Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford & Chetwode, Community Forum. 4 September. Draft note

Transcription

1 Community Forums are intended to provide an opportunity for local representatives to raise issues of importance to them and to reach consensus on preferred mitigations for HS2 Ltd. Attendance at a Forum does not indicate support by these groups for the scheme. HS2 Ltd hosts and attends Community Forums, and has undertaken to record and publish issues, actions and requests raised during these events on their website. The matters raised by forum members are their views, and publication by HS2 Ltd should not be construed as acceptance or agreement with the sentiments expressed. Calvert, Steeple Claydon, Twyford & Chetwode, Community Forum 4 September Forum Attendees Chair JA Consulting Representatives of: Draft note Aylesbury Vale District Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Steeple Claydon Ward Calvert Green Chetwode Action Group Chetwode Parish Hillesden Parish Council John Bercow MP National Trust Steeple Claydon Parish Council Twyford Parish Council Twyford Stop HS2 Martin Wells, Country South Area Stakeholder Manager HS2 Ltd Neil Cowie, Country South Area Manager HS2 Ltd Simon White, Country South Environment Manager HS2 Ltd Sebastian Jew, Country South Community & Stakeholder Advisor HS2 Ltd Ilona Cowe, Stakeholder Engagement Team HS2 Ltd Dani Fiumicelli, Technical Director, Noise & Vibration Temple Group Ltd 1. Welcome and introductions - Chair Apologies Charndon Parish Council 2. Agree note of last meeting and review of actions Questions were asked about the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scope and Methodology consultation report, the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD)

2 being used as a construction site, and noise assessments. HS2 Ltd stated that these would all be covered later in the agenda. Concerns were raised by the forum that HS2 Ltd had marked actions complete without supplying any additional information. HS2 Ltd stated that the information supplied was as much as was available at this point of the project. It was suggested that long-term actions that would not be able to be answered until a later date be separated from the action log and marked on a separate issues log, and an approximate timetable given for the information being available. This was specific to actions 2, 3, 4, 10 & 13. HS2 Ltd agreed to this course of action. The note from the last meeting was agreed. 3. General update An update on bilateral meetings in the area since the last forum was provided. This consisted of 2 separate meetings in the Chetwode area. The main concerns mentioned at these meetings were the issues of noise and how HS2 Ltd plans to mitigate this, as the Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) showed Chetwode as having significant noise impacts. At both meetings, it was requested that a green tunnel be provided for this part of the route. HS2 Ltd stated that more work needed to be done to assess the potential noise impacts in the area and how these could be mitigated in other ways, i.e. with noise bunding. HS2 Ltd stated that all requests for change need to be considered and that more work would need to be done once baseline data had been collected to model the noise impacts in the area. This would not be likely to be complete before early The forum was concerned that they would not have a chance to see the results of the noise assessments before decisions were made on mitigation options for the area. They would like the opportunity to see costed mitigation options before decisions were taken. HS2 Ltd stated that information and results from noise surveys would be shared with the community forums once available. Members of the forum expressed surprise that details from modelling had not been completed at this stage of the project. HS2 Ltd advised that to progress the project from the desktop surveys of the AoS to more detailed assessments requires extensive collection of baseline data which was time consuming. It was also important to model the effects of the scheme in its more developed form rather than a previous iteration. There was a question raised over the consistency of message from HS2 Ltd as a representative had received a letter from HS2 Ltd which contradicted the information in the AoS. Chetwode was shown as having a significant noise impact, in the form of a red dot, on the AoS maps, however the member of the forum had

