INDEX

Subject Page

Submissions by Cllr Venables and Ms Sandison

Response by Mr Mould

(At 2.05 p.m.)

CHAIR: Good afternoon. Welcome to this afternoon’s meeting of the High Speed Rail Hybrid Bill Select Committee. Before we commence, I’m just going to make a quick comment for future petitioners on behalf of the Committee, which is just as a way of guidance for our future petitioners. It is important that petitioners are succinct in their remarks to the Committee and that they are clear in their remarks to the Committee what it is they are seeking from the Committee, in terms of their petition and what it is they would wish to secure from HS2, or from this Committee, to address their petitions. We do not need long histories on the particular geography of an area or the local area. We simply require to know what petitioners think are the most important issues which they wish to be addressed by HS2.
So I’ll say something probably more on that at future meetings but we just want to be really clear for future petitioners that we have an absolutely clear ask for petitioners to assist the Committee. It’s very hard for us if we aren’t made absolutely aware of what it is the key issues are that people are coming to this Committee to seek redress for. That is not aimed at this afternoon’s petitioners, who I can tell by the looks on their faces have come primed and ready with clear and succinct points for us. So we are hearing this afternoon from Lostock Gralam Parish Council on their petition.
The way the process will work is we’ll hear from Mr Mould first, who will give us a brief outline and overview of the issues and area we are dealing with today. Then we will hand over to you two as the petitioners, and then Mr Mould will have his opportunity again. So Mr Mould.

Lostock Gralam Parish Council

MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you very much indeed, sir. We’ll start with P173, which shows the railway following its construction. The parish boundary is outlined in red on the plan in front of you. Starting at the left-hand side of the page, which is south in terms of the points of the compass, you’re very familiar now with the A556 Shurlach Road. If we can go about three inches to our right, we find the Wade Brook viaduct, which is just there. The railway passes over that viaduct. It then passes on to the Lostock Gralam south embankment, which is pointed out to you now. It then passes on the Lostock Gralam viaduct over the Mid-Cheshire Line. You can see the Mid-Cheshire Line running across the railway there.
Then on to the Lostock Gralam north embankment, which is the principal feature of the railway which lies directly to the east of Lostock Gralam itself, as you can see. Having passed along northwards over the Lostock Gralam north embankment, the railway passes over the Smoker Brook viaduct and takes the trains north from the parish itself and into the parish of Plumley with Toft. You’ll remember their petition from a short time ago.
I should point to you one or two other operational features. In particular, at the centre of the page, just to the west of the Lostock Gralam north embankment, you see the A556 Shurlach Road auto transformer station, which is located in a little area of islanded land created by the A556 to the west and the railway to the east. It’s worth pointing out to you also that, as the A556 passes immediately to the east of Lostock Gralam, it remains on its current alignment. We do not realign the A556 north of the existing railway line.
In terms of other roadworks, I think you’ll remember from last evening that it’s necessary to divert Birches Lane under the Wade Brook viaduct. I won’t go back over that ground but –
CHAIR: Please don’t.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): – you’ll remember that, and the new public footpath. In terms of mitigation, so far as it directly affects this parish, back to the Lostock Gralam north embankment, you can see that the notation shows tree planting, woodland planting and creation, both of the side slopes of the embankment but also in that islanded area between the A556 and the new railway line.
P178(1), please, just to give you the basic facts in relation to noise. Just to show you, if we follow the line of the route, beginning with the Wade Brook viaduct, you can see that we have – moving northwards – you can see that on the Lostock Gralam south embankment, the west side it’s proposed to accommodate a noise fence barrier up to five metres in height, then a four-metre barrier on the Lostock Gralam viaduct, and back up to five metres along the length of the Lostock Gralam north embankment, providing noise attenuation to the town to the west.
