high speed rail committee - uk parliament · mr robin fryer, stoneleigh and ashow ... mr martin...
TRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC SESSION
MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE
taken before
HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE
On the
HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL
Monday 19 January 2015 (Afternoon)
In Committee Room 5
PRESENT:
Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley
Mr Henry Bellingham Ian Mearns
Mr Michael Thornton Yasmin Qureshi
____________
IN ATTENDANCE
Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport
Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Ms Sheila Woolf, Stoneleigh Historical Society
Witnesses:
Ms Jane Mackenzie, Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council Mrs Hazel Fryer, Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council Mr Robin Fryer, Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council
Mr Martin Smith, Chairman, Stoneleigh Action Group Anthony Bianco, Stoneleigh Action Group
Peter Miller, Head of Environment and Planning, HS2 Ltd
_____________
IN PUBLIC SESSION
2
INDEX
Subject Page
Statement on Compensation by Mr Mould 3
Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council
Introduction by Mr Strachan 7
Submissions from Ms Mackenzie 9
Submissions from Mrs Hazel Fryer 13
Submissions from Mr Robin Fryer 15
Further submissions from Ms Mackenzie 21
Mr Miller, examined by Mr Strachan 22
Mr Miller, cross-examined by Mr Fryer 28
Submissions from Mr Strachan 30
Stoneleigh Action Group
Submissions from Mr Bianco 32
Submissions from Mr Smith 42
Submissions from Mr Strachan 47
Closing submissions from Mr Smith 52
Stoneleigh Historical Society
Submissions from Ms Woolf 54
Submissions from Mr Strachan 62
3
1. CHAIR: Good afternoon. Welcome to the HS2 Committee. On Thursday we
visited Ruislip and Hillingdon. This afternoon we hear from the petitioners from
Stoneleigh. Before that I understand HS2 have an announcement to make on
compensation. Are you going to say anything now or…?
2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I was going to, if that’s convenient to you, yes.
3. CHAIR: Okay.
4. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just to announce the fact that as from last Friday the
discretionary package which, as the Committee knows, the Government has introduced
in order to address the effects of generalised blight resulting from the HS2 proposals.
That package came into operation. The effect of that is that over 2,500 dwellings now
lie within the Express Purchase Area which, as the Committee knows, is a scheme
that’s been operating for some months.
5. Within the Voluntary Purchase provisions, which apply in the Rural Support Zone
that is now in operation and the cash offer scheme, the alternative cash offer scheme
that sits alongside that. In addition, the Need to Sell Scheme which, as you know, is
without geographical limit, that is now in operation as well, and so the full package of
measures available comprises those elements: The Express Purchase Provision, which
covers the surface safeguarded area for the railway, Voluntary Purchase, the Alternative
Cash Offer, and the Need to Sell. The Homeowner Payment Scheme becomes
operational following royal assent. That is the banded series of cash payments that you
know have been the subject of recent consultation.
6. I can confirm that the – those elements that have been the subject of consultation
in the recent months, those have been brought into operation, essentially unchanged
from the proposals that were consulted upon, if that’s of assistance to people who are
looking back over the consultation documents, and I should also just confirm this point,
which I know has been of interest to Members: the Express Purchase, Voluntary
Purchase and Need to Sell Schemes are all accompanied by a voluntary rent back
option. Owner occupiers who, having sold their properties to the Government would
prefer to carry on living there may be able to rent it back, subject to checks on the
suitability of the property.
4
7. The other thing I should announce, if you’ll just allow me a moment more, is this:
that the Residents’ Charter is to be introduced in order to improve communication with
residents and communities near the route of the railway. The intention is to help to
ensure that residents are treated in a fair, clear, competent and reasonable manner. It
embraces a number of key principles: Discretionary property packages will be
communicated clearly in the plainest non-technical language possible, individuals will
be offered a single, named case officer, individuals will be offered the opportunity to
meet in private with a property specialist from HS2 Ltd to explain the discretionary and
statutory measures, and HS2 Ltd will commit to a reasonable response time for all
property related enquiries.
8. The Charter went live on Friday, and Deborah Fazan has been appointed as the
Residents’ Commissioner to oversee the Charter and to ensure that the principles that I
have just referred to are adhered to. The information that I have just summarised is to
be found on the HS2 website. We’ve put the page up on the screen in front of you,
which comprises of the announcement made by the Secretary of State on 16 January.
9. CHAIR: Okay. Sir Peter. Sorry, Sir Peter.
10. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’re grateful for that, but we don’t matter as
much as the people affected by the proposal matter. I’ve got one question, which may
be more for the Secretary of State and perhaps Parliament than the Promoters, but I’ll
put it anyway. Which is whether, presumably when the Treasury was agreeing this with
the Department, and obviously it will require cash, but whether the public calculators
are thinking it’s actually going to cost money in the end, or make money in the end, or
it’s just so uncertain people can’t tell.
11. The second, which I think is more urgent, is whether those who’ll be considering
the applications can understand that someone may have a wish/need to sell that is
compelling, but isn’t necessarily only valid if it’s urgent and were an offer –
application, if accepted, would be triggered straight away. If I just add a sentence: It’s
my belief that people may have a compelling wish to sell, to be termed as a need to sell,
where once they’ve got the offer, whether or not the price needs to be adjusted over
time, they can, in effect, hold. Which makes it more likely that an individual will
remain part of the settled community rather than feeling they have to go. Because one
5
of the public interests in all this is that people who don’t want to leave their community
don’t have to. But unless they can get the certainty that they would be able to sell their
home at unblighted price, they’d probably feel they have to go, which will lead to more
people leaving and a community being disrupted even more than would happen
anyway.
12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. On – of those two points, the first of them I will
take that away, and it may be that the answer to that should come through other
channels. But we’ll report that one back to the Department. On the second point, and
of course it’s a point that you have been concerned about…
13. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s a new week though.
14. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s a new week. Indeed so, and it’s a point on which I
think I have offered some observations in the past, and I simply – if you will forgive me
– I’ll simply say this. I have drawn attention to the fact that the scheme allows for an
offer made under the Need to Sell Policy to remain open to acceptance, open to being
taken forward by the successful applicant for a period of three years after the offer is
made, and I am confident that those who are administering the scheme, and who are
considering individual applications, will have that aspect of the scheme well in mind
when they come to consider individual applications.
15. I’m also sure that the – by far the most effective way of addressing the manifold
circumstances that individual applicants will bring before – will bring to bear in support
of an application that they may make is to consider those facts carefully and
sympathetically as they’re presented to the project and to the independent panels whose
task it is to make judgment. And, as you know, guidance is being given – has been
formulated, and is in the public domain, and the Committee has seen that guidance, and
the project, and the Secretary of State I know, I have it in mind to keep a close eye on
the progress of the scheme in its initial period of operation. Amongst other things, to
see – just to test, if you will, how it is faring and whether it is fulfilling the function and
the purpose which was laid out for it in the Secretary of State’s decision.
16. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I put it explicitly, not necessarily for answer,
but so it’s heard. I am going to assume, on behalf of those who may be affected, that no
member of the Panel will say, ‘We will turn this down unless we believe that the
6
applicant will want to take up the offer without delay.’ It – if a Panel member will start
saying, ‘We’re not going to approve this application because we don’t believe they’ll
want to take it up without delay’, or, ‘They may not want to take it up at all, allow the
three years to expire’ I’ll regard that as a trail of what we’ve been trying to put on
behalf of those affected.
17. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I very much hear what you say on that, and all I
was at pains to try and convey…
18. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We heard you, and I just tried to add it in so it gets
back to those…
19. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. I won’t – in that case I won’t repeat myself any
more.
20. CHAIR: I presume that, though independent, the committee that deal with Need
to Sell, do the comments of the committee get fed back to them? Or have they been
given any – the views of Sir Peter...
21. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.
22. CHAIR: And other members of the Committee…
23. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.
24. CHAIR: Well, okay. Good.
25. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’ve been very – I mean the Government’s been very
careful to, as I understand it, to listen to – to take account of what’s been said by the
Committee, yes.
26. CHAIR: Okay, well we’ll be monitoring all these arrangements very carefully.
27. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.
28. CHAIR: On Freedom of Information, on FOI, we would like HS2 to give us a
paper with their position on disclosures of costings. When they will, when they won’t,
and the reasons. We would also be interested in what level of breakdown would mask
commercial sensitive – commercially sensitive figures. Further, we would like to know
7
what the position – their position on what is only disclosed after an FOI request. Why,
with particular reference to situations such as that mentioned on noise barriers and the
cost of alternative options at Water Orton. We would like to know whether there are
cases where information could and should be given without need for an FOI request.
29. On local authority extra costs during building, we heard from Warwickshire
County Council, as lead authority for the issues, that they have around the need for
extra local authority service provision during and after HS2 construction. But
especially during construction, and who will pay for these services? This was an area
where local authorities and the project may not be far apart. We will listen to whether
other local authorities, such as South Bucks and Hillingdon have things to add. We
would fully expect that suitable compromise could be achieved, and although we
recognise that timings of this might extend into the Bill’s consideration by the second
House.
30. Two related matters were highway management and the cost of possible active
traffic management system. Mr Mould told us that HS2 would keep talking to the
county councils on that. We will hear further on this from Bucks County Council and,
at that point, they may make a recommendation if one is needed. Or we may make a
recommendation. Okay?
31. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you.
32. CHAIR: Right. For future reference, the height of the Committee Room is 6.7
metres. According to the Surveyors of the House of Commons. Right. We now move
on to Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council. Welcome. We’ve been there. Had a
drive around. So can we have the map up and see where they are?
Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council
33. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, I think probably the….
34. CHAIR: And do we have the fly through?
35. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P3198. We’ve got the fly through available if
that’s…
8
36. CHAIR: Okay, well, let’s have a look.
37. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ll just show you the parish boundary. There’s –
sorry. Joint parishes of Stoneleigh and Ashow. The Ashow one is obviously to the
south west line down there, and meets Stoneleigh parish boundary above, and stretching
up to the north west as well, and if you’d like the fly through, I think we could play that
now. I don’t think – yes…
38. CHAIR: Do we know where we are?
39. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No. Just – we were coming up – I was going to
identify some of the petitioners that you were going to hear from later today. I think we
have – we need to go down a bit further. Yes, we’re just going through the Crackley
Gap.
40. CHAIR: Okay.
41. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We’re about to. And then we’re coming down
towards – if you see, coming up on the right, the Stoneleigh Business Park – Stoneleigh
Park I should say. Crossing the A46, Stoneleigh Road. If you just pause there, if you
can. Stoneleigh Park and the – is on your right. There is a little bit on the left of the
line as well.
42. MR FRYER: Yes.
43. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And the Stoneleigh Deer Park is off to the left, over
that area. The Stoneleigh Abbey is off to the right, past the Stoneleigh Park area, the
Agricultural Centre, and we are – if you look in the foreground, there is an
accommodation bridge across the railway, and if we carry on we get to Stoneleigh
Road, which is crossing the railway at this point, which is being realigned. Just pausing
there, sorry. There’s a roundabout on the right that’s been introduced for access in this
area.
44. MR FRYER: If you go back, you can see the Stare Bridge.
45. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, sorry. We – if you could just put it slightly
further back. So just on your left the area in grey’s a floodplain storage area, and if we
9
carry on, if you look down the line of the route, just before Stoneleigh Road Crossing
on the left – just pause there – you’ll see the Stare Bridge in that location, just below the
arrow. The Stare Bridge. I think those are the main features you’re likely to hear about
today, with most of the relevant petitioners.
46. CHAIR: Right, are you kicking off?
47. MS MACKENZIE: Yes.
48. CHAIR: Carry on then please.
49. MS MACKENZIE: Well thank you for letting us come and present to you. My
name’s Jane McKenzie and I’m on the Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council, and
I’m joined by Hazel Fryer, who’s a colleague on the Council, and Robin Fryer who’s
going to be our witness.
50. Essentially, as you’ve seen though, it’s a rural site in this narrow section of
greenbelt between Kenilworth and Coventry. We feel that the passage of HS2 through
our parish raises a lot of issues for a very small area. We’ve got damage to the heritage
assets and environment. We’ve got damage to the historic landscape. We’ve got
disruption of major trunk road, the A46. We’ve got impact on the commercial viability
of the employment site, Stoneleigh Park, and then we’ve got impact on the golf clubs,
Stoneleigh Deer Park and Kenilworth Golf Club and the ability for the residents to
access them. We’ve got severe traffic congestion on our rural roads already, and we’re
very concerned about the impact of the additional lorries, and there’s also the flooding
in the Avon and Sowe Valley.
51. Unfortunately, when you came to visit us you’d virtually run out of time and
didn’t really have to have a look at what we wanted to show you. We don’t have a
financial interest. We are here to speak out for the value of the landscape and the
environment for the people who are in the parish and for the future generations. Our
Petition is supported by the District Council and the County Council, and also by the
Trustees of Stoneleigh Abbey. May we look at the second slide please? Thank you.
52. This shows the outline of the parish, and we’ve already spoken to Kenilworth
Town Council, Warwick Uni, Stoneleigh Action Group, Kenilworth Golf Club and also
10
to LaSalle, who are the agents acting for Stoneleigh Park, and Stoneleigh History Group
and some individual petitioners, and try to make sure that what we’re going to speak
about we’re focussing on one particular area, although we are very concerned about the
traffic implications for example in the area that’s described as, ‘WU’ which is in our
parish. But we understand that Warwick University are going to talk about that – the
traffic situation there.
53. We feel a general frustration about the lack of detailed information that’s been
made available to us, and also at the lack of consultation that we, as on the Parish, have
been able to become involved in. We understand that there have been quite detailed
talks with the agents who act for Stoneleigh Park, but their concern will be to maximise
their investment, whereas we have other priorities. We’re disappointed that, as
stakeholders, we were not included in these talks at any level. Can we move on to
number three please?
54. Now, as you can see, it is indeed a green and pleasant land, and this is actually
Stoneleigh Park, and if I can just give you a bit of an idea about what Stoneleigh Park
means to the people who live around it. It became a permanent home for the Royal
Show in the 60s. The Royal Show previously had wandered about different sites, and
then the show there continued in this home until 2009, when it presumably was no
longer economically viable, and then there was going to be a problem then, how could
they use this site? In the meantime, in the 80s, the parkland around Stoneleigh Abbey
became a designated as a registered Grade II* Landscape, meaning it’s of national
importance. Quoting from English Heritage, ‘Historic parks and gardens are a fragile
and finite resource. They can easily be damaged beyond repair, or lost forever. From
town gardens and public parks to the great country estates, such places are an important,
distinctive and much cherished part of our inheritance, and we have a duty to care for
them.’ And this is the motivation, really, of our petition.
