated in the floodplain of the River Itchen.

86. And then if we go over to the next page, 140(3), in the summary, and just taking you throughthe three complete paragraphs at the top of the page, starting with the word ‘should’, so ‘Should there no longer be a requirement to span the whole flood plain then the viaduct could be replaced bya single span structure. This single span bridge is simply required to span the River Itchen in itsnormal state and to make provision for a walkway and animals to pass under it. Such a structure, at aspan of 15 metres, would achieve considerable savings in foundations, piers and structural depth and,being similar to the other short span bridges on the scheme, could benefit from the economies ofscale.

87. ‘A simple single span structure of approximately 15 metres will protect the existing riverbed,riverbanks, maintain wildlife habitats and passage, and have the minimum impact on its



surroundings. The aesthetics of a viaduct structure will be poor, given the very deep structure withonly 2.4 metres to the existing ground level from the soffit. The short span bridge would be less intrusive visually in this environment and in keeping with the adjacent Thorpe Bridge over theA425.’

88. I must ask forgiveness from the gentleman kindly managing the displays, because I’m going to mention a page now which I hadn’t alerted you to, but if we could possibly just switch for a momentto page 140(12). I think that is the – a picture of the actual bridge or one of the bridges spanning theA425, which is very comparable to the one that we’re proposing at – to carry over the River Itchen. That’s what Mr Madden’s referring to there. So back, please, to A140(3).

89. ‘As an alternative’, Mr Madden says, ‘to a large, 90 metre span viaduct structure, a short spanbridge will offer many structural, construction and maintenance benefits. For a 15 metre clear span,a single span precast concrete structure formed of U or Y beams can provide the required structuralcapacity, whilst also reducing the depth of the structure, two metres total including 600 millimetreballast. It’s important to note that both bridge options, the viaduct and the short span structure,would be designed to the same load models for railway underbridges, as set out in the relevantBritish Standard.’ And this is all there for your consideration. I won’t read out any more of it, but you get the picture.

90. And then in relation to any possible ecological impact, you have a separate piece of evidencefrom Ms Anna Swift, and that you will find, just to identify it, at A141(2). If we could go to that. Ms Swift, who is a principal ecologist, and sets out all her qualifications there, has considered indetail the ecological impact of the viaduct as compared with the bridge, and her conclusion is set outat paragraph 2.34 on page 141(9). 2.34: ‘It’s acknowledged that the 15 metre single span bridge withembankments will result in slightly more land take on either side of the river than the viaductoption. However, it is reiterated that these habitats are of local value only and have limited speciesdiversity. Therefore the difference in ecological impact is anticipated to be negligible.’

91. Now, there is one consequence or one issue relating to the crossing – relating to the River Itchen and the type of crossing that one chooses, which we need to examine in more detail, and again, bothin the public interest and in the interests of Mr Darling, as the owner of the land, as you’ve seen, and that is the question of the potential flooding of the river and the precautions that need to be taken toachieve appropriate flood relief. And again, let me summarise the position here in a little bit ofdetail if I may, so as to enable you to follow what is said, and this is the last topic really that I need todeal with in the course of my opening remarks, but it’s an important topic, and I will be showing you plans in due course which will illustrate exactly what I’m saying.

92. Firstly, the promoter has identified an area of land for its own scheme, for the viaduct scheme,which they call replacement flood plain storage, an area which they accept and assert is necessary for flood relief purposes, even on their proposals. And their proposals, it will become clear to you,involve the viaduct itself and of course other alterations to the landform which are inherent in the



Appendix 4

P6023 (23) HOL/00535/0024

APPENDIX 4 Assurances - Noise and Vibration

HS2 have proposed four assurances in respect of controlling the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on the Petitioner’s property. These assurances are generally acceptable. However, they do not provide any assurance in relation to the possible future amendment of Information Papers, or control of noise within the external amenity areas of the Petitioner’s property.

Some modest adjustments to HS2’s assurances are therefore sought. The adjustment are highlighted in red below:

6. Noise 6.1 Airborne noise

The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E20, Control of Airborne Noise from Altered Roads and the Operational Railway, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Table 1 of Appendix B and paragraph 3.5 with reference to Table 2 of Appendix B or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the duration of the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.

6.2 Groundborne noise

The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E21, Control of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration from the Operation of Temporary and Permanent Railways, including paragraphs 3.1-3.3 with reference to Table 1 in Appendix B or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions, shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the duration of the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.