P172, I’ll just show you the main compounds affecting this particular parish. We can see, if we start with the Lostock Gralam viaduct satellite compound, which is in the middle of the page, and then moving further north we have the Smoker Brook viaduct South satellite compound, which is divided into two parts, as shown by the cursor now. And you’ll see that both those compounds, and indeed that area of material storage, which is the brown notation between the two, are located to the east of the trace. So they’re away from the settlement itself.
P184, I’ll give you the traffic routes. You’re very familiar now with the fact that the main HS2 haul route is north-south, south-north, along the A556, which, although realigned, is realigned largely offline to enable traffic to continue to flow. Well that’s on the screen in front of you. You’re also familiar with those subsidiary routes, the A530 Griffiths Road, and I should add to that the Station Road, Birches Lane, and the A559 Manchester Road, all identified as HS2 construction routes, but they’re very subsidiary. And we’ll see later, I’m sure, when we come to look at the tables, that the predicted maximum flow of HS2 lorries along those routes on a weekday is 10 lorry movements in each direction, so pretty small, as compared to the much larger flow on the A556.
In terms of assurances, two assurances – P175, a letter of 30 March, which if we go to page 2 of that exhibit – I won’t read it out – but we’ll just show you, paragraph 1, the substance of the assurance was to limit, as far as reasonably practicable, the use of Station Road by HS2 lorries. And you can see the text there which sets out the anticipated residual need to use that route for HS2 lorry traffic.
Then P193, an assurance actually issued just today, which relates to seeking opportunities to relocate that auto transformer station that I showed you a few minutes ago, on that islanded land, to relocate that away from the settlement, and to the south‑east of the existing railway line, but within the combined construction boundary.
CHAIR: And the petitioners have accepted that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): They’ve only just received it so I’ll expect they’ll tell you whether they find it helpful or not, but those are the two assurances that have been offered thus far.
CHAIR: The question does beg, Mr Mould, why did it take till today to issue that assurance?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I think it took until today because of quite careful consideration of the opportunities that might be available to relocate that facility. What was made clear in the petition response document was that the promoter would be looking to work with the petitioner to try and find opportunities to relocate that. So it wasn’t entirely unforeshadowed but, of course, I accept that it would have been preferable if it had been issued a little earlier. But there it is; it’s been offered.
The final reference, because I know you like to have this for your note, is P174, which is the petitioner’s summary letter dated 3 April 2023, which sets out our understanding of the issues that remained a fortnight or so ago. I won’t take you through that letter. The sub-headings of the letter give you our understanding of that point. That’s all I propose to say.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Mould. I should have said, business in the House is a bit fluid today, so we will be having votes this afternoon, but I don’t think we’re expecting a vote for about an hour or so. But if that does happen, I’ll suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. So thank you, Mr Mould. Thank you for outlining the two assurances. Obviously, this petition largely relates to noise, the land issue, and highway concerns.
So we have from Lostock Gralam Parish Council, Cllr Mark Venables, who is the chair of the parish council.
CLLR VENABLES: Vice chair.
CHAIR: Vice chair. Oh, you’ve been demoted; you were chairman in my notes, but maybe next year – there’ll be an AGM in May – and Lyndsey Sandison, who is the town clerk – the parish clerk. I’m upping everybody. You’re the parish clerk, I believe.
MS SANDISON: Parish clerk.
CHAIR: So it’s over to you two. If members have questions on your petition, we’ll jump in as and when.