55. In 2010, left with trying to decide how they could use the site going forward, a
150 year lease was granted to the Mars Pension Scheme, and following that, in 2012,
planning consent was granted for, loosely, an agricultural, horticulture, equine, science
centre of excellence, including continuing use of the Showground for sort of outdoor
related activities. It was very carefully thought out because it is sitting surrounded by
registered landscape. It’s washed over by the greenbelt, and it does provide a great deal
11
of employment and, going forward, is expected under the present plans that will – the
numbers employed there will increase. When the planning consent was given, issues
such as the heights of the buildings and the density of the building were very carefully
controlled, and it was described as an, ‘Holistic approach to the development of the
parkland.’ It was acknowledge that the – to secure the future of the site it would have
to have an improved access on the B4113, and a new access from the B4115 and of
course, as we know, the train goes right through those areas.
56. The cutting, the amount of land take going through as a cutting, is very, very
damaging to the site. Both economically I imagine, from Stoneleigh Park’s point of
view, and visually relating to the ambience surrounding the registered landscape. We
can’t – Stoneleigh Park won’t be able to just move all their development away from the
track and the sterile land that’s created either side of it, because of the need to keep and
maintain the openness as a parkland. We’re told that a cut and cover tunnel is too
expensive, but then we feel that there would be a need to factor in realistic
compensation to the Mars Pension Fund. I mean there was a lot of detailed debate that
went into the original planning consent and, as I said, it will not be a case of going,
‘Well we’ll just wish it all a bit further to the south west’ because that would bring the
development right close up to Stoneleigh Abbey, which is Grade I listed heritage asset.
57. We requested details of the costs, but not received any. We have had a limited
response to the information we asked for on 3 December, when we met with HS2 in
Kenilworth. A document was released late on Friday saying that the tunnel would be
£95 million above baseline 3. Not entirely sure what that means, but… we understand
and we have seen some work that was done by the agents for Stoneleigh Park. With
their calculations of various tunnelling options, and the figures that they were using are
vastly different from this £95 million. But again, we’re not qualified to comment and
we haven’t seen any explanation about why they are so vastly different. Would you
like to move on to number four please?
58. MR BELLINGHAM: Who used to be – can you just clarify, who is it they
belong to? It belongs to the Trustees, and they’ve let it on a long lease, is that right?
The Abbey and the Showground, is that correct, did I hear you say?
59. MS MACKENZIE: The Showground is – the Showground itself is on 150 year
12
lease to the Mars Pension Fund.
60. MR BELLINGHAM: Right. The Mars Pension Fund, yes.
61. MS MACKENZIE: But the Abbey is run by the Trustees.
62. MR BELLINGHAM: Right
63. MS MACKENZIE: Of Stoneleigh – who are also support our petition.
64. MR BELLINGHAM: Right, okay.
65. MS MACKENZIE: They have petitioned in their own right.
66. MR BELLINGHAM: Yes. But it’s separate from…
67. MS MACKENZIE: Yes.
68. MR BELLINGHAM: Different Trustees to the Trustees of the Showground, is
that right?
69. MS MACKENZIE: Yes. Completely. Yes. This is the front. The west face of
the Abbey, and that’s Stoneleigh Cricket Club playing on their hone pitch directly in
front. The Park is directly behind the Abbey. If you look at the little map below, you
can see how very, very close it is. It dates back to Lord Chandos Leigh. Lord Chandos
Leigh in 1839 started the Cricket Club there, in a way to occupy the estate workers and
stop them drinking so much apparently. It was voted Wisden’s Loveliest Ground in
2003. Because of the close proximity of the buildings, as you can see behind, this is
why we’re saying that the fact that the line goes through where it does, although it
appears that this is a very big parkland – a very big site – to move anything any closer,
or to try and achieve the same percentage of development or square footage, it’s
probably not going to be able to do that. And so we feel that we’d like to know where –
what we’re looking at here.
70. The cost of the tunnel versus the cost of the cutting has got to factor in the cost of
the compensation and what level that’s going to be struck at. Because we are going to
have a lot to say about the degree of development that goes on on that site, because of
the history of the site, and also I think we have to try and put some sort of financial
13
value on the damage to the landscape, because of it being registered landscape in that
surround. I’m going to pass this over now to Hazel and then to Robin, who are going to
give you some more details about the heritage value and the problems associated with
the current proposals.
71. MRS FRYER: Thank you, Jane. Well I would like to try and do a fly by of the
history – or fly past of the history of Stoneleigh Abbey in just two minutes. Jane said
take two minutes. I looked at the English Heritage register description, which is ten
pages. So I’ll try my very best. Stoneleigh’s not an ordinary section of countryside.
It’s a special designed landscape. The Stoneleigh that we see at the moment is a much
smaller Stoneleigh than existed in the middle of the 19th century. But it’s a very ancient
site. It was a royal manor, prior to the conquest, and was retained by the crown after
1066 and was vested with a Cistercian Order in 1155. If I could go to the first slide
please. Slide one. If I could go backwards. Stoneleigh Abbey Estate has elements of
several design phases. The first was during the period of the monastic change from
1155 to 1536. The second can be said to date from a few years after the dissolution,
when the Leighs moved in to the property. This was – the Leighs have owned
Stoneleigh Abbey from that point in time until the end of the 20th century. It was – they
held it for a very long time.
72. During 1561 to 1640 they changed the monastic foundation into a full range
residential unit with a courtyard in the middle, which is the red sandstone building you
see on the left. But they were quite exhausted after that. They arranged limited gardens
around the building, and they didn’t start again until the beginning of the 18th century
when they constructed the large west front on the right hand side. Slight incongruity
between the two from the north front. But when you see it from the west front there
was a difference.
73. But perhaps by far the major change to the landscape, and it’s the landscape, in
some ways, which will suffer from the impact of HS2 – if I could have slide number
four please, which is the cricket side – is to the landscape. This is the Abbey when –
which existed at the beginning of the 18th century. At the beginning of the 19th century
the designer Humphry Repton came and created a major landscape improvement at
Stoneleigh. Stoneleigh Abbey is unusual because not only did he make proposals but
they were also implemented, which is unusual for him as a designer. Because a lot of
14
his work wasn’t implemented. He actually put gardens, a waterside river garden, and
parklands around the Abbey. He also opened extensive views through the Estate to
make the circulation a lot better, and this is where the issue of Stoneleigh Park comes
in, because they created an east west drive from the Grecian Lodges that you see in the
bottom image, through the middle of Stoneleigh Park, which was Repton’s new park,
and through the Deer Park to the London Road, which exited at Tantara Lodge. So it
was a complete holistic landscape. But I won’t go on about Humphry Repton. I will
just say, at that time Stoneleigh was the largest estate in the county. It owned 14,891
acres. That was just in Warwickshire. It owned further acreage outside the county and
had an income of 30,000 acres. So it was a really, really large and important estate. It
was the largest landholding in the county. If I could go on to slide five please.
74. But the Leigh family held, essentially, agricultural land, and in the 20th century
there was a great deal of retrenchment. They sold all of their land outside county after
the First World War and some of the outlying Stoneleigh estates. After the Second
World War they sold the Deer Park, which you can see to the right of this slide, and
after a fire in the west wing in 1960 they leased and then sold the area now called
Stoneleigh Park to RACE: The Royal Agricultural Society for England. So this is how
this very unusual situation comes, where you’ve got a registered park with a great big
hole in the middle, which is now used for a change of use.
75. If I could just explain what the items on this sheet are. The grey area is, of
course, the registered park, which is Grade II*. You can see Stoneleigh Abbey
indicated, and the two purple areas are the conservation areas of Stoneleigh and Ashow.
Within the site there are 77 Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Just within one kilometre
of this area. We did a one kilometre study. There are also eighty listed buildings.
Listed buildings; Stoneleigh Abbey and Stoneleigh Abbey Gatehouse, which is even
closer to Stoneleigh Park, are both Grade I listed, as are the churches of Ashow and
Stoneleigh. If I could go on to the Matthias Baker plan, which is the next drawing.
This shows Stoneleigh as it was before improvements to its park, but you can see what
a major landscape it was. The Deer Park already existed at that time, and the Abbey
itself. If I could have slide seven.
76. Stoneleigh isn’t just historically important, it also has great landscape importance,
and one of the areas that are of significance is the grouping of veteran trees, which are
15
included around Stoneleigh Deer Park and Stoneleigh Park. I have looked at the
ecology interest of Stoneleigh Abbey, but I think you have had a representation on this
already, so I won’t cover that, except to say that the veteran trees are the biggest
assemblage of veteran trees it the county and are considered of great importance. Eco
sites include Stoneleigh Abbey, Stoneleigh Park, and also Decoy Wood. All clustered
around that very small area. If I could have the next slide please.
77. I mentioned that Repton created, when he came to Stoneleigh, Stoneleigh was
very much as it is at the moment. Circulation was very difficult, so the importance of
achieving this east west route was one of the main aims of the design. As you can see
on the left is East Lodge. What the family created in the first half of the 19th century
was a series of lodges, cottage lodges, at the exits and entrances of the site. East Lodge
was one of these, and the slide that you see in that corner is the view as you would have
exited the new park and continued into the Deer Park. This was a very significant
building. It was built at the same time as the Grecian Lodges and Tantara Lodges. A
whole range of lodge buildings. The road that runs in front of East Lodge runs towards
Stare Bridge, and this assemblage of historically – you’ve got the registered park,
you’ve got the registered building, you’ve got the historic monuments, you’ve got
veteran trees, and part of the designed landscape. The slide at the bottom shows the
corner of the registered park which will be removed for the pumping station and
reservoir.
78. I think what we would like to ask is that assurances have been – assurances have
been given to Warwick District Council concerning East Lodge and concerning this
section of the east-west route, which runs as Avenue M through the Showgrounds at the
moment. But what it would be very difficult to replace is the setting of this historic
grouping, and you’ve got a great number of things coming together at this point.
Because if you bring in the railway at ground level you’ve got to lift the road to go over
the railway, which means most of that vegetation in the middle will be removed, and
this very picturesque grouping – and this was a picturesque design – will be lost. So I
would like to pass on to Robin Fryer now, to discuss perhaps the – an alternative
solution. Because really a cut and cover tunnel, although it would initially cause
damage to this grouping, would actually retain it much more intact.
79. MR FRYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could I have slide A710(9) please?
16
This slide shows you the proposal as we understand it, the current proposal, to do a cut
– a cutting in there with embankments and low retaining walls, surrounded on either
side by bunds and tree screening. This shows the magnitude of the development.
According to the Environmental Statement 15% loss of land for Stoneleigh Business
Park, and 30% of land cut off by this development.
80. The Environmental Statement, I can give you the references, 10, 4, 12, says that
the interruption of the master plan over this area may have resulted in approximately a
further 600 jobs being lost. This resource will be subject to potentially significant
effects on business activity and employment. This is a worry to the community,
regardless of the commercial compensation package. It does detract from this area and,
as Jane pointed out, the promise of a high-tech very high quality development is likely
to be seriously undermined by HS2’s own words that an open cutting, with noise
problems, will militate against private developers coming along and building alongside
this.
81. We would ask that the cut and cover tunnel - and the diagrams below on the slide,
are taken from the presentation LaSalle gave to the parish council at a recent meeting,
and would ask you to pressurise HS2 to consider either, we would prefer figure 6, or
figure 7 as being the only options that will actually mitigate the damage that will be
caused to this very small and highly complex area. We think that the – putting the
tunnel in will allow the high tech science park to proceed as a quality development. It
will reduce the noise for the Abbey, the business community and the village of
Stoneleigh. It will produce less damage to an area of historic significance. It will, of
course, produce a lot less waste materials, as the excavation shown in 2 and 5 will be
considerably less if we put a cut and cover tunnel in.
82. This solution of one of the cut and cover tunnels will not degrade the historical
continuity of the estate and also we would, from our local knowledge, point out that this
is very sticky clay they’re going to be working through. They could probably have
guessed it by the fact they’re running next to Brick Kiln Spinney, near Stareton, just
beyond the Avon on the left hand side they run past a Roman tile and brickworks and,
as they go past Kenilworth, they go past the former brickworks of Henry Hawkes and
Cherry Orchard. This clay is like concrete in the summer and like treacle in the winter,
so we suspect the retaining walls will, in fact, have to be somewhat higher than they are
17
currently proposing.
83. If I can now go on please to A710 slide 10. I would like to deal with the ancillary
works that are being proposed by HS2. The photograph in front of you, number one,
shows the field which is indicated on the map below, which is for an otter holt and bat
roost, and the photograph number two is looking from the bank on the left-hand side of
the large photograph showing the confluence of the Avon and the Sowe. Our objection
to this is these ancillary works and biological offsettings will be destroying an ancient
area of pasture and historic water meadows for the principle of ecological mitigation.
We would also like to point out that the International Otter Survival Fund
recommendations for otter holts is that they should be above the flood plain level, and
also bat roosts, from the Bat Trust, indicates that bats, normally 75%, roost in trees. So
therefore the bank and the area of woodland immediately to the north – sorry, the west
– of the river would be far more suitable place for ecological mitigation. Could I have
the next slide please? Number 11.
84. This shows the National River Agency’s flood map, and the otter holt and the bat
route is at the confluence, as you can see. The likelihood is that it will be washed away.
So we would ask you to request HS2 to delete this ancillary work as being more
damaging than the mitigation offset it is proposing. Below the slide you see the reasons
why there is so much flooding. The bridges across the Avon seem to have been
designed to actually act as a choke point, and we can tell you, because we live alongside
the Avon, it forms a series of linear balancing ponds from Stoneleigh right the way
through to Warwick, and they are around about 100 yards wide and about 2 metres
deep, and many times during the winter.
85. Right, if I can now please go on to 7010(12) please. On this slide you see the
proposed works to incorporate HS2 route. Number one shows the embankment
immediately north of the Avon, and number two shows the bridge over the Avon.
These are shown in the map to the side. Now, our objection to this is that the pond and
the embankment and the road are, according to the Environmental Statement, on the –
constitute, ‘High adverse impact and major adverse effect. The realignment of the B4
Ashow Road and the creation of the balancing pond. There is also archaeological
features there.’ Now we feel we could save HS2 money if they come and talk to us,
because there are many other ways of dealing with this that won’t require heavy earth
18
movements, embankments and formation of ponds. So if I can now go on please to 13.
86. This is the – near Stareton. This is the balancing pond and diversion of the
Stareton Road with a pumping station. Now, our objection to the pumping station is it’s
a built facility, in the middle of the countryside. Surely, if you’ve got to have one, it
would be better to put it in the built envelope of the Stoneleigh Business Park? Also we
cannot see the logic in pumping water ten metres up to a balancing pond to then either
pump it or allow it to run down again. It just seems to be wasting a lot of energy and a
lot of – creating a lot of CO2. It is literally ten metres above the section of the track
alongside Stare Lodge. Stare Bridge and East Lodge, sorry.