6.3 Noise from stationary systems

The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E22, Control of Noise from the Operation Of Stationary Systems, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the duration of the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.

6.4 Construction noise and vibration

The Promoter confirms that in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme in the vicinity of Lower Farm, Stoneythorpe, Southam the provisions of Information Paper E23, Control of Construction Noise and Vibration, including paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 with reference to Tables 1 and 3 of Appendix A and paragraph 3.4 with reference to Table 2 of Appendix A or any equivalent successor or replacement provisions shall be put into effect and adhered to throughout the duration of the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.

The additional technical assurances both relate to the reasonable expectation of the Petitioner that HS2 will implement reasonable steps to minimise the impact of noise during both the construction and operational phases of the Scheme on the external amenity areas of the Petitioners property.

The reasoned justification for these amendments is set out below:

P6023 (24) HOL/00535/0025

AIRBORNE NOISEThe Petitioner requests that additional wording is included, putting into effect paragraph 3.5 of Information Paper E20.

This paragraph sets out the following objective:

The proposed amendment is also consistent with a general route wide assurances that have already been provided by HS2.In that regard, attention is drawn to U&A Ref ID78, contained on the Undertakings and Assurances Register (Sept. 2016, vere. 1.7) as reproduced below:

U&A ref idPetition no

(where relevant)

To Whom Type Date issued Subject Geographical Area Reference Text (where relevant)

78 n/a General Assurance 22/07/2015

Noise sensitive non-residential/ou

tdoor living spaces

Routewide

Information Paper E20 - Control of

airborne noise (v1.4) paragraph

3.5

Effects on health and quality of life are primarily avoided and minimised through the control of airborne noise at residential dwellings. It is recognised that effects can also occur when people are engaged in noise sensitive activities away from their home. To deliver the Policy aims, reasonable steps will be taken to control airborne noise from altered roads and the operational railway to the levels set out in Table 2 of Appendix B for noise sensitive non-residential buildings and external amenity spaces (see Glossary). [please consult Information Paper E20 to view this table: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374901/Control_of_airborne_noise.pdf]

3.5 Effects on health and quality of life are primarily avoided and minimised through the control of airborne noise at residential dwellings. It is recognised that effects can also occur when people are engaged in noise sensitive activities away from their home. To deliver the Policy aims, reasonable steps will be taken to control airborne noise from altered roads and the operational railway to the levels set out in Table 2 of Appendix B for noise sensitive non-residential buildings and external amenity spaces

P6023 (25) HOL/00535/0026

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATIONThe Petitioner requests that additional wording is included, putting into effect paragraph 3.4 of Information Paper E23.

This paragraph sets out the following objective:

The proposed amendment is also consistent with a general route wide assurances that have already been provided by HS2.In that regard, attention is drawn to U&A Ref ID1952, contained on the Undertakings and Assurances Register (Sept. 2016, ver. 1.7) as reproduced below:

U&A ref idPetition no

(where relevant)

To Whom Type Date issued Subject Geographical Area Reference Text (where relevant)

1952 n/a General Assurance 02/12/2015 Noise and Vibration Routewide

Information Paper E23 - Control of

construction noise and vibration -

paragraph 3.4

3.4 Effects on health and quality of life are primarily avoided and minimised through the control of noise and vibration at residential dwellings. It is recognised that effects can also occur when people are engaged in noise sensitive activities away from their home. To deliver the Policy aims, reasonable steps will be taken to control noise and vibration from the construction of the Proposed Scheme to the levels set out in Table 2 and 4 of Appendix A for noise sensitive non-residential buildings and external amenity spaces (see Glossary).

3.4 Effects on health and quality of life are primarily avoided and minimised through the control of noise and vibration at residential dwellings. It is recognised that effects can also occur when people are engaged in noise sensitive activities away from their home. To deliver the Policy aims, reasonable steps will be taken to control noise and vibration from the construction of the Proposed Scheme to the levels set out in Table 2 and 4 of Appendix A for noise sensitive non-residential buildings and external amenity spaces (see Glossary).

P6023 (26) HOL/00535/0027

Documents

EXHIBIT LIST - Parliament … · EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00535 Petitioner: James Darling Published to Collaboration Area: Thursday 01-Dec-2016 Page 1 of 27 No Exhibit Name