Submissions by Cllr Venables and Ms Sandison

CLLR VENABLES: Okay, thank you. Can I have A25 up, first? Now Mr Mould has already shown you all these nice maps and everything. I think he’s seen our presentation before, so we’re just going to show you some of the same things. So I do apologise for that.
CHAIR: No, sure, that’s fine. Sorry to interrupt immediately, which is very rude, but just on the most recent assurance that was given, because I’m assuming part of your presentation today relates to that, are you happy with that assurance which has been provided?
CLLR VENABLES: We still really need to take it onboard what the actual letter says at the moment.
MS SANDISON: We only received it at 8.20 this morning.
CLLR VENABLES: And we were on the train so we would like some further time to review that letter.
CHAIR: Thank you, sorry.
CLLR VENABLES: Our presentation is based upon not receiving that letter.
CHAIR: Okay.
CLLR VENABLES: But we’ll try and amend.
CHAIR: It can be amended to accommodate the letter of assurance.
CLLR VENABLES: One thing I’d just like to clear up, when I mentioned the A556, as Mr Mould says, I think you’re all familiar with the A556 Shurlach Road. I’ll just call it the A556. Also, when I’m referring to Cheshire West and Chester Council, I’ll use the abbreviated term, CWAC – now it’s not as the duck; it’s just the CWAC – rather than trying to read it out all the time.
So, again, thank you for letting us come along today and speak. Yes, we are both from Lostock Gralam Parish Council, which is in the borough of Cheshire. The Bill will result in a high-speed railway line running alongside the south edge of the parish, as you can clearly see in this photograph here. So this will affect a number of residents with properties, businesses, primary and nursery schools, a dementia care home. And these all lie within close proximity of the proposed line. The nearest properties are located about 100 metres west of the scheme.
The parish of Lostock Gralam is bordered by industrial and residential fringes on the Stublach plain to the south, and a wooded area, Marthall, to the north. The proposed high-speed railway line will be constructed to the south of Lostock Gralam on the Lostock plain which has a network of footpaths, mainly following farm tracks and field boundaries, so it’s quite a rural area at the moment. It’s a nice place.
The Lostock plain, of course, is a major brine extraction area, which is also utilised for underground gas storage.
CHAIR: We’ve heard a little on that recently.
CLLR VENABLES: Yes, it may have been mentioned yesterday.
CHAIR: Yes, just slightly.
CLLR VENABLES: So the A556 south of the parish and Lostock plain, it is a very busy commuter road. It serves Northwich; it’s the main link between Chester and Manchester and junction 19 of the M6. And it’s proposed that the A556 be realigned to make way for the high speed line.
So can I have A26, please? So, again, Mr Mould has taken some of my pictures. The next one along, please. Again, very similar diagrams; it was just really to show you where we’re coming from. So we’ve got the Wade Brook viaduct, Lostock Gralam viaduct, and the Smoker viaduct’s there, and the north and south Lostock Gralam embankments. As you can see, the Lostock Gralam north embankment is quite close to our village there. Okay, next one, please.
So in total it’s about 1.3 kilometres long, the viaducts and embankments that will be built. The Lostock Gralam south one, which is the one that’s mainly going to affect ourselves, is 350 metres long, 14 metres high. Probably – sorry I’m just doing the maths in my head – I would say four London double decker buses high, 14 metres, give or take. So it’s quite high. At the moment there’s nothing there; it’s open fields. Everybody’s got a nice view of those. So it’s going to be quite an impact on the village to be able to look through their bedroom windows and see this huge embankment. So next one, please. Again, just really to show where the auto transformer that Mr Mould has just mentioned, its location there. As you say, moving it to the south would be beneficial from a visual aspect of it but, again, we need to see what the letter says first.
Next one, please.
CHAIR: The issue with the auto transformer, sorry, is just the visual impact of it.
CLLR VENABLES: It’s the visual impact. Is it lit at night? I mean we haven’t had an awful lot of detail of what will be on that site. There’s a 20-metre-high transmission mast, telecommunications mast as well, going on there. But, again, we’ve not had any visuals really to show us; we can only go from what’s been done on HS1.
CHAIR: But your objection to it is the proximity to the village and the visual amenity and visual effect.
CLLR VENABLES: It is, yes. It’s actually facing a small hotel; it’s facing a care home; it’s also facing a residential home now as well.
CHAIR: So in terms of what you were looking for today from the Committee on that particular issue, it is to obviously make those points, with a view to other sites being considered. Now we do have that assurance on that, so in terms of that particular issue, in terms of what the Committee could do, or would probably choose to do, it would be probably along the lines of the assurance, were we so to act, which would be to ask for other sites to be considered. So in that respect, the assurance that is provided goes some way, at least, to addressing your concern about that particular location.
CLLR VENABLES: It does indeed, yes.
CHAIR: Right.
CLLR VENABLES: Next one, please. The longest viaduct, of course, is the Smoker Brook viaduct, which we’ve only got a few metres of it into our parish before it moves on to the Plumley side. We have been told that there is like a break point halfway along this. It’s like some sort of join that wasn’t in the previous petition. We were concerned whether or not that would be causing noise or anything as well. It’s just a joint halfway along, an expansion joint, which was news to us.
CHAIR: You mentioned the barriers, or you mentioned noise –
CLLR VENABLES: Yes.
CHAIR: So these barriers are four metres or 12 feet high. Was your concern about the – in noise – they’re going to be insufficient, or –
CLLR VENABLES: It was, again, the visual impact.