87. Right, if we can now go on to transport issues, which is I would like to come back
to slide two if that’s possible please. This, as you’ve heard from everybody, is the –
this is our heart where it crosses – heart of our parish, where the A46 is crossed by the
HS2 lines. We have been closely in contract with our Highways Authority,
Warwickshire County Council, and they’ve pointed out the importance of this road to
us with 84,000 average traffic movements per day in 2013. We - compared with M40,
which is just slightly more, and the M69 which is only 56,000. They also have told us
there is a 2% growth on this road. But there are also other problems. There are a lot of
developments either side of this that we would like to make the Committee aware of.
88. If you look at the top of the area, in the Baginton Parish, at Baginton, there is
proposal by Coventry City Council and businessmen to put 10,000 job development,
industrial development, there. The application is actually sitting on the Secretary of
State’s desk at this very time. If you come down to Kenilworth, where the figure 30 is,
the local plan proposes to put 800 houses and commercial developments there. There is
also more housing going in where the Kenilworth School is, above the, ‘W’ of
Kenilworth and, of course, you’ve already dealt with the Crackley Gap where 93 houses
were approved by the District Council six or seven weeks ago. So the whole of this
traffic area is likely to increase. If we can go on now please to slide 15.
89. This will show our concern for – our parish concerns. This is part of HS2’s
haulage map, showing how they are hauling the vehicles. You will see that they have
indicated there are areas where they find that they think there will be congestion, and
they’re – they concentrate mainly onto the lower one, which is the Leamington Road.
19
We feel that they have not actually identified the problem with Stoneleigh village. I’m
sure that your bus must have crossed the narrow, medieval-based bridge when you
visited us. That bridge has not been identified as a problem. It’s a problem today, and
will continue to be a problem. But I will not dwell on that because Martin Smith will
be giving you a presentation on that. The other blue lines are the significant roads
which we feel are likely to be used as rat runs by the haulage industry, and we seek to
have those minimised.
90. If I can go on now to the next slide, 710(16) please. This shows the – in detail –
the proposals for the haulage routes. You will note that this, coming off the A46 from
the north, requires a turn towards Stoneleigh Crossroads. From the south the M40,
which is their preferential heavy haulage route, you require a right turn onto a narrow
bridge, narrow road bridge and, coming also from the Dalehouse Lane, which is by the
main route to Warwick University, there is another major haulage routes. This route
then, coming off this junction, the A46 Stoneleigh Road junction then proceeds down to
the crossroads outside Stoneleigh. This is already a traffic problem, because it’s used as
a major connector to Warwick University and Coventry. Warwick University, I
believe, estimate over 7000 of their people use the A46 Stoneleigh Road junction every
morning.
91. From there, the road haulage route is down the Ashow Road, the B4115, and into
the construction compound. On photographs one and two, which I will not dwell on,
this is Stoneleigh village with the bridge, and photo two shows the narrowness of the
bridge. We were, in fact, stuck there only two weeks ago when a container lorry went
across. If we can go on to the next slide, 17 please.
92. This is a solution which is listed in the Highway Authority, Warwickshire County
Council’s Local Transport Plan, LPT3 for the period 2011 up until 2026, the period the
HS2 will be on. They suggest that a dumbbell island, double island, would be the
solution. We think this has great merit and we have asked HS2 to consider, but they do
not consider, in their reply to us, that there is sufficient reason for it. But we see this as
being two options: It eases the traffic, it allows the compound to be accessed away
from the problematic congestion on the Stoneleigh Crossroads. Warwickshire County
Council are intending to put an Order on the HS2 saying they can only use the junction
during certain hours away from any peak traffic. Now, we feel that if this island goes in
20
that will become irrelevant. It will allow free flow, and that it will also help our
residents greatly. It will have the side effect of reducing the tendency for the HGV
lorries to continue down the Ashow Road to the A452 Leamington Road, which is a
short-cut if they are so close to that junction, and that is something that the Parish
would like the Select Committee to ask HS2 to reconsider. Next slide please, which is
slide 15, is it?
93. MRS FRYER: 18.
94. MR FRYER: Sorry, 15 is it? This shows – sorry, are we on 15?
95. MRS FRYER: 15. 14.
96. MR FRYER: 14. Sorry. Slide 14 please. Can we have slide 14. There. This
shows the proposal to put the major construction compound in this position next to the
rail line, off the Ashow Road. You will see from the photograph below that it is an area
of active agricultural use. It’s a Grade II or, at the worst, Grade IIIA. Six years of
major compound, offices, residential accommodation, road access and parking for
vehicles will completely destroy this. It is very unlikely, in our experience, that these
construction compounds ever get returned to productive agricultural use. We would ask
that it is moved further away from there, because there is another problem.
97. This – the area that you see in this photograph is the subject of, about every two
years, a major agricultural exhibition and demonstration. The last one, I think, was a
year ago, which was Muck and Grass where over £5 million of agricultural equipment
was used to demonstrate and to sell. We think it’s probably not just of local interest but
of national, if not international, interest. While this is covered in the Environment
Statement, their action is, ‘Well we will have to pay compensation.’ But it doesn’t
compensate the local community for the loss of jobs and income caused by this. So we
would ask you to encourage HS2 to move this compound to a less visible, less
damaging place. If it has to go on this side of the A46, closer to the junction, the A46,
Stoneleigh Road junction would be a far more sensible place to put it, where it can be
reasonably screened.
98. We would also point out the fact that, according to HS2’s own Environment
Statement this compound is over a Romano-British archaeological site, which will be
21
permanently lost if this continues. So we think there are very good reasons to ask for it
to change. So, finally if I can go on to slide 18. This is a slide showing the character of
the area we’ve been talking about. The bridges that go over it. The bridge number 2 is,
in fact, only a 1920s bridge, mainly concrete, but faced out to be in accord with the
character.
99. I understand from our local Council that you, sir, made a statement saying that the
bridges have more impact on the local community than they do on the travellers,
therefore, that should be taken into consideration. This is just simply to illustrate to you
how much we feel that our environment will be degraded if we ended up with item 7.
Something like this just rushing through it, and we would ask that you remind HS2 of
the National Planning Policy Framework, clause 126, which says, ‘The desirability of
new development making positive contribution to the local character and
distinctiveness, and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic
environment to the character of the place.’ That is the end of my presentation. Jane,
would you like to finish off please?
100. MS MACKENZIE: Well yes, I’ll just conclude very briefly. Well we hope we
demonstrated the importance of the area locally and nationally. Stoneleigh Park isn’t
just any business park or science park in the way of HS2. Because of the location of it
it is very special, and it has importance and a value that we’re trying to preserve. The
cutting through this parkland, and the associated infrastructure, will be hugely and
irrevocably damaging to the registered landscape. The traffic proposals will be
disastrous for us, unless you take on board some of our suggestions, and we’d ask you
to look at them again. In our view, the least damaging option will be for the line of
HS2 to be routed to avoid the registered parkland, where it clips it on the corner, and to
go through the park in a cut and cover tunnel, and then for any other associated
infrastructure to be built in a sympathetic material and design to suit the landscape.
101. We’d like our area to be given special consideration, because of the complexity of
the problems, and we would urge HS2 to have meaningful discussions with all the
stakeholders to try and find a more acceptable solution that does put a value on the
landscape. Thank you.
102. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you. Mr Strachan.
22
103. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I think I’m going to ask Mr Miller just
to deal with the choice of the route and just to pick up on some of the points of detail.
I’m conscious you’re going to hear a number of petitioners dealing with this section, so
it may be helpful if he sets that context for you, if I ask Mr Miller to take his usual seat.
104. MR MILLER: Good afternoon.
105. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’ve asked for an operational plan showing the live
route in this location to come up on screen, P3200. Mr Miller, could I just ask you to
briefly outline the choice or the reasons for the choice of the line of route in this location
and, in particular, where it passes through in between Stoneleigh Abbey and the deer
park to the north, through what is called Stoneleigh Park Limited land? We can see the
line of route here. Stoneleigh Business Park is marked there and this is a slightly
different plan, but it’s showing the line of route passing through part of the Stoneleigh
Business Park. Above that of course is the deer part and below that is Stoneleigh
Abbey. Can you just explain the choice of route in that location, first of all?
106. MR MILLER: Yes. There’s been quite a history of the development of the route
alignment in this location, and that goes way back to 2009, when our route alignment
and the engineering report, which was ultimately published in 2010, had a route that
actually passed to the north of the Stare Bridge and went very close to Stareton, the little
hamlet of Stareton to the south and Stoneleigh just to the northeast.
107. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If you just put up one of the petitioners’ slides,
A710(5), that may help. This was referred to a moment ago. The registered park and
gardens that was identified divided into two, but with a linkage between the two. The
red line originally was just farther.
108. MR MILLER: This way, and you can see the hamlet of Stareton there, which has
got a large number of listed buildings, as the petitioners have noted, in this area, and
Stoneleigh a little bit farther up. Our alignment came up from bottom right up through
the deer park and then around to the north of Kenilworth.
109. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It was shifted down southwards effectively or
23
westwards. Where it is now, we can see, although the registered park and gardens are
connected along Stoneleigh Road, the line of route now goes through that section there
and through what is now Stoneleigh Park Limited, the more developed area of the two.
110. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. What we looked at in 2009 and 2010 was a
revised remit from Government asking us to look at the line of the route, which had
been drawn in 2009 and published in 2010, and to think about communities along the
line of the route. This was one of the hotspot areas along the line of the route, as one
would imagine; it’s a registered park and garden, as has been indicated, and it was close
to, certainly on this side of the map, two very historic centres. The decision was taken
to move the route. Well, it’s sort of southwest.
111. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Of course the petitioners have raised the issue of
Stoneleigh Abbey, and we looked at some pictures of Stoneleigh Abbey. That’s now
where the arrow’s pointing, the red dot. We looked at both the western façade and I
think the southern façade of Stoneleigh Abbey. Does this line of route affect Stoneleigh
Abbey itself, the building we looked at, visually or indeed in terms of noise?
112. MR MILLER: No, the line of route doesn’t. There is a traffic route from
Stoneleigh Road down through Bericote Road farther south – I’ll show it on the plan –
but not the Abbey directly itself.
113. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The line is passing through in cutting through the
Stoneleigh Business Park area.
114. MR MILLER: It is. It’s in a part-retained cutting; in fact, it’s a trough, which
recognises the groundwater conditions in this location. It’s why you have pumps in this
area. There’s a concrete trough at the bottom of the railway and then there are more
traditional cutting slopes to the top of that concrete structure.
115. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Can I just deal with a number? I think
there were three or four other specific concerns. First of all, in relation to construction
traffic, I know the Committee’s going to look at the A46 construction traffic in
particular, in a bit more detail, but if we could just look at P3208, I think the
24
Committee’s already seen some of these slides. Sorry, it’s taking some time to load on
to the system, but there are some more details.
116. We have on the screen Stoneleigh Business Park here. Sorry, the cursor’s
pointing towards it. The A46 is over to the left and the Committee’s already heard
about how the A46 would be constructed. I just want to deal with the issue of
Stoneleigh itself. If one looks above there, the village of Stoneleigh is up there and, just
to the left of that, there’s traffic coming from the A46 along Stoneleigh Road and then
down to the Ashow Road to service the works at that point. There isn’t any construction
traffic route going beyond that or down the B4115 Ashow Road. Is that correct? The
idea is not to have construction traffic.
117. MR MILLER: Yes, there’s no substantive construction traffic going down that
road, although you can see that the road itself is realigned and will have to be tied in, but
that’s the lesser of the works in this area. What that construction site is doing, the
yellow and brown odd-shaped blob there, that’s taking in the materials from the
alignment, the trench through here, and storing that. It’s also a road head, which means
that it’s the point in this location along the line of the route, as it’s being built, to be
made the principal point of access on to the haul road along the line of the route. You
are going to be dealing with all the movements in and out.
118. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The other major point of concern raised by
petitioners, and we’ll hear from others, is Stoneleigh itself and the concern about the
Stoneleigh Bridge you heard about and construction traffic passing over the route of the
Stoneleigh Bridge. Again, there is no construction traffic routing shown in that location
and I think an assurance has already been offered to that effect – that there wouldn’t be
any large vehicles passing through Stoneleigh, as a result of the construction of the
scheme. Is that the case?
119. MR MILLER: That’s the case, yes. I would add that, when we went out on a site
visit, we actually went through that route and then came back round to the agricultural
centre, so I think everyone is pretty much aware of Stoneleigh itself and its compact
nature. It’s an attractive village.
25
120. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Whilst we have this map on screen, can you just
deal with the construction compound that’s shown by the A46? It’s one of the latter
points raised by the Parish Council a moment ago. They’re concerned about the
location of it and wanted to see if it could be re- located. Can you just briefly explain,
Mr Miller, why that location has been chosen and the difficulties with re-locating it?
121. MR MILLER: As I just mentioned, it’s the principal access point for the haul
along the line of the route, so it’s fundamental to the building of the railway and its
principal features along the railway. It’s also the site that is going to receive material for
stockpiling, so it needs to have access on to the trunk road network as quickly as
possible to avoid lengthy routes for HGVs. That’s why this location has been chosen
close to the A46.
122. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. There was a concern raised about the
viaduct across the River Avon and the flood plain storage area. Let me get you a better
plan just to illustrate that. If one goes to P3204, we can see to the right hand side the
line is in cutting and then it’s coming across and crossing the River Avon at a very short
viaduct there, at that point. Above that – the River Avon’s going effectively northeast –
to the right there is a flood plain storage area or a flood plain replacement area and,
within that to the right, an area of ecological mitigation planting. Can you please
explain what is entailed in that location and why it’s there?
123. MR MILLER: Putting the railway through here does alter the flood regime. In
order for us to accommodate that, we are looking at scraping the ground here, that blue
section of land, sort of in the area where there’s the confluence of the two rivers. That’s
to give us much more flood storage capacity in those times of flooding. To avoid that
being extended elsewhere, it will find a place to go if we don’t do something like that.
This gets us into a place where we can control the water.
124. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There was a concern about the design of bridges in
the location. That of course is the subject of the matter of detailed design in due course
and approvals from the local planning authority. It may help just to show you that there
is one photo montage that the Committee may have seen. It may just help to show the
viaduct that we’ve just been looking at, and that is in the environmental statement
26
LV01118. It’s just there, if you could get both before and after. Just up a bit; no, sorry,
down a bit. You’ve gone past it. It’s this one here. The above is the verifiable photo
montage. You can see from the small plan that we’re standing in the north-northeast
and looking towards the viaduct. In the bottom photograph, you can see, if I show just
here, at this point, just to the left, the viaduct is in that location.