3 received a letter from HS2 Ltd stating that these effects could be mitigated and that there would not be a significant noise impact on the area of Chetwode. 4. Introduction to Code of Construction Practice HS2 Ltd gave a presentation introducing the code of construction practice (CoCP). The presentation covered: A brief history of construction practices Outline what is typically included in a CoCP Describe the purpose of the document Give examples of typical control measures The forum questioned whether the engagement with local authorities mentioned in the presentation included Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). HS2 Ltd confirmed that an invitation had been sent but would need to check whether they attended. ACTION: HS2 Ltd to advise if BCC attended the local authority introduction to CoCP The forum questioned whether the CoCP would be consulted on separately. HS2 Ltd advised that this would be part of the consultation on the draft environmental statement. It was stated by HS2 Ltd that the CoCP would be used to detail route wide practices and not those at individual locations. Local environment plans would be established post hybrid Bill in conjunction with local authorities. The forum questioned how the principles set out in the CoCP would be policed and who would be responsible for enforcing them. HS2 Ltd stated that this would typically fall to a representative of the project but that this level of detail had not yet been undertaken. A representative of the National Trust stated that, for an organisation like theirs it would be helpful if more detailed information, with regard to CoCP, was forthcoming sooner rather than later. For example, they need to give their member 12 months notice of road closures, in order to notify them of potential changes to access of Trust properties. The forum expressed concern over HS2 Ltd having control of policing the measures within the CoCP. It was asked whether there would be independent audits of the information and independent policing of compliance by contractors. HS2 Ltd stated that there would need to be agreement by local authorities and other bodies but could not at this stage confirm the procedure for policing the measures that will eventually be set out in the local environment plans, as the project is not yet at that stage.

4 Item for issue log: HS2 Ltd to advise forum when and how the communities can be involved in developing local environment plans as part of the code of construction practice. The forum wanted it stated that there should be clearly defined sanctions for contractors that breach contractual obligations within the CoCP. There was a question of how complaints and communications would be managed. The forum asked if there would be direct contact to the contractors or would the communities have to go through HS2 Ltd first. HS2 Ltd stated that there would likely be a few different avenues for this, but details had not yet been addressed. The forum wanted clarity on whether the consultation on the draft Environmental Statement (ES) would include the final copy of the CoCP. HS2 Ltd advised that the CoCP was one of many documents within the draft ES and that consultation would cover all those documents. Responses to the consultation would need to be reviewed and appropriate changes would need to be incorporated. There was discussion about the current situation between Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) and HS2 Ltd. The forum stated they felt a lot of the details surrounding the CoCP involve engagement with BCC and that they knew that this was not the current position. HS2 Ltd advised that this was an issue that was being addressed between HS2 Ltd & BCC. HS2 Ltd also advised that with regard to the CoCP, HS2 Ltd could learn from past major infrastructure projects and gain information from 28 other local authorities involved with the HS2 project. 5. HS2 Ltd work progress update Engineering Update: At this point HS2 Ltd updated the forum on the current progress of the design of the HS2 route, associated structures and required infrastructure. HS2 Ltd stressed that these were not firm plans and as such they could be subject to change. However, they wanted to share current thinking with the forum members at this stage for information and comment in the spirit of engagement. The below notes refer to maps 13 & 14 of the post consultation route, published here: Ch refers to Chainage, or kilometre. Particular issues highlighted were: Ch 77 Sheephouse Wood area intending to avoid or minimise impacts here Ch Ch80 looking at lowering the HS2 alignment through here to pass under the East-West rail line in cutting. Need to retain provision for offloading rubbish at WRG site with access to site likely by new bridge