CHAIR: More the visual impact.
CLLR VENABLES: More the visual, yes.
MS SANDISON: We did ask for clear.
CLLR VENABLES: We did ask for clear, like a glass, or some sort of clear barriers, which we’ve seen used, just so we get some sunlight into Lostock Gralam, basically. So as you can see here on this photograph, that is the existing railway line to the right, and that’s what you could say is the existing Lostock viaduct. That’s the part that the new one’s going to cross. So the orange line shows the height of the track and the green line shows the height of the noise barriers. So, again, it’s quite a visual impact upon that.
Throughout the course of asking for visuals that impact us around the Lostock area, we’ve really not received any. This was the first one that we’ve seen in the latest pack. Yes, photographs have been taken of the area and put into the document, but there’s no visual of what the track will look like. So this is the first one here and it was just really to show the fact that it’s completely obliterating any view across the open fields with the height of the boundary. So we’ll come further on about what we requested there as an option for that a little bit later on. But this is the only one in the baseline that we’ve seen so far. As I say, there’s lots of photographs of other areas.
Next one, please. Again, Mr Mould has gone through the noise mitigation there, up to five metres in height, so 14 and 5, so it’s 19 metres in height so we must be getting towards seven double decker buses, eight double decker buses now.
Okay, next one, please. One of the big impacts around our area is going to be the compounds. Some of these are going to be six and a half years’ duration. We don’t know what type of works are going to be on there at the moment; I mean construction works. You could have a cement works there; you could have storage. We don’t know what type of works are going to be done on there. You know, construction is a big word, isn’t it? So we’re concerned about the noise and dust, the excess lighting and things like that at night. So that was just to show you the location of the Birches Lane compound, the Lostock Gralam viaduct and the Smoker compound. As you can see, there’s only really one road out, and that’s the A556.
Okay, next one, please. Birches Lane, due to commence in 2025 – six and a half years. Okay, so there’s no worker accommodation on there, so it will just be muster in and muster out traffic. It does say an average of 30 workers, with a maximum of 150. So unless you’re going to lay on coaches, we’re going to see rather a lot of increase in traffic.
Okay, next one. Smaller compound here – one and a half years – but again a smaller compound with 170 workers. Again, is it the same 170 in one place as it is the other, or is it now 300-plus workers?
Next one, please. And, again, a four year, six months there, and another 140 workers.
Okay, next one. This was the only photograph I could find at the time of an auto transformer station. That’s all I can say. Can we move on?
So this is the implications on the area there, the main one being the realignment of the 556, 1.2 kilometres of embankments, and the three large construction compounds, and up to a 10-year build programme. I’m not going to list everything on there; I’m not going to read out everything on there, I should say.
Next one. And that should be it. Yes, thank you for that.
CHAIR: Thank you. So in terms of your specific – because obviously the auto transformer thing, the assurance there, which is possibly where the Committee may have gone – I don’t know, because obviously the assurance has been – I don’t know we would have concluded on that – but you have an offer to look at other site locations. So I know, in terms of the asks from the parish, the issue of the clear barriering, I understand. That’s a very clear request and I’m sure HS2 will respond to that in a moment as to whether or not such things are doable, desirable, or whatever.
The other issues of noise tend to be around the construction noise. Now obviously Parliament has decided this line is going to be built, so there will have to be a construction period, and there’s obviously going to have to be compounds and all the rest of it. Are the specific asks the parish has about the operation of those compounds, or is it more general information as to what will be going on in those compounds? Because, obviously, I think the working hours of them were, I think, 8.00 till 6.00, and 8.30 till 1.00 on a Saturday. Presumably, those are reasonable work hours. I just wondered if you had a request on –
CLLR VENABLES: We’re just setting the scene with this. Further along, as we go on, we’ll get into that.
CHAIR: It’s just important for us to know what the actual asks are, because you’d just mentioned them then, and I just wanted to be clear whether there was something around the compounds in particular; whether it was relocating them or moving them. But it was more you’re concerned about what will go on in those compounds.
CLLR VENABLES: Yes. As we go further on, our asks will become clearer.
CHAIR: Okay.
MS SANDISON: Okay, so I’m going to carry on, and I’m going to talk about land quality. I know that you’ll have heard from Dr Ros Todhunter yesterday.
CHAIR: Yes, I am going to very, very, very, very strongly encourage you not to repeat any of that.
MS SANDISON: I’m not going to.
CHAIR: We are absolutely 100% clear on the issue of the geology of this area. And, of course, we’re not geologists, but we understand the concerns. They have been made in a number, as I say.
MS SANDISON: As you all know about the geology, I’m going to carry on. So a route alignment has been chosen in an area which has poor ground conditions, salt geohazards, complex geological issues, extensive salt industry and underground gas storage. To date, HS2 has only completed a desk study and two phases of ground investigations. HS2 propose to drill 3,000 bore holes along the Phase 2B route in 2023. We believe HS2 does not have all the facts, has not identified all potential risks, or a true figure for the cost of constructing HS2 over our complex landscape. Further detailed investigation work is needed to gain a robust understanding.