125. MR MILLER: What this is showing is that it’s a fairly short length of viaduct.
It’s not as shown on your previous photograph, which was quite a high viaduct cutting
across the landscape. This is across the river valley here.
126. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry, are you referring to the petitioner’s previous
photograph?
127. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right.
128. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Finally, Mr Miller, there was a point raised or the
general point that the petitioner would have liked to have seen pursued was a
cut-and-cover tunnel throughout this section to address their concerns. There is, as they
referred to earlier, some work that’s been undertaken, both during the environmental
statement process and in discussions with the Stoneleigh Park group of petitioners. Can
I just get P3265, because it just summarises the reasons why the promoter didn’t
consider a cut-and-cover tunnel to be a proportionate response?
129. You’ll see there it would have involved 2.1 kilometres of cut-and-cover tunnel
over the cutting areas that we looked at through the Stoneleigh Park estate. There was a
cost/benefit analysis done of that. There were some additional operational risks of
having a cut-and-cover tunnel in that location and the construction costs were around
£95 million over Baseline 3. I apologise for the jargon; Baseline 3 is effectively a
scheme that’s being promoted in front of the Committee with the cutting proposal
through the Stoneleigh Business Park.
130. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s correct and that’s the – sorry, it’s on there –
£95 million additional estimated construction costs.
27
131. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think a point was raised about, for example, if you
put a cut-and-cover tunnel in that might mitigate, for example, the area around the East
Lodge, where there are some trees that might be removed. Could I just ask you to
explain some of that? If one did pursue a cut-and-cover tunnel, would that prevent the
loss of trees whilst that constructs the cut-and-cover tunnel or do they have to be
removed, if they are going to be removed under the current proposal as one?
132. MR MILLER: In this instance, they would have to be removed. It would be a
top-down construction and digging-out of the tunnel with concrete walling either side.
133. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you very much. Mr Miller, I think that’s
sufficient just to give the Committee an overview of what’s going on in this general
location. Just to complete the picture for the Committee, there is an assurance that
relates to Stoneleigh, which I think we’ll be looking at with subsequent petitioners
today, who’ve raised the issue of traffic through the Stoneleigh village. The promoter
has offered an assurance in that respect that, subject to the local provisions that this is
actually a matter for the local highway authority, there isn’t any proposal to put
construction traffic routing through Stoneleigh itself or along the Stoneleigh Bridge,
which would explain why it’s not identified as an area of concern on the plan that the
petitioners have raised. I haven’t got any further questions for Mr Miller, but there may
be questions from the petitioner.
134. CHAIR: Mrs Mackenzie, any questions?
135. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Before you do, if I look at 3665, it’s a 2.1-kilometre
cut-and-cover tunnel. If we look at 3264 at the moment, if I put my fingers on the scale,
metres nought to 750, then apply it to the map, it roughly goes from the Stoneleigh Park
accommodation overbridge to the Stoneleigh Road. What’s the argument against a
three-quarter-of-a-kilometre cut-and-cover tunnel?
136. MR MILLER: To shorten the cut-and-cover tunnel? I will ask. I’m sure that
work’s been looked at, but the request that was made –
137. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I understand that. I wasn’t trying to contradict what
28
has been told. I was trying to build on the conversation.
138. MR MILLER: I’ll find out if there’s any engineering issue with that. Of course, I
think the main purpose was to respond to the particular.
139. CHAIR: Okay, would you like to ask some questions as well? Mr Fryer.
140. MR FRYER: The flood storage relief at the junction of the Avon and Sowe, will
it still work as a flood storage relief when it’s covered with 2 metres of water from the
river?
141. MR MILLER: It’s a question of volume. What you’re doing is you’re taking it
down. You’re going to create additional volume in that location. The volume that has
gone on here, we’ll have taken that into account.
142. MR FRYER: Has it taken into account the fact that the river is fairly close to the
banks there so that, if you go down too deep, all you’re going to do is have a permanent
water table go through that?
143. MR MILLER: What I can say to you is that the work we have done to date, based
on the modelling through these areas, indicates that this would work. We’ve looked at
each of these sites along the line of the route with the Environment Agency and, at the
moment, we don’t have any reason to believe that they wouldn’t work. They will
require further detailed approvals with the local flood authorities and with the
Environment Agency, as required by the Bill. Ultimately, the final plans for this will be
worked out in the detailed design.
144. MR FRYER: Could we just turn back to our drawing of 71012, please? Would
that be possible? We can’t quite recognise your photo montage of the crossing of the
Avon. We think it probably relates to the scheme you talked about earlier, which was
when the cutting went through the Park. It doesn’t look anything like the photograph
that I took only two weeks ago.
145. MR MILLER: I’m not quite sure where you’ve taken your photograph from, but
29
that’s quite close.
146. MR FRYER: I’ve taken it from gate 3.
147. MR MILLER: That’s quite close. I think our view is some distance away,
admittedly. I think our view is farther up and might even be off this plan.
148. MR FRYER: Could we have back on screen your view, please?
149. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s LV01118. I don’t know if we can get it
expanded but, if you look at the bottom of the box, there’s a location of the viewpoint.
It’s that viewpoint. It’s farther up on the B4115. That’s the location of the viewpoint.
150. MR FRYER: I’m pretty certain it is not the point that it’s going through, because
the trees you see on the side are totally different from the ones there.
151. MR MILLER: I think your photograph is down here.
152. CHAIR: Have we answered that?
153. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Our photograph’s taken from the purple point,
where the arrow’s pointing now, on the B4115.
154. MR MILLER: I think you’re right on top of the river with your photograph, so
you’re seeing it at a much closer view. It’s probably right.
155. MR FRYER: I don’t want to waste the Committee’s time.
156. MR MILLER: I don’t think we’re saying that your photograph is wrong and the
yellow lines, but I think you’re looking at it right on top. What the environmental
statement is doing is taking the view from a point where we think it’s the closest
viewpoint that you’d have, my guess is, from the bottom of Stoneleigh itself, whereas I
think you’re right on top of it, right by the river.
30
157. CHAIR: In general, Mr Fry, HS2 takes pictures from a distance; petitioners take
pictures very close. We just take a slightly jaundiced view about both.
158. MR FRYER: I think that is really all my comments, apart from just to note that
your assurance that you’ve given on Stoneleigh Bridge does have a wonderful caveat at
the bottom, which says, ‘HS2 associated large vehicles for the duration of the
construction period, except in circumstances where it would not be reasonable or
practical to use other routes’. We would really like that to be strengthened by saying,
‘with permission from the highways authority granted’.
159. MR MILLER: I think we’ve given this answer before. The final construction
routing of vehicles is down to the local highways authority. There are provisions within
schedule 16 of the Bill, which enables these routes to be established and confirmed. I
suspect that Warwickshire will put some heavy restriction on that road going through
Stoneleigh. Our assurance recognises that but, as I’m sure you’re aware, every now and
then something might happen and we might have to put a vehicle down there. What that
is saying to you is that that is really the exception, rather than any obvious case of
moving traffic along that road and over that bridge.
160. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Unless there are any more questions, I’m just going
to answer Sir Peter’s question, if I may, or try to do so. P3265, the answer is there’s no
reason why the cut-and-cover tunnel couldn’t be shorter. If it were shorter, it would
potentially be cheaper. It doesn’t correlate directly proportionately, but it certainly
would be cheaper. Some of the other points would remain the same in terms of
increased operational risk and the –
161. CHAIR: Can I ask what that means?
162. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, it’s shorthand. As I understand it, it relates to
the design of the cut-and-cover tunnel potentially reducing the design from 400 kph to
360 kph. There may be some less efficient acceleration through tunnels, as you’ve
heard. There are some additional power costs of entering and exiting tunnels, so it’s
those sorts of things. None of them are insurmountable operational difficulties. They’re
just factored into the overall equation, but that’s what it’s referring to. In the overall
31
balance, those are things that are taken into account. The additional kit – ‘kit’ is
probably the wrong expression – but in the tunnels the additional maintenance costs of
looking after the kit, that’s what it’s referring to.
163. CHAIR: So was that looked at, at all?
164. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think a smaller tunnel’s been looked at,
because I don’t think it’s been requested. If someone wants to raise a shorter tunnel, I
could probably get the consequential cost savings worked out As I understood it, it
wasn’t something Stoneleigh Park Limited was looking at and the Parish Council at
others were looking at a potentially longer tunnel, rather than shortly.
165. MRS MACKENZIE: Can I just say I do believe that there have been two
proposals put forward for a 2.1- or 2.5-kilometre tunnel and a much shorter one? The
other question I ask is that, whichever option you go for, it’s going to involve vastly
different amounts of compensation, I would have thought. Is that being factored into the
cost?
166. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It shows from the flight-through, which I know is
only a representation, that I don’t see a green bridge and I don’t see a green tunnel. The
green tunnel we know, but I don’t think I see a substantial green bridge in the area.
167. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The Stoneleigh Road bridge, the realigned bridge, is
intended to be a realigned bridge taking the road over the route. Where the
cut-and-cover tunnel is being proposed is effectively through the Stoneleigh Park
Limited area, which is the subject of its own petition and development proposals, rather
than green proposals. There are proposals for the development of that area, but you’re
right. I will check whether there was a smaller tunnel option looked at, because there
were a number of tunnel options dealt with at the environmental stage, which are
referred to in the environmental statement. This latest slide was to deal specifically with
a request that had been made by Stoneleigh Park Limited and there’s a response to that.
168. CHAIR: Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, the three of you. We
now move on to the Stoneleigh Action Group, which is Mr Smith and Mr Bianco.
32
Stoneleigh Action Group
169. CHAIR: Right, who’s kicking off for the Stoneleigh Action Group then?
170. MR SMITH: Good afternoon. I’m Martin Smith and I’m the Chairman of
Stoneleigh Action Group. In a minute, I’m going to pass over to Anthony Bianco,
who’s going to talk to you about the first part. Thank you very much for inviting us
here this afternoon. On my way in, through the Great Hall, I was very pleased to be
reminded of one of the banners that says, in 1265, Simon de Montfort, held one of the
first parliaments, which as you probably know was held in Kenilworth. Kenilworth and
Stoneleigh are coming back. I think it signifies the historic importance of the area.
171. CHAIR: That was pointed out when we were touring around.
172. MR SMITH: I’ll hand over now to Mr Anthony Bianco.
173. MR BIANCO: Good afternoon. Gentlemen, you’ve heard from Martin that we’re
going to do this in two parts. It’s a bit of a Laurel and Hardy show. We won’t take too
much of your time because, to some extent, we’re coming towards the end of our
community group. Our community group, in our opinion, stretches all the way up to
Middleton, down here to Kenilworth and so on. You’ve heard about community
forums. Amazingly, we talk to each other and that’s why there is a certain amount of
possible repetition. May we say at the start, if we are repetitive, please give us the nod
and we’ll shut up. Briefly anyway, Sir Peter is close by and he’ll bang me on the head
or something.
174. Both of us have been active in this for about three or four years, and we’ve taken
part in very amicable discussions with HS2. Warwickshire has done very well. We’ve
been patient, we’ve been talkative and we’ve had jolly good chairmen as well, which
has helped. Both of us have taken part in community forums, and we have taken part
and hosted most of our area’s bilateral meetings, so we’re not un-attuned to some of the
thoughts from HS2.
33
175. You know where we are, I think, and I don’t want to dwell too much on it. We
have the map. You know exactly where we are. You came to see us very kindly, and I
think that we can reasonably say that you know we’re tranquil, medieval, historic –
whatever you want to call us. In a few moments, Sheila Woolf, who is much better than
us historically, will give you an absolutely wonderful historic profile of every one of our
450 dwellings and 80 Grade II listed and Grade II* buildings and 15th century churches.
176. We’ll just do a quick run-through if we may. There’s a little bit of a photo
montage just to make sure that you haven’t actually missed it. I think it’s the first slide
actually, please. Martin’s done a little photo montage of churches. There it is. It
couldn’t be more tranquil, could it? Next slide, please.
177. We’ve done this as a threesome, just so you haven’t by any chance missed it. You
remember you came. That’s the church, 15th century arch and the river, which has been
talked about over the last few minutes and with some detail.
178. I think the next slide shows Stare Bridge. Okay, that’s where we are. This is the
Stoneleigh Group and some of the red dots show the number of houses that are
particularly listed and so on. We’re going to hear about Stare Bridge from Sheila later.
We will not dwell on that too much, except to say that that’s a particular point right at
the top end of the Stoneleigh Park estate. We were very pleased that Peter Miller, who
is behind us today, when you came round took up the case for Sheila and I, as I’m also a
member of the Stoneleigh History Society, and got Helen Glass to come – in fact she
came twice – to look at Stare Bridge. We’re grateful both to you for having a look at it,
Peter for chasing it through and we’re also grateful for our District Council, who’s
behind us here with [break in audio] who’s supporting us today and on this particular
historic building aspect. I won’t dwell any more on that, because Sheila’s going to give
you the full nine yards and quite a lot of smart photographs.
179. Now, we are an integrated community and our action group meets regularly under
the auspices of our County Council. We’re very grateful for than, and Sara is behind us
supporting us again today. In fact, the last meeting was actually on Friday, when about
40 of us listened with great interest to our highways officer Andrew Savage. It is
pertinent to what we’re going to do, because he brought us as much up to date as he can,
34
both with your assurances, the statements that you made during their visit to you on
20 November. We feel that we’re reasonably briefed. On the other hand, of course, we
do have some concerns.
180. We also attend the HS2 Action Alliance and the Fed meetings and so on. Again,
this is germane to what we’re going to say, because you’ve heard from Hilary Wharf
and she’s written to you on numerous occasions, I think. We will refer to some of the
documents that she’s written on our group’s behalf.
181. Now, really to business, if we could possibly have slide 706(7), please. Thanks.
Okay, I’ve not put 706 up, but I will in a second. This is absolutely key to the start of
our proposal. This wonderful chart that you saw in the blowing wind the other day, we
make no bones about it. I’d only add a couple of things to it. If you look to the
northwest of it, although Hull isn’t marked, you’ve got to understand that we’re right in
the centre of the country. We’ve got Hull, Felixstowe, London, Southampton, Bristol –
182. MR MEARNS: It would be northeast.
183. MR BIANCO: East, I do apologise.
184. MR MEARNS: Except I don’t regard it as north.
185. MR BIANCO: We can only get it wrong.
186. MR MEARNS: I’m afraid to say, if you live in the proper northeast, Hull isn’t
northeast.
187. MR BIANCO: I do apologise. The point about this slide we are right at the centre
of this country. This is not just a little A road; this is one of the nation’s international
and strategic road. We’ve talked to the highways authority as well as our own highways
people, and it is crystal clear, with the sort of proposals that have been made by the
Highways Agency – Highways Agency, I should say – in their new business plan that
there is absolutely no question about it that this is one of only four cross-country routes
that England has. We can talk about regenerations. I did at one party conference
35
recently, but it’s absolutely crystal that we must understand that the level of traffic
through here is absolutely vital nationally and also to lots of people’s prosperity. There
we are.