5 Ch79 intending to avoid realignment of School Hill Road as shown on January 12 published drawings and instead provide an on-line improvement requiring some lifting of the road over the HS2 and re-aligned network rail tracks to the east of the existing bridge. A small construction compound is being considered by this structure. Ch80 looking at HS2 passing under the EWR line in a shallow cutting with the EWR line lifted over HS2. This has the benefit of reducing the height increase originally shown for the EWR line at this location. Discussions with Network Rail ongoing to get agreement with this interface and layout. Ch81 overbridge still proposed much as shown Ch82 looking to replace viaducts over flood plain with embankment and culverts, with appropriate flood compensation. However this is subject to Environment Agency (EA) agreement and meetings are being arranged. No change being considered to the vertical alignment in this area. Ch84 considering use of shorter viaducts plus embankments in lieu of the viaduct lengths currently assumed. Requires EA approval. Flood clearance requirements will dictate vertical alignment in this area Ch85-87 no changes being considered to the horizontal or vertical alignment over this section; vertical alignment is restricted by flood plain clearance at Ch and Ch87. Small site compound around Ch or cutting works. HS2 Ltd noted that these considerations were still not firm plans as design development remained on-going and as such they could be subject to further change. Other general comments Small auto-transformer sites likely to be required alongside the line around Ch 80 and Ch86 IMD site internal layout being reviewed, along with interface with Network Rail requirements in this area associated with the East-West rail upgrade. Construction rail head under review, looking at size requirements and use of IMD area, though expected to require some additional land temporarily, which would be reinstated following completion of construction. The forum questioned how long the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot was planned to be a construction site for. HS2 Ltd advised that this was likely to be for the duration of the projects construction. The forum asked if provisions were being made for double-decker trains to run on the HS2 network. HS2 Ltd advised that there were no current plans for this to happen. [Post meeting correction: The HS2 route is being constructed to GC gauge. The classic compatible trains could not be double-decker as they would have to be designed to fit onto the existing Network Rail loading gauge. The captive trains could be double-decker].

6 Environmental Update: HS2 Ltd advised they had been collecting various sources of baseline data for noise & landscape. There have been rights of way and ecology surveys taking place. HS2 Ltd had been granted a licence from Natural England to track and monitor Bechstein bats, and have been engaging with the North Bucks Bat Group. HS2 Ltd had also been considering mitigation options for the bats, for example planted bridge crossings. The forum asked how long the bat surveys took place for, noting that they only mate annually. HS2 Ltd advised that post maternity monitoring was on-going at the moment, and pre maternity would take place next spring. The forum questioned if the Buckinghamshire Archaeology Society had had any input to the environmental work to date, to which HS2 Ltd advised that meetings were due to be scheduled. The forum questioned if they could be given prior notice to surveys taking place in rural areas, as they were wary of people scouting the areas. HS2 Ltd advised that is would be difficult to give out specific dates, but understood the reason for the request and would consider what would be possible. ACTION: HS2 Ltd to advise forum on whether they can be made aware of surveys due to take place in areas before the event. Presentation: An introduction to HS2 Ltd s approach to managing noise & vibration: An HS2 Ltd contractor from Temple Group gave a presentation on noise and vibration, which covered A non-technical introduction to noise Aiding community understanding of the subject An overview of the assessment programme An explanation of design methods that are used to minimise noise effects An attendee commented that they had had noise monitoring equipment on his land for a week and questioned whether they would be given results of noise monitoring surveys being carried out. HS2 Ltd advised that it was intended that results of noise monitoring be published alongside the draft ES in spring A question was raised about how HS2 Ltd intended to address the need for double glazing of windows, when the building in question was a listed building. HS2 Ltd conceded that this was a sensitive issue that would need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The forum questioned HS2 Ltd s intention to use LpAeq instead of Lmax for assessing noise. It was felt that an average noise measurement was not sufficient and that the

7 project should be assessing peak noise. HS2 Ltd advised that peak noise (Lmax) would be assessed. The forum stated that a demonstration of predicted noise levels was required. HS2 Ltd noted that this had been done previously, although HS2 Ltd believed these were accurate, this had lead to claims from communities that this was not representative. HS2 Ltd questioned whether a repeat of such a demonstration would be welcomed. HS2 Ltd advised that there would be minimum requirements set on the project by the hybrid Bill with regards to noise, and that it must deliver to that standard, taking account for other mitigation options that could become available in the future. 6. AOB HS2 Ltd advised that the consultation response report on the EIA scope & methodology report had been published that day, and an had been sent to all forum members advising this. A member of the forum noted that the minutes were not circulated within two weeks of the last meeting. HS2 Ltd apologised, and advised that they had been sent to the chair within the timeframe, hence the slight delay. HS2 Ltd agreed in future to ensure they were sent to all attendees within two weeks. A member of the forum asked if any plans had been made for the C3 road in the area. HS2 Ltd advised that on current planning, this would need to be closed. It was requested that the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot be a specific agenda item for the next meeting.