188. Can we just go back to 706(6), please? This shows, as you’ve seen on a number
of occasions this afternoon, the railway crossing the A46. You also heard about this
crossing from Councillor George Illingworth from Kenilworth, last week, Ashley from
Crackley, Joe Elliott on behalf of Coventry with one of your colleagues as well, and
how important this road is. It cuts right up the middle and it is a problem for us. It’s a
problem for our community because, if there is any diversion or blockage on that road,
this area collapses pretty quick. More importantly, not only does it collapse here, if you
talk to both the two police authorities – West Midlands and our own – and the Road
Haulage Association and the Highways Agency, this has ramifications right the way
back to Rugby, Birmingham, up to Leicester and down on to the M40. Can I be assured
that we’ve now got this strategic route problem and that we don’t need to bang on about
it too much more? I will come to it more in a second.
189. It appears, although we have not been really informed, that you are proposing to
divert this road. I think, if we go to 706(10), please, Robin brought up these figures.
Can I just put some emphasis on this, some real-time emphasis? These are produced by
the Highways Agency; these are average figures and they are real- time, possibly as late
as 2013. I say this because, in the ES, in fact some of the figures produced were about
17 or nearly 20,000 vehicles short. I don’t know why. That’s in the ES; so be it. The
fact is that those figures that were in the ES do not appear to be quite correct, so we’ve
got a big chunk of extra figures and these are the crossing points – not just ourselves
over the A46, across the M40, off the M6. You can’t have it much more than that.
We’re pretty busy. That’s what it comes back to. I think you all probably agree with
that. We’ve done that on the ground. We’ve established quite clearly that that is the
position.
190. I just come back to the Highways Agency. I’m not quite to what extent the
promoter, and Mr Strachan will probably help us, I don’t know, has actually been really
working closely with the Highways Agency. It would be a little extraordinary if they
had that they wouldn’t have actually noticed that this is a pretty important bit of
36
crossing.
191. The Highways Agency business plan, 2014, was created, because the Highways
Agency, as you all may well know, is about to be renamed and refranchised as part of
the Department. The importance of the A46 route following that business plan is that
they’ve already funded and named two further grade-separation operations to the – wait
a minute – east of Coventry. That is on what you might call a Coventry ring road. It’s
the ring road that rings up the M6 all the way round and comes back to what we call the
Tollbar junction, just to our north, which I think you’ve heard about. If you haven’t, I’ll
point that out to you in a second.
192. It then comes on a short stretch on the A45 and, bang, right above us in Stoneleigh
and the edge of Coventry. It actually exemplifies that they don’t want any further
delays. Those are funded expressways, plus we’ve got the biggest piece of road works
in the country actually taking part at Tollbar. This is a two-way grade separation
operation funded at last and going ahead, so I cannot overestimate what they think the
traffic levels and the importance of this particular part of the road are. The business
plan identifies this as a priority.
193. I then turn to something else. If I could go to – it was our P2878. I don’t know
whether we’ve actually got that. I do apologise. Super, thank you very much. I
apologise; we’ve given them a bit of a task to dig out some of these documents, which
are relatively new, I have to say. We identified just above here, if we just put a pointer
up the A46, a little bit up, up we go, a bit farther up, right to the top of the page. Just
there we come to a roundabout. Well, it’s not a roundabout; it’s actually a single
overbridge. This is actually of considerable importance and you’ve heard about this
overbridge. You’ve heard from Robin, you’ve heard from the Kenilworth team and
from Warwick University how important it is that this single overbridge feeds an
enormous level of traffic, according to HS2. It’s going to take, what it is, 350 HGVs a
day. At the moment, it is regularly traffic-jammed at peak hours and, as you’ve heard
again only half an hour ago, we’re looking at a lot of traffic coming down from the other
business parks. That’s Westwood and the University, and out of Kenilworth, and in and
out of Coventry. You heard Joe Rukin talk to you about the problems of having
transport in and transport out. We seem to lose people in Coventry, it would appear, at
37
various points of the day.
194. The point here is that, above here, the Highways Agency at that bridge has
identified but unfunded, which is called C32, for those who live around there, but C32 is
the supposed number of that particular overbridge. They suggest that it is in
everybody’s interest to see that turned into a proper expressway, grade-separated
junction, not done by islands, but actually a proper separation. That means that we’ll
have two overbridges, i.e. a second one to be built. This would actually firstly only deal
with the traffic that we’ve got today. It may be that, because they’re looking for funding
partners, HS2 could do that and maybe that would into their bailiwick. That isn’t a
suggestion; it is a possible real-time need because, as Robin pointed out, we have other
projects, Gateway for example, a lot of housing and so on coming up around
Kenilworth. It’s important that we have a look at that.
195. We want to stay with this 2878, if we may. Last week, fro the first time,
Mr Mould was kind enough to tell us, and we’re grateful for this information, that you
are proposing to reduce the road from six to three lanes and you’re going to divert it to
the east. Okay? You’re going to build a separate road and you consider that, even
because the traffic numbers perhaps haven’t been quite clearly stated, that you’re going
to be able to do nighttime working and close the road down even more. Now, it was not
fundamentally clear what he was saying, but that has not been brought to our attention,
in spite of considerable effort on our part, over three years, to bring the importance of
this junction to the promoter’s notice.
196. Indeed, we have written and so has our County Council. This was the first time, I
have to say, that the truth might be coming out or at least a plan. All we’ve seen, quite
clearly on the map, are some drawings that look like a deviation, look like a crossing,
but were not clear. I can’t say enough that I think this is absolutely crazy. You are
going to push an enormous number of vehicles and cause, from what I can see, massive
delays.
197. Now, those delays mean something. Without the help of Mr Rukin Junior, I have
the back-of-my-fag-packet operation in front of me. We have talked about some
numbers. It’s something like 85,000. However, when you unpack those numbers, you
38
find that about 70,000 of them are actually private vehicles, but some 15,000 are
definitely HGVs. We can break the 70,000 down into LGVs and in fact we have.
We’ve noticed that there are about 600 buses a day.
198. If you do some simple arithmetic – and we did ask Alex to do it, but he hasn’t
come along to do it, I’m sorry – you have actually stated, or HS2 the promoter has
stated, that the value per hour is £35. If you multiply the 70,000 by 35, you come up
into staggering figures. If you multiply the 15,000 by a figure that has been
appropriated by the Road Hauliers Association and other traffic units, they suggest that,
for every 10-kilometre drop in speed on an expressway or a motorway, it costs them
about £100 an hour. Now, you may be staggered about that. I’m pretty staggered. I sit
on the M6, as we did the other morning, surrounded by them. It must be costing an
absolute fortune.
199. CHAIR: I think they were Mr Rukin’s figures.
200. MR BIANCO: I think we know that, but we need to just grasp those figures. If
we put those figures together and multiply them by 365 or whatever you want to do, Joe
came up with his fag-packet figure, but we’ve actually got a different envelope this
week, because we actually had another look at these figures during the weekend. We
actually reckon they were talking about £25 million. They’re talking about £25 million
a year lost in economic and commercial costs. This actually is a big mitigation factor or
a constraint when you start to look at the cost of digging up a road in this way.
201. This disruption, as we’ve said, is very widespread and I think you’ve accepted
that. We’ve seen on 2878, which we’ve still got up, that it’s quite important to keep
that. If we do reduce to three lanes and if we have a diversion of what appears to be
something in the order of, junction to junction, my figures and our relatively recent
measurements are, it’s about two to three miles apart. We assume speed restrictions
junction to junction, as I suspected would be north, and you know that you have
40 miles an hour before and so on.
202. I just want to make sure that we understand what we were actually saying. With a
car, it’s 70 miles an hour down to 40. With an HGV, it’s 62, which is the average EU
39
speed, down to 40, so it’s 20 miles an hour. These actually, when worked out in lost
hours – that’s how we’ve arrived at those lost-hour figures. I don’t want to baffle you
with science and I’m quite sure that we can have a discussion over these figures, but I
would ask you to accept – and I won’t go on about it anymore – that there’s a lot of
dough being lost on that road, per year.
203. If you’re still not convinced, which I think we are – yes? Yes, no? If you’re not,
we’ll tell you about Tollbar. Tollbar is 2.9 long, the actual road works being 1.6. The
speed restriction is over 3 miles and that has actually resulted in 40- to 50-minute
tailbacks in peak hours and 10 to 15 minutes otherwise, with trucks lining back north,
south, east and west. It’s real time. This isn’t made up; it’s a real diversion problem.
204. I’ve dealt with the diversion problem and I’ve also dealt with our simple
fag-packet calculations. I’d also like to look at time. Could we put up visual 2884(1)
and (2), please? I think it is that one. Sorry, it’s another one. There is a succession of
slides here about the construction activity in the vicinity of the A46. Mr Mould and
others have talked to us about 15 months to divert a major six- lane expressway, to build
a secondary road, to realign it and so on. On this particular, it actually shows – I think it
was the right one, anyway; it’s difficult to see from here. I’ll put my glasses on.
205. It actually shows, as do the successive slides, which I will now whizz through, that
the same 15 months that is being suggested by the promoter is also the same as an
overbridge over Dalehouse Lane – it just goes on; it gets worse – the B4115 Ashow
Road and so on. I don’t believe that’s true. If we could just move to the next one,
which is 2884 –
206. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you think it’s not worth an attempt or do you
think it’s not possible?
207. MR BIANCO: I don’t think it’s possible, quite frankly. I’m not an engineer;
maybe you are. We’ve got their own figures here for minor bridges and yet they use the
same figures, which I shall bring you to on our next construction, for 15 months. Why’s
that important? The importance is that that £25 million that I’m talking about is not 15
months at all. I believe it’s probably 3 years. Tollbar is 2.8 years. Sorry, I think
40
someone needs to have a jolly good look at this. Maybe they have attached it. Maybe
they haven’t looked at this very carefully. I don’t know. All we’re saying is, ‘Please
would you be kind enough to have a look at it.’
208. I think that was 2884. The next one, which exemplifies this, is 2884(2), if that’s
possible. Is that on there? Okay, that shows right at the bottom construction compound
durations. That’s another thing. We talked about the compound. We just want to make
absolutely clear that, in their own figures, the promoter is talking not only just a few
years – three years, six years – but in fact, if you go to the last slide – I won’t bore you
with some of the other ones, but they are germane to our argument. If we go up to 2888,
please, right at the top there, that compound in their figures is six years. We’re talking
about a lot of activity in that area. In terms of time, we would suggest that it’s going to
cost a little bit more money than is thought.
209. This really brings us to constraints. Why are we digging up a major road in this
way? Why are we using 19th century pick and shovel when, possibly, we could have
some tunnels? Sorry about this, but I will come to that again and why I’m saying that.
The constraints here on this are that commercial costs, the overlap of works, which I’m
sorry I didn’t bring up – I’ve missed that out but, on those slides, you’ll remember last
week, there were about seven different operations going on at the same time, right the
way through our area. This is nearly crazy and really does need a little bit of a route
plan. We’ll come back to that if that’s not clear to anybody else. I’m sorry if I missed
that out.
210. Overlap of works and time, we’ve got a few suggested remedies, if we may.
Firstly, we would ask you to look at how you get under the A46. We believe actually
that it’s high time we really did think about tunnelling for sure. We understand that
about 1,000 metres is an economic length and there are lots of advantages. Firstly, we
don’t need to divert the strategic A46. The limited earth works are less expensive spoil
disposal, and a decrease in noise and visual impairment to both our area in Stoneleigh
and of course our neighbours as well. Lastly, poor old Kenilworth Golf Club might save
a hut or two, and also save the promoter a certain amount of compensation.
211. In conclusion on this, we’d ask you to ask the promoter to review the
41
methodology of how they’re dealing with this crossing and consider some suggestions
for a change of practice to the way in which they are, in outline, if only outline that we
have at the moment. We have very few figures. We have Mr Mould’s word for it, only
last week, bless him. There we are.
212. Germane to this, I’m going to move on slightly to traffic routes, because it is quite
important. You brought up just now – I think you brought up P2901. Was it P2901, if
we could? I’m sorry if I asked you for that before. Sorry, I’m picking things up from
different slides. I do apologise. Sorry, that’s not the one I’m thinking I’m getting. It
may be. My 2901 is the 24-hour weekday traffic flow construction phase. Is that a
different one? Sorry, I think Robin brought that up more recently. I think it’s coming
up.
213. You’ve heard quite a bit about traffic flow in the area from our Parish Council
and in fact from some of the people last week, because we are integrated, Dalehouse
Lane coming down to it. You visited. You’ve seen the problems of that coming down.
The ES evidence contains traffic flows. As such, we understand both you and our
County Council have requested reviews of quite a bit of the content. We won’t labour
the figures in the area; enough to say that in our area the key numbers are A4115, as
you know, the crossroads down to Chesford Grange and the A432, which I will come
on to but I won't dwell on it, and the main compound entry and exit point, which you
have just heard about.
214. We consider, and I think our county council considered, that these were pretty
conservative. The local recent traffic town council – you heard George Illingworth last
week – supported by our district council also anticipated local trends, which we have
heard: Warwick University, Westwood Park. They showed – I will not put them all up
again; for those who may remember, it is 2902, 2904, 2905 – considerable increases in
traffic flow right now, never mind 2021. In fact, I will just give you a snapshot of one,
which was 2905. If you look to the corner of 2905 at M, N,O and P, the increase in
HGVs on the Stoneleigh Road and Ashow Road was not just a few per cent; it was
between 39% and 675%. I think that the case is there for a bit of overload, so, I won’t
make that any more.
215. Stoneleigh will survive, whatever the discrepancies in the nature of the surface of
42
the road and the structure of the proposed rail routes. Whether they will sustain the
traffic which we are talking about, I don’t know. They are six metres wide and they are
B country roads. I can give you lots of anecdotal evidence of what happens when they
go down that road. We would ask you again, which I know you have heard and I think
you have supported, for a total review of the traffic flow figures around our area, and
that is right out to the A4115 down the A46 and back into Bericote Lane and
Leamington. We are actually fascinated to know where all this soil is going but it is
disappearing to some massive place in the sky on these green lines. I would also point
out that they are going to use the same diverted road to put additional HGVs down it.
We do not seem to have much planning here. It would be great if we could have some
legal undertaking on those plants but I could possibly doubt we will.
216. Lastly, can I just talk about the tunnelling? We are indebted to Mr Smart, who is
behind us, who very kindly on your behalf and at your request talked about tunnelling. I
have read his document. Of course, it is first class. It actually does exactly what it says
on the tin. It is Tunnelling, Book 1, 2014, and it is tunnel practice. Perhaps we are not
very good at it but that actually really isn’t true is it because we are pretty good at it.
We heard from Dr Paul Thornton last week on our group’s behalf. He took on looking
at costings. It went on a bit and it was pretty deep, deep stuff, but if you looked at it
carefully afterwards and looked at some of the slides, what he is actually saying is that
he was not quite sure that some of those figures really added up to much.
Unfortunately, those are the only figures we have because it is very difficult to get the
figures on tunnelling from the promoter. When Joe brought up the idea of the
Kenilworth tunnel it was £850,000, but it had not had the baseline cost taken away. We
can go on forever surmising on that, can’t we?
217. Well, what about tunnel technology? We are not very far from Bazalgette sewers
and Brunel’s pipes and all the rest of it, and we are also not very far from one of the
other wonders of London, which is the Thames Water Ring Main, which some of you
may have visited. You can get into it from Park Lane, Rosebery Avenue,
Shepherds Bush and so on. It is a magnificent piece of very important engineering
about 20 years old. We managed to get the Channel Tunnel link to St Pancras within an
inch when it opened up and we are still able to get on the Channel Tunnel. We also
have the Limehouse Road link, for example, into Docklands but much more
43
importantly, which you visited the other day, we have Crossrail. Crossrail is a piece of
first-class British engineering skill. I have visited it too. You have also seen nationally
two extremely good drama documentaries, real time, which can only fill us with some
pride. Can I just ask you why in the 21st century we are so unwilling to deal with
tunnels on this our biggest infrastructure project? This is not bringing tears to your eyes
but why is it so expensive? Can we not get some sleeves rolled up to really look into
this because we have a case of a short tunnel that in our opinion would make a
tremendous difference commercially to the nation and also to us, the Stoneleigh
community.
218. So, that is where we are. Please can we have a tunnel under the A46, no
diversions and perhaps a much more crystallised look at the technology which, in my
opinion, we actually have at our fingertips. That is the end of that. I am going to hand
over to Martin, who will now talk about Stoneleigh for real, just down the road.
219. MR SMITH: Could we have slide 15, please? First of all, I apologise; I am going
to talk very briefly on noise. At the moment I have my own noise mitigation, so if I am
not loud enough, please let me know. Our principal concern within Stoneleigh village
certainly will be operational noise. We know that because when there are events on in
Stoneleigh Park, which is obviously to the other side of the HS2 route, we can clearly
hear them. When there are cars driving around the showground, and you will be hearing
from British Motorsports later, we can hear them. When there is amplified speech from
the showground, we can hear it very clearly, and the sound does bounce off the higher
buildings in our village. My house is about 1000 metres, give or take 50 metres, from
this proposed route and I can very clearly hear the noise from Stoneleigh Park.
220. Could we have slide 10 from the promoter’s pack, which I think it is 322, which
relates to operational noise. If we go to the next slide along, please, I think it gives
slightly more detail. That is the sound readings. Can we go back to it? The point I
want to make from this slide or this showing is that obviously in the promoter’s
assessment, coupled with noise readings, which have been taken is the promoter’s view
that there will be no noise affecting Stoneleigh village, or it will be down to the noise
levels which are recorded and shown as being less than 40 dB at night and 50 dB in the
daytime. Now, again that may be based on the methodology which is, I understand, an
averaging methodology but I will leave it there. I just want to make a very simple point
44
that that does not match our exteriors. I am a bell ringer and I can tell you that when we
ring the bells at Stoneleigh Church, from time to time you can hear the bells at
Stoneleigh Abbey and that is about 1200 to 1300 metres away. So, that is another factor
and it might well be that that was one of the reasons why Lord Leigh commissioned the
bells for Stoneleigh Church, so that they could be heard across the estate. We are in a
valley. I am just trying to make the point that we are very concerned about noise and we
cannot accept what we are being shown in the Environmental Statement.
221. Could we move back to slide 16, please, of our presentation set. The final point I
want to make on that last slide is that it says, ‘Rail noise’. I want to come back to that in
a minute. Very briefly, this slide I found on the internet. You may take a view about
what you find on the internet, but it is an acoustic evaluation of a TGV train travelling at
330 km per hour. Microphones were placed at various heights. Bear in mind, and I am
grateful to the chairman for pointing this out, that in this building this room is 6.7 metres
high. The height of the catenary rail will be about another 800 millimetres above that to
7.5 metres. So, it gives you the kind of size of one of the trains that is proposed. But
the point of this slide is that it shows that sound has been picked up in more or less equal
intensity at any height along the train from bottom to top. In fact, if you look at the top
slide, you can virtually see the image of a TGV train.
222. So, we have concerns about that as well. That sound, and airborne sound,
particularly, at the design speed of 360 km per hour may well become the dominant
noise source and not track rail noise, which is standard in classic rail, that it would be
track rail noise. My apologies for talking about noise but I have to mention it.
223. If we could turn to the next slide, this shows what I believe we are being offered at
the moment. I believe that the photomontage shows that as well, although it is very
difficult to say when you are looking 800 metres away. It shows us a barrier of about
four foot high, that is, 1.2 metres. So, what they are really saying is that there is some
mitigation at rail level but apparently no mitigation higher up, and that sound higher up
is the sound that we would be afraid of hearing in Stoneleigh village, based on our
experience.
224. The slide to the right-hand side shows the various aspects of rail noise, locomotive
noise and aerodynamic noise, which is the light blue. If you look at the light blue trace,
45
it is beginning to overtake all the other traces at a speed of between 300 and 360 km per
hour. There is a little discrepancy amongst researchers, apparently, but it is going to
become one of the dominant noise sources, and that is the design speed for this route. If
you look in the bottom left-hand side, that is the kind of standard train rail solution,
track solution, bridge solution that we are apparently being offered. There is no
protection higher up. Now, that might well work at lower speeds but our concern is the
speed. So, are there any other design solutions? I cannot come up with design solutions
but I can at least show some other ideas of bridges which have higher parapet sides or
could incorporate some form of acoustic attenuation within them.
225. Now, obviously we made a big case and a very strong case, I hope, about the
importance of our area, and so whatever bridge is designed we would like it to be
sensitively designed. But we do have the skills to do that. We are an engineering and
architecturally creative nation. I am very grateful to be reminded of document R134,
which is the design policy, D1, which does invite further involvement.
226. Can we move on, please, to the next slide? This is somewhat our own little take
on this area from the River Avon, so leaving Stoneleigh Park, the showground park,
across the land up to the A46. Anthony has already spoken to you about the A46. I
have a few concerns that I would like to talk about. Number one, of course, is this
height and, of course, when the river crossing bridge is actually installed the track rail
will be 10 metres above the riverbed. That means that we are at 10 metres plus the
height of this room. That would represent a severe noise threat, certainly to Stoneleigh
village but to Stoneleigh Abbey as well and the village of Ashow if the wind backs. It
continues at an elevated point for that bridge for about 185 metres when it meets the
natural ground level just below the B4115, which will then be diverted. It then digs into
the land and passes underneath the A46. So, for about 500 metres we think that it is
going to be above the ground and could represent a significant noise threat to our area.
227. Could we move on, please? This is just a view of what this thing might look like.
We presented our images to you showing what our landscape looks like and how special
it is to us, and this is a presentation of what we might get.
228. CHAIR: Can you tell us where the picture is from? Can you tell us where that is?
229. MR SMITH: I can’t, no, I’m sorry.
46
230. CHAIR: Okay.
231. MR SMITH: I was just looking for images but I can’t tell you where that is. I can
find out and I will try to tell you. I have a document here from April 2012 where we
were asking about mitigation, so we have been asking for quite a long time. HS2 in
their own technical paper from about 2012 are showing in the bottom slide what could
be done to attenuate noise, the sorts of things we are asking for, which is noise bumps
and some tree planting to soften it, which you saw on the previous slide.
232. Can we have the next slide, please? I want to turn to the B4115, which is an
ancient drovers road, tree- lined. It is a very attractive road which winds up and down. I
call it a recreational road. It is only six metres wide at the maximum points. It narrows
down. The point I am trying to ask here is whether that is the sort of road crossing that
we are going to get on the diverted B4115 or can we have more sensitivity towards
materials that would be used. Secondly, Warwickshire County Council made a
presentation in October on ecological matters. I think it is important to say that between
the A46 and the river Avon, the HS2 route will actually sever any wildlife routes, so any
land-based animals, muntjac deer, whatever, will be forced on to this bridge and if there
is no wildlife separation, they will be forced into conflict with cars with the risk of
accidents. So, we would like greater thought given, please, to the bridge crossing and
we would also like some understanding of security which might be applied to this
proposal in terms of parapet heights because clearly vandalism and beyond is a major
source of concern. I am sure again that that will be dealt with but I just wanted it to be
noted, please, that we would like a sensitive, rural response to our location. Thank you.
233. Can we have the next slide? It is pleasing to see at least with regard to the
diverted B4115, which is to the right-hand side – it is unfortunate that our area appears
on a joint in the maps, but just to the underside of that labelling, the B4115 – that it is
shown with some planting around it. We can only but hope that that will be indigenous
tree planting. Can we move on to the next slide, please?
234. I want to talk about roads as well. A lot of presentation has been made about
roads, but I just want to talk about local roads in the context of construction works. We
are part of Warwick District Council in Stoneleigh. That means that our administrative
area is to the other side of HS2. So, we are a little bit trapped. To get to Kenilworth
47
where our schools, doctors and dentists are we have to use one of two roads, generally:
the B4115, the Ashow Road, and Crewe Lane or Dalehouse Lane. We know that
Dalehouse Lane will be closed for a period of time to carry out a diversion. So, that
leaves us with the B4115, at least. The alternative is to go up the C32 and pick up the
A429 Coventry to Kenilworth Road. What we are asking is that if we are going to
Kenilworth or Leamington, then at least two of those roads will be left open at any one
time during construction. You might ask, well why two roads. That is simply because
the works are being carried out over a long period of time. If one road suffers a collapse
or a burst water main and has to close, or an accident, we need another road open so that
our children can get to school and everybody can get around.
235. The next slide, please. I shall come back to Stoneleigh Bridge very briefly. I
accept and understand what the promoter is saying but I just want to stress the aspect of
that where the promoter is saying that they will keep off the bridge with larger vehicles
where practical. I think it is important to say that it is the definition of what ‘practical’
means. Who decides practicality? Is it an overstressed operator, a day rate driver? Is it
the fact that it is the shortest route to a disposal point? What I really want to ask the
Select Committee, please, is that there is an assurance that the construction traffic will
keep off Stoneleigh Bridge – no caveats, just keep off Stoneleigh Bridge.
236. We have a summary of the points we are asking for but I do not really want to go
through those with the Select Committee because they already have the slides. This
slide, the next one, just shows you what happens regularly to Stoneleigh Bride, how it
gets hit by vehicles, particularly on the furthest side, because they have to negotiate a
sharp left-hand turn. For anybody who is unfamiliar with that bridge, larger vehicles
especially overhang the centre of the road forcing other vehicles off the road into the
bridge, which is a regular maintenance problem as well as, of course, causing damage to
a listed building.
237. I think that brings us to the end of our presentation. As I said, the next but one
slide is a reminder of the things that we have been asking for, but I do not intend to take
up the time of the Select Committee with those points again. Thank you very much.
238. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Smith. Mr Strachan?
239. MR STRACHAN (DfT): I will respond, if I may, to the key points that were
48
raised, some more briefly than others, because I know that a number of these things the
Committee has already heard. I will try to avoid any repetition.
240. First, there is a concern expressed about the A46. There were two aspects raised
by Mr Bianco: the A46 as it will pass over the line of route and the works to the A46
there to allow the HS2 route to go underneath it and, of course, the A46 itself where it
joins Stoneleigh Road and may be taking construction traffic.
241. Dealing with the first of those, the A46 as it will pass over the HS2 route, you
heard, I think last week, that the proposal and the scheme involves keeping open the
A46 whilst the HS2 route is constructed. That is done by maintaining the three lanes of
traffic flow by creating a temporary diversion on one side of the road and allowing three
lanes to flow using contraflows so that the volume of traffic can be kept the same
through three lanes on both sides. The only exception to that is when there are tie- in
works. Those are what are referred to, that during those periods of tie- in works for
those diversions it would go down to two lanes each way during the day, one at night
during off peak periods for those temporary time works. That is the extent of it.
Therefore, that has been looked at in detail and I can confirm that the promoter has, as
the Environmental Statement confirms, worked closely with the Highways Agency.
242. As to the A46 and Stoneleigh Road, which I know is of concern, which takes the
level of construction traffic, the Committee has already heard that that is something that
the promoter is looking at with the Highways Authority. It is going to be raised by the
University of Warwick. We are looking at the traffic figures. We understood it could
take that level of construction traffic but we are working with the Highways Authority
to see if further mitigation measures are proposed. But be assured that that is something
we have well in mind in respect of the concerns being raised.
243. Can I just deal with construction flows and traffic generally? Mr Bianco referred
to a number of slides where the timetables have been set out indicating how the works
will be sequenced. He gave as an example P28841. I am sure that the Committee is
very familiar with this now but there were two shades of blue shown. The way this
works is more for Mr Bianco by way of explanation to the point made. The shade of
blue identifies the period during which the compound in question will have things
happening at it. So, if you take the A46 Kenilworth Bypass overbridge main compound,
49
that will be an active compound for the dark period of blue running from 2017 to 2022.
During that period, of course, different things will be happening by way of construction,
different activities and those are shown with a lighter shade of blue. So, for example,
the major work at the Kenilworth cutting is shown from 2019 through to 222. The other
are shorter periods of work of construction in the area which are serviced by the main
compound. That is how these diagrams operate. He expressed concern that he did not
think these things were possible. They have been looked at in detail. This is intended to
be a realistic and achievable programme of works for the area using these compounds in
their particular locations.
244. Can I just try and clarify, once again, in relation to some of the construction traffic
rigs things such as the Dalehouse Lane closure. It was said that Dalehouse Lane has
been closed. It has not been closed. The only period of tie- in works when, having
constructed the alternative route the road has to be tied in, are the sort of overnight tie- in
works where it may be necessary to shut the road for a very short period to allow the tie-
in work to happen itself. But the whole point of the offline diversions is to ensure that
there is always a route through. Insofar as those overnight tie- in works occur, we have
already indicated that we would ensure to stagger them so that even during those short
tie- in periods there is not any time when more than two roads are shut. So, I hope that
that assures them in this general location.
245. Perhaps I can just then pick up in relation to tunnelling. The Committee has heard
quite a lot about tunnelling, so I will not repeat that. I think what has been raised by the
petitioner was a suggestion of a short bored tunnel under the A46. If that is what is
being raised, that is not a feasible option because of the alignment of the route. As the
Committee will appreciate, one cannot have very short sections of short bore tunnel
because you simply cannot achieve the vertical up and down in the short distance
required. In that particular location under the A46 there is also the river Avon, which
has to be crossed. The only other alternative would be to have to take it below the river
Avon, which turns the four tunnel option no longer into a short option but into a long
option with cost consequences. That should be contrasted with what is proposed in this
location, which is the route passing under the A46 but achieved without closing the A46
and ensuring that traffic can continue to flow in the way I have suggested. So, I hope
that that clarifies what is proposed there.
50
246. The Committee will, on reflection, see in relation to tunnelling that there is a
considerable amount of tunnelling along the route and the Committee has the various
distances which exist but a judgment has to be made as to where it is appropriate.
247. Can I then just deal with noise? There is a concern expressed about the noise
effects, particularly of the route as it passes over the river Avon on a relatively short
viaduct. The noise modelling that was referred to I will illustrate by looking at P3221.
If one looks in the centre of the plan you will see the Stoneleigh Road that is running
north/south. Just to the left of it is the viaduct over the river Avon. The modelling itself
picks up the fact that at that point the line is elevated. There is a noise barrier on the
viaducts, I think, of 1.4 metres height but you will see that because of the elevation there
is in fact radiating out from the viaducts slightly greater orange colour or it might be red,
reflecting the noise environment in that location.
248. So the noise modelling does take account of the height of the line, the barriers in
place and what is going on, but even with that situation, you can see that the noise
effects will not be experienced to any material degree in Stoneleigh. I am just pointing
to Stoneleigh up here. The cursor has disappeared. Now the screen has gone.
Stoneleigh is just up to the north of where I was pointing earlier. In fact, we have
specific noise readings for the property in Stoneleigh, which is shown – well, we can’t
get them on the screen.
249. CHAIR: A bit of maintenance, I think.
250. MR STRACHAN (DfT): There is a noise modelling location that has been done
for Vicarage Road in Stoneleigh, which is one of the residents’ properties in the village
of Stoneleigh to see both constructional and operational noise effects. Those show
levels of change of 2 dB during the day and 2 dB at night; 50 dB during the day and
41 dB at night as compared with 48 dB and 39 dB. So, not a significant effect in
relation to Stoneleigh. We are not saying that it is inaudible because there are the 2 dB
differences, but the levels of change that will be experienced are not considered
significant in that context. Of course, as the line moves through Stoneleigh Park itself,
it is set within the cutting that you have heard about. So, where it is passing some dune,
south, in that location, it is in cutting.
251. That brings me on to the B145, which is in the centre of the page and the new road
51
crossing at this location. Of course, the detailed design of the road itself and the
materials to be used are subject to approval by the relevant local planning authorities. I
know that that is of concern. The ultimate look and the materials used will be subject to
that control. As regards Stoneleigh Bridge, I understand that the petitioner is reassured
to some extent by the assurances provided about not using that for heavy goods vehicles
to service the scheme. There is no construction traffic route along there. The caveats
that exist exist because ultimately the local Highway Authority controls as you have
heard, under the Code of Construction Practice, the approval of the traffic management
routes. Therefore, it is not within our gift to control where the traffic flows, but it is not
our intention and we are not promoting use of Stoneleigh Bridge as part of any heavy
goods vehicles servicing the scheme. So, I hope I have addressed the main points that
were raised by the petitioner.
252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I have one question, going back to the previous
petitioner. You have quite a good horizontal curve north of Kenilworth. What sort of
speed are the trains supposed to be able to go over that point? Is that a point of contour
or is that 360?
253. MR STRACHAN (DfT): Yes, that 360 is kilometres per hour.
254. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: When I was asking a question about perhaps a
shorter cut and cover tunnel through the business park did I hear someone say or did I
read that that would reduce the speed to 360 from 400 kilometres per hour?
255. CHAIR: I think it is a possibility.
256. MR STRACHAN (DfT): Yes, you may have heard in terms of future briefing, I
think, regarding this that the line was generally designed to be capable of running at 400
kilometres per hour. A cut and cover tunnel in that location would reduce that future
briefing to 360 kilometres per hour as I have understood it.
257. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, and that horizontal curve north of Kenilworth
is designed for 400 or for 360?
258. MR STRACHAN (DfT): Four hundred, I am told. Just to complete the answer I
gave you about the cut and cover tunnel, as I understood it, and I have just checked the
52
Environmental Statement, no one suggested a cut and cover tunnel shorter than
2.1 kilometres, which is why that has been looked at. I understand that there is a
different proposal for a deep bore tunnel under the A46. That is a different one, but that
is why it was looked at. So, that is the reason why you won’t find anything in the
Environmental Statement of a shorter length.
259. CHAIR: You have some brief final comments?
260. MR SMITH: Thank you. First of all I am assured, thank you, that we are going to
get two roads left open at any one time. That would be very much a request, please. I
think it is also important to stress that in the event of an emergency our blue light
services need to get to quickly to the villages around us. Secondly, on the aspect of
noise I wouldn't be raising it if I accepted, I am afraid, the promoter’s assessment. I
wouldn't come here today if I accepted it. So, I cannot accept that – I am very sorry. I
have raised the aspect of height. I have also raised the fact that on the slide we are
currently looking at it says, ‘Rail only sound level’. I am wondering what the
significance of ‘rail only’ is. Is that an assessment at rail track level and does it or does
it not take into consideration higher level noise sources at 360 kilometres per hour?
261. On that matter as well, the design speed of the track is 400 kilometres per hour,
but the noise assessments have been carried out for 360 kilometres per hour only. They
have not been carried out for the maximum deep operational speed of the railway. So,
there is an anomaly there as well that needs to be flagged up.
262. I would very much like to invite members of the Select Committee to come to
Stoneleigh Park and stand in our village and listen to the next event that takes place
there so they can actually appreciate what I am saying about airborne noise, that we do
hear it and we are sensitive to it as well. I could raise other factors about the noise
assessment, but I would like to leave it there.
263. There was one point which the parish council could have raised, and that is
regarding a haul route, or no haul route, pass Ashow village and Stoneleigh Abbey,
which of course is a visitor attraction, and the top access to Ashow village is via the
B4115. Rather like the case of Stoneleigh Bridge, it is not identified as a haul route and
the parish council did ask that that would not be used for construction traffic and there
has been no answer to that point. Thank you.
53
264. CHAIR: Thank you very much.
265. MR BIANCO: Two things. I am a still a little mystified that we are going to put
two lanes into three lanes, one lane on the side and another lane starting off and then
you are going to divert it and do all sorts of things. I drew a little diagram. Am I correct
in saying that we start with six lanes? I am sorry if I am a bit thick but I think it is quite
important. I am sure that Mr Smart will help because it has not actually been made clear
to us by anybody until last week. This is when it started, so we want to get this clear
and everybody wants to know. I am sorry that they have not; we have asked. There are
six lanes. You are going to close down three of them. Is that correct?
266. CHAIR: No.
267. MR BIANCO: No? Tell us again.
268. CHAIR: Could I just make a point? You are allowed a brief comeback from the
principal person.
269. MR BIANCO: I am sorry.
270. CHAIR: Let me help you, Mr Bianco. As I understood it there are six lanes.
Three lanes are being diverted, which keeps six lanes.
271. MR BIANCO: Yes.
272. CHAIR: There will be a brief period of time where it is down to three lanes with a
contraflow system and at night fewer lanes for a brief period. Is that right?
273. MR STRACHAN (DfT): Yes, I think it goes down to a total of four lanes, two
lanes each way, during the tie- in period, so we use one lane at each side, but that is the
extent of it. It is only during the tie- in periods, and those were intended to be focused
on off-peak times in any event.
274. CHAIR: And the length of time of the tie- in period?
275. MR STRACHAN (DfT): I do not have an exact –
276. CHAIR: Are we talking of a few days, or a few weeks?
54
277. MR STRACHAN (DfT): A few days, if that, I am told.
278. CHAIR: Okay. There are still going to be problems, we know that, but I think the
intention is to try to keep six lanes open.
279. MR BIANCO: And I think it will probably need some investigation. We will see
where we go from there.
280. CHAIR: We can discuss it further, I have no doubt.
281. MR BIANCO: No, no, whenever we like, for ever, with roads. Can I just come
back slightly to thank Mr Strachan for showing people that it was dark blue and light
blue. However, the slide that we did not look at, because I did not really want to waste
people’s time too much, was A6906, which actually does show a lot of coincidental
working. I just want to make that clear. I hear what Mr Smart is telling you as the
Chief Executive, and so on, but this really does need some time and thought. The local
people are extremely concerned. Looking at that chart it looks to them as if the road is
going to be up for ever, not just for a year or a year and a half. So, I think the
construction activity slides are extremely important and need to be kept to hand when
we are talking about that. Thank you very much.
282. CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Stoneleigh Historical Society
283. We now move on to Ms Sheila Woolf of the Stoneleigh Historical Society, which
has been given a great big build up. Your big moment.
284. MS WOOLF: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to
you today. My name is Sheila Woolf. I am a retired English teacher and I live in
Stoneleigh village. I am a tour guide at Stoneleigh Abbey. I do both general history
tours and Jane Austen tours, so if any of you would like to come and have a tour of the
abbey I would be delighted to take you round.
285. All I am trying to say really is that I am very much involved in the village. I am
also part of the action group and a former parish councillor, but today I am here as chair
of the history society which was formed in 2011. It has upwards of 40 members and is
55
very active indeed. I am speaking on their behalf this afternoon.
286. Before I go into the whole business of Stare Bridge perhaps I could just remark on
one thing that we have heard this afternoon about noise. This is a little historical point
which occurred to me this afternoon. One of the daughters of the house at Stoneleigh
Abbey, when peace was being celebrated in June 1919, remarked in her diary how
pleasant it was to hear the church bells being rung from Stoneleigh Church, which was
then followed, almost immediately afterwards by the church bells of Ashow Church,
Stoneleigh Abbey being right in the middle of the two villages. So, that is just a little
illustration to give you an idea of the fact that we are in a series of valleys and noise
really does carry.
287. However, I am here really to talk about Stare Bridge, so I will take you for a walk
in the countryside for a few minutes, if I may. I am here to speak on behalf of a bridge,
which may seem rather strange. It has been briefly referred to by earlier petitioners. I
want to consider the future of a structure which has been part of the local landscape,
certainly for more than 500 years, perhaps even longer than that.
288. My aim this afternoon is to ask the Committee please to urge HS2 Limited to take
appropriate measures to protect both the structure and its setting. As has been said
earlier, I am very grateful to the Select Committee for taking the time to come and make
a bridge visit in October. I wanted very much on that occasion to take you to stand on
the bridge with me. There was not time because you were running late, as we know.
We did not have the opportunity, therefore, to see the bridge close up, although
thankfully I was able to just give you a few minutes in Stoneleigh Park itself. But
subsequently at the suggestion of Mr Peter Miller I was pleased to be able to go and
walk the bridge and its surroundings with Richard Nuttall and Helen Glass, HS2’s
historic buildings officer, so that was a good opportunity.
289. Before I take you through the slides I would ask you please to excuse my lack of
knowledge of technical issues. As I said, I was an English teacher. I am not into
engineering problems at all. I am very much a layperson in these matters. I am not an
expert in landscape history to the extent that the previous speaker, Dr Hazel Fryer is, so
this is very much, as I say, a personal view but on behalf of local people. I am focusing
your minds right in. You have had a look at the entire area but this is really looking into
56
a very specific place.
290. What I am urging you to do, briefly, is to ensure the preservation of this historic
structure and its heritage setting. I want to seek assurances from you, please, about how
the fabric of the bridge itself will be protected and monitored, both during construction
and in the following 10, 20 or 50 years. I want to ask for some detail, please, about the
extent of fencing and lighting and so forth. I want to ensure accessibility to the
landscape as an amenity for the local people and also to consider the value of retaining
the ancient hedgerows and veteran trees that we have already heard a little about.
291. Could we see the next slide, please, A7072. This is just a map to give you a quick
idea of where it is. You will see that Stare Bridge is pointed out there. Incidentally, I
have been sent in the past week half a dozen or so other maps and plans. I find them
terrifically confusing. As I say, as a layperson I am really not clear about what they are
showing me and I would be very grateful if I could have some clarification perhaps at
the end of my presentation, please, if there is time. That will give you an idea of where
the bridge is, although you will have seen pictures of this already.
292. Can we go to slide three, please? I am showing you here a picture at the top,
which was taken in the 1920s and a picture which was taken a year ago of the bridge.
As you can see, it has not materially changed. Really what I would like to do initially is
to try to make you understand why this bridge is such an important bridge. It occurred
to me whilst I was travelling down on the train this morning that one could actually call
this bridge Stoneleigh’s pont d’Avignon, so although you weren’t able to go and stand
sur le pont de Stoneleigh, it is very similar in many respects to it. It is Warwickshire
Scheduled Monument number 11. It is grade II* listed. It is 76.2 metres long. It has, as
you can see, these eight segmental arches. It has 17 buttresses on the downstream side,
which is apparently quite an unusual feature, and it has a series of passing places as part
of the structure. Only two of the arches, as you can probably see here, actually take
water. The others carry it along a causeway.
293. Historically, the historian Dugdale in 1656, writing his ‘Antiquities of
Warwickshire’ then described it as a fair bridge of stone and noted that in mediaeval
times it was sometimes known as The King’s Bridge and that King Henry III was
questioning who was responsible for its repair as early as 1267. A Stoneleigh ledger
57
book of the 1370s written by the Cistercian Monks of Stoneleigh Abbey refers several
times to it. The bridge that is there now I doubt would be exactly the same structure as
the one that King Henry III was referring to.
294. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It would be wood.
295. MS WOOLF: Indeed, it would, I am sure, but what I am trying to say is that it
would have been on the same place. So, that gives you an idea that the crossing has
been there for many centuries.
296. This one here is contemporary in style and architecture too and constructed of the
same red sandstone material as the gatehouse at Stoneleigh Abbey, which is a 14th
century building. It may well have been built by those Cistercian Monks of Stoneleigh
Abbey.
297. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But it has been qualified, perhaps?
298. MS WOOLF: Not a great deal, I don’t think. It is the only such bridge of this
great age in the entire county of Warwickshire. It would principally have been a pack
bridge, of course. It reminds us of the ancient wool route between the south west ports
of Bristol and Gloucester via the Cotswolds to the markets of Warwick and Coventry.
So, it is a reminder of our industrial archaeology.
299. You have already seen a photograph of the replacement road bridge, which was
built in 1929 just 60 metres away when the road was realigned. I have looked at a lot of
newspaper articles from that time. A lot of consideration was given then to the historic
importance of the old Stare Bridge and retaining its visual beauty within the landscape.
300. Can we go to the next slide, please, number four? What I am showing you here is
actually the Stoneleigh ledger book written by the monks of Stoneleigh Abbey, as I say,
in the 14th century. I have arrowed in the manuscript there the reference to Stare Bridge.
You can see its name as Star Brycg. So, that is just to give you an idea of the fact that it
has been there, or a bridge has been there, for a very long time indeed.
301. The next slide, please. I just want to demonstrate the age and the relevance of the
bridge by showing you the gatehouse at Stoneleigh Abbey very close by. You will
notice that they have the same red sandstone construction here. I pointed out in the
58
picture in the bottom left that the archway and the buttresses on the north face of the
gatehouse are very similar in style to those of Stare Bridge. I have also included on the
same slide just a little detail from Repton’s Red Book. You heard earlier about
Repton’s landscaping for the abbey and its landscape. He was very keen not to knock
down the gatehouse here when improvements, as the family saw it, were being made,
thinking that it was very important to preserve the mediaeval structure within the
landscape. So, I have just put that in there as a contextual detail for you.
302. Could we go to the next slide, please? This will give you an idea of where the line
will go. You will see that I have put here ‘line’ with a little blue arrow next to it, which
would be visible if you were to stand from where I took the photograph here. You
would be able to see, obviously, the structure of the railway and, as Martin was saying
earlier, we need to think about all those superstructures beyond the line itself. Even
though it will be in a cutting, it will inevitably be really easily visible from this angle.
You will see also that the trees and the hedgerows beyond the bridge there are going to
have to be removed. So, I am really concerned that the visual aspect here is going to be
seriously compromised.
303. Can we go on to the next slide, please? Here we are pretty well standing on the
footpath which leads around the bridge, and I shall come to that in a moment. You can
see the bank of trees in the top left-hand corner of the picture. That is where the line is
proposed to go and I am very concerned to ask what measures will be taken to preserve
the fabric of the bridge from vibration and disturbance during construction. I am really
concerned about the monitoring which will have to take place to preserve this very
beautiful bridge.
304. Can we move on to the next slide, please? Looking a little further back, standing
back from the current road bridge, which takes the B4113, there you can see quite
clearly beyond Stare Bridge the row of trees which will have to be removed, I am told,
and also an accommodation block which is within Stoneleigh Park, which will have to
be removed. If we hold that picture in our minds and then move to the next one, I have
a photograph here which shows some of the results of the flooding exactly this time last
year, in January, again towards where the line will go. We have heard a little about
balancing ponds, floodplains and so forth this afternoon. We can see that there is here
already a serious problem with flooding. I would like some assurances that we will not
59
see this sort of situation exacerbated by the railway. I am a little concerned about a
pumping station, as Robin referred to earlier. You get a much clearer view in that
picture, incidentally, of the accommodation which will be demolished.
305. So, summarising this part, you have heard from Jane earlier that we are talking
about Stoneleigh being a particularly important historical area. Here I suppose I am
saying that looking at this one particular structure, this is not just any old bridge; this is
a very special, historic one. I really would like to ask the Committee, please, to ensure
that HS2 will preserve the visual setting as much as possible, that lighting will be
considered, security fencing, matters of flooding. All of those things, please, need to be
considered.
306. Moving on to the next part of my presentation I would say that Stoneleigh Stare
Bridge is not just a well-built historic landmark; it is also part of a much used parkland
walk. There is a lot of confusion about the preservation of this from people in the area
and I would like some clarification, please. If you read what I have put on the slide
here, which is a quote from the promoter’s response document, they talk about
permanent loss of land here giving rise to a significant moderate adverse effect. I have
highlighted myself in red those two words, ‘significant moderate’ because I would
contend that for local people, one might debate the word ‘moderate’ because it will
deprive them of a frequently used space which means a great deal to them. So, I would
like more clarification on what they consider to be just ‘moderate’.
307. A green overbridge was referred to earlier this afternoon. What I would like to do
in my next few slide is just to quickly take you on this little circular walk through slides
11 to 15. If I can just explain, we are here standing not far from East Lodge looking
towards where the train will cut right across the middle of this picture. This is where
walkers are likely to take their dogs or just go on a little jaunt themselves along this line
here towards Stare Bridge, which is beyond the treeline there.
308. Could we move to the next slide, please? This is the entrance to the bridge. As
you can see there are passing places there. We can see that it is not a terribly wide
bridge, which is why it was discontinued at the beginning of the 20th century. The view
to the top left of that picture takes us towards Stoneleigh village itself. One is looking
up to Motslow Hill, which is an ancient hundred meeting place. So, one could walk
60
across there to the end of that bridge and then along to the village itself. If we look at
the next slide, please, rather than taking that route, one could from the East Lodge go
down and across left, not across the bridge itself but down as you can see moving from
right to left on this picture.
309. Could we go to slide 14, please? You can see that as I was actually standing on
the bridge taking photographs that day, there magically appeared a man with his dog, as
you can see, in the middle of the picture there doing exactly what I am describing. So,
one would walk on down there. The next slide would bring you just to the right of the
picture. You would now see the current road bridge which I think has settled in rather
nicely in the last century. One would walk then across through into the abbey park and
take a really pleasant circular walk through a landscape which is scattered, as Hazel said
earlier, with some really beautiful veteran oaks.
310. For the next part of my presentation I would like to go back to the matter of trees
and hedgerows themselves. Another little quotation I put on here from the response
document which is saying that, ‘Trees here and historically important hedgerow would
be moved to enable the construction of the cutting for the main line’. What, I think
strikes on about this photograph is that you can’t deny the fact that the river is so, so
close to the proposed line of the rail construction, and the bank is tremendously steep
here. So, as I say, I’m not an engineer but it is just the sheer proximity really, of the
railway to the river bank and the river itself, which I think is a matter for concern.
311. The business of replanting trees, which has been proposed by HS2 is of concern,
obviously, because not only are there ancient hedgerows, which will be replaced, but it
will take a long time for tress to grow, obviously, and hedgerows to grow, and one
would like to know quite what species are proposed. One only has to look at some of
the planting which was created 50 years ago, when Stoneleigh Park came into existence
where indigenous trees had been removed, and great plantations of conifers were put
there as noise and visual screens. They are really completely out of place in the
landscape, and so one would hope that something much more sympathetic would be
possible here please. Could we move to slide 17 please?
312. I apologise for the rather poor quality of this, you have seen this sort of picture
already this afternoon, but I wanted to put this on just again to give you an idea of the
61
fact that when Stoneleigh Park came into existence and the heart was taken out of the
great Stoneleigh Abbey landscape and that little middle bit was de- listed, what we are
left with is the ribbon that joins one section, the section to the north east, and the
section to the south west, and you can see where I’ve arrowed Stare Bridge just at the
northern tip – thank you – of that little ribbon. It is effectively, I think, going to be
severed by the current proposals. So, I think that is very much a matter of concern.
Could we move to the next slide please?
313. Again, rather than reading through all of this for you, I’d just ask you please to
quickly scan the writing on this slide. I have highlighted in red the important things, as
I see them, due regard for heritage considerations, appropriate regard during detailed
design for mitigation measures as far as the environment is concerned. And I would
really just like to wind up by giving you some sense, although it has been done to some
extent this afternoon, of the importance of this bridge within the landscape that it used
to serve.
314. I am asking the Select Committee this afternoon, in the strongest possible terms
please, to urge HS2 to do what they can about these heritage considerations and
mitigation measures that they might put in place in their detailed designs. Our
landscape is very precious to us; once it’s gone, it’s gone. You have already heard that
our village comprises a significant number of listed buildings, more than in any other
Warwickshire village, in fact. Our built environment boasts houses going back to the
14th century, our church has normal origins. Historically, Stoneleigh was the main
village with the 12th century monastic foundations of the Abbey, retaining its close
connection with the Abbey, it came into the hands of the Leigh family in 1561.
315. Their descendants held the estate with its deer park and its home park until the
1990s and despite the purchase of some of the land for the national agricultural centre
in the mid 20th century, which resulted in that de-listing, we are proud of the continuing
links between the village and its historical landscape setting.
316. Now, one hears today, so much, that really horribly overused word ‘iconic’, but
Stare Bridge, as far as we are concerned, it does stand as an iconic reminder of our
archaeology, our economy and our roots as a community, and we are fearful that an
ancient and very beloved structure will lose its aesthetically pleasing setting, and its
62
role in the story of Warwickshire.
317. So, specially, as you can see on my last slide here, I am asking, please, can we
have some assurances about the preservation of this historic structure, specially perhaps
about the fabric of the bridge, both during construction and thereafter, some assurances
about the visual impact, the accessibility as an amenity and also some assurances,
please, about reducing, perhaps, the number of veteran trees and ancient hedgerows
which would have to fall under the axe.
318. So, on behalf of the Stoneleigh History Society, I would urge the Committee
please, to instruct further examination of the current proposals before the Bill is passed
into law. Thank you very much.
319. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Strachan?
320. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I think I can give Ms Woolf some of
the comfort she seeks in relation to what is proposed, but can I just take the Committee
to the plans in this location. The first is P3234. It is just going to come up on the
screen, I hope. And as been mentioned already, the promoter is, of course, well aware
of Stare Bridge, and has had some helpful meetings with Ms Woolf on site. That has
been looked at in some detail. You will see here, Stare Bridge is marked and you may
need to just zoom in slightly, but just to be clear, certainly, there are no proposals to
take, or affect, or have works on Stare Bridge itself. It lies outside the Bill limits, and
if it’s possible just to zoom in a little bit around that area, you will see that, in fact, the
Bill limits do not extend down to the river, and there is no proposal to take all of the
vegetation alongside the river. There is currently shown, a temporary material
stockpile that runs alongside the cutting, partially retained cutting in that location. I
will come back to that in a moment, because there have been some further discussions
with Warwick District Council about limiting the works in that area.
321. So, during construction, certainly no works to Stare Bridge, and the proposals do
not go down to the river itself, where it crosses over. Then if I can just translate that
into the operational, i.e. once the railway has been constructed, because you will see
that shown on P3218. It’s just being looked for, but what you will see when we get to
it is the extent of the works in the area, and the landscaping that is proposed by the line,
once constructed. I’ll wait and see if it can be found. Perhaps it is a convenient
63
moment, just while that is being found, I can refer to what the discussions with
Warwick District Council are.
322. It has come up on screen now, just so you can see. If we can just, again, focus in
on Stare Bridge is marked where the arrow – to the left, Stare Bridge, so it crosses
over. Certainly the footpath that used to go straight on down from Stare Bridge,
through part of the agricultural college buildings, has to be diverted and that is diverted
up onto Stoneleigh Road, so there is that diversion of the existing footpath, and the
existing footpath is shown moved, and stopped up at that location. It is diverted, rather
than stopped up, where the crossed lines are, where it was originally passing. That
reflects what’s shown in the Environmental Statement about a moderate adverse effect,
because one will no longer be able to walk directly through the line of the footpath that
Ms Woolf was referring to, but it is diverted in that location.
323. Conscious of the effect of the railway here, what the promoter has done in
relation to discussions with Warwick District Council, and I apologise, because these
aren’t yet on the register on line, because they are only recently formulated, but if I can
just provide some assistance as to what they way, ‘The Secretary of State will require
the nominated undertaker to, so far as is reasonably practicable, retain the existing tree,
screening and vegetation planted on the western bank of the River Avon, in the vicinity
of the Stare Bridge’. So that line of vegetation that Ms Woolf referred to, which can be
seen, efforts will be made to retain so far as possible, as much of it as possible. Some
of course, will need to be taken down, to get the cutting in that location, but certainly it
is not the intention to take everything away.
324. Then, in the event that any of the existing trees have to be moved between the
points A and B described on the plan, their removal will be recorded and replacement
planting will be provided which will be agreed with the Council, and this responds to
one of Ms Woolf’s other points, ‘Can comprise native species suitable for a parkland
setting, and providing optimum low level screening in accordance with our information
paper’. And thirdly, ‘The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to,
so far as is reasonably practicable, reduce the length of the material stockpile to the
north of the proposed line of the route by 200 metres from its eastern end at point A,
reducing its length to a point shown approximately at B’. We haven’t actually got
those points shown, but that deals with that stockpile area that I was showing, in that
64
vicinity of Stare Bridge.
325. Thing have progressed and we are grateful for the meeting we had with Ms
Woolf on site; these have been reflected in those assurances that have been offered to
Warwick District Council, who also had an interest in preserving the setting of Stare
Bridge. So far as it is concerned, generally, it is specifically identified in the Bill, in
Schedule 17, as a listed building, and the purpose of that identification is that it is one
of those recognised listed buildings, not proposed for demolition or extension, but one
identified so that, for any works relating to it, which try and preserve it or, for
monitoring purposes, there is specific provision made in the Bill to be able to do that as
part of the applicable legislation transferred into this Bill. So that is the purpose of
identifying it in Table 2.
326. So, I hope again that provides some assistance, and also some explanation as to
how the identification of the moderate adverse affect is identified, is expressed in the
Environmental Statement. We recognise there will be an adverse affect on that
diversion, but we’ve done the best to minimise that affect, and retain Stare Bridge in its
setting, so far as possible.
327. Can I just put up on screen A7079 because you’ll see that although the line is
passing this location, and having that affect, A7079, it does have the affect of removing
the building that you can see in the background to Stare Bridge at the moment. You
will see that there’s a building that’s visible during the winter period. That building
will be removed.
328. MR BELLINGHAM: What is that building?
329. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That is part of the Royal Agricultural Buildings on
Stoneleigh Park.
330. MR BELLINGHAM: When was it built, in about…?
331. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think it was 60s, yes.
332. MR BELLINGHAM: It’s pretty hideous.
333. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. I don’t think Ms Woolf will be saying it’s
65
sympathetic to – I’m not trying to overstate this as a benefit because of course, there
will be the line there behind but it is in a cutting, the catenaries – the line itself and the
trains will not be visible, the catenaries will potentially be above that point, but there
will be tree screening to some degree in that location and so it’s not entirely negative in
that sense, in terms of the existing building being removed.
334. So, I hope that gives some comfort to Ms Woolf as to how things have
progressed in consequence of the meetings we’ve had and recognition of the
importance of the bridge and the area.
335. CHAIR: Okay. Brief final comments, Ms Woolf?
336. MS WOOLF: Well, thank you for that. Yes, I mean, one of my concerns was
that only last week, I was sent by email, several different maps and plans, which looked
to me as though some progress was being made, but I just thought, ‘Why is it so late?’,
you know.
337. MR STRACHAN: Well –
338. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Coming here concentrates most people’s minds.
339. MS WOOLF: Yes, I rather thought so.
340. CHAIR: Okay.
341. MS WOOLF: Thank you very much.
342. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. I am going to adjourn now and we’ll now
sit again at seven. Order, order.