Ground investigations should have been completed in 2017, before this hybrid Bill was deposited. We acknowledge that, on 3 March 2023, HS2 released a document titled Crewe to Manchester – Understanding the Ground Risk Across the Cheshire Plain. This report shows that HS2 is still at an early stage of developing robust ground models. The track will be raised on embankment ducts by way of subsidence mitigation. Subsidence monitoring will likely be needed for the lifespan of HS2 at Lostock Gralam. How much will this monitoring cost? Will any additional works relating to subsidence impact our community years after construction? We want an assurance commitment from HS2 that it can verify the safety to our community when constructing and operating HS2 over the lifespan of the proposed scheme at Lostock Gralam.
It is our view that Lostock Gralam and Northwich are to be disproportionately impacted by the construction and operation of HS2. Had thorough ground investigations been carried out in 2017, we may not be in the position we are today. HS2 is being forced upon us despite the enormity of disruption it will cause to our community and town. The proposed HS2 route alignment is too close to our community. The proposed 10‑year construction timeline is too long. The proposed severity of change in our landscape is unjust. Just how far will HS2 be allowed to go and at what point will it become unviable? Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MS SANDISON: If I can move on to construction timeline, if we could have slide A27, which is my exhibit 3, please. Here we have the timetable which shows the extent of work required to cross from Gad Brook to the Smoker Brook. Work on the HS2 line will take 10 years next to our parish. Our community will be heavily impacted by the 10-year timescale for completing HS2 at Lostock Gralam, starting quarter two of 2025, with the Birches Lane satellite compound, and ending in quarter three of 2035 with testing and commissioning.
Within the 10-year timescale, the Lostock Gralam community will endure the impacts of realigning the A556, realignment of the A559 Manchester Road junction with the A556, traffic diversions through the parish, the rerouting of utilities, the setup and operation of five construction compounds, multiple stockpile mounds, the construction of the Rudheath embankment, north and south Lostock Gralam embankments, the Wade Brook viaduct, Lostock Gralam viaduct, and the Smoker Brook viaduct. Lostock Gralam residents and local businesses will endure a significant increase in noise, vibration, dust and light pollution, also, traffic delays and blight for the duration of the construction, not to mention the mental health impact. Make no mistake; it’s going to be difficult for the Lostock Gralam community to put up with, and live with, this for 10 years.
We accept that the nominated undertaker would require its contractors to apply and comply with the requirements of the draft code of construction practice, and compliance with environmental minimum requirements. However, due to the sheer size and complexity of work required next to our parish, it’s going to be very difficult to live happily next to this construction for 10 years. We are concerned that as more detailed information comes to light about the geology, utilities and salt industry infrastructure, that the timescale will increase, which would be an unreasonable ask for our community and town, especially when HS2 will not bring any benefit to the area.
The parish council is keen to stress that it would welcome further discussion about possible ways the construction timescale for the proposed scheme could be reduced. In our petition, we suggested that one viaduct from the Smoker Brook to Gad Brook could reduce the time to construct HS2 along this stretch, possibly reducing the land take, utility rerouting, and allow a view through and beyond the HS2 line, and reduce community severance with Lostock Green. We do, however, appreciate and understand that HS2 will use a design which will reflect the best engineering solution and try to keep the railway as low as possible in the landscape.
We want an assurance commitment that HS2 will be completed, start to finish, within the proposed timescale set out in the supplementary environmental statement 1 and additional provision environmental statement, and that all design solutions have thoroughly been considered.
I’m going to move on to visual next, if we could have slide A28, exhibit 4, please. Here we have a screen shot of an HS2 YouTube video of how the HS2 route may look years post-construction. This shows the huge divide which will be created by the 14‑metre in height and 655-metre in length Lostock Gralam north embankment. I think this picture also shows you just how close the line is going to Lostock Gralam. There are around 1,500 properties in Lostock Gralam and over 300 properties in Lostock Green and Lach Dennis.
Construction activity from the Smoker Brook viaduct and A556 auto transformer station will be visible above intervening field vegetation. Lostock Gralam viaduct satellite compound and Smoker Brook viaduct south satellite compound will be visible across a large proportion of the view. This will result in a high magnitude of change. The parish council ask that the auto transformer station be located on the southern side, which I know we’ve obviously received.
CHAIR: Yes, we’ve covered that and received the assurance.
MS SANDISON: On completion of the railway line, HS2 reported in the environmental statement volume 5 that, by year 30, the visual impact will be low. This will be dependent on the variety of trees chosen and growth rate and the viewpoint. The parish council is very concerned about the visual impact of embankments on our flat open landscape, as they will block the view of what is beyond. We are also concerned about the length of time it will take to screen the embankments due to their height and length. We note that the embankment along the Mid-Cheshire Line at Roker Park – and you can see a photo further down – is not particularly attractive, with scrub and MOT stones. We hope that the HS2 embankments will be green, with grass and vegetation from very early on.
Lostock Gralam is the first Northwich parish to welcome commuters, visitors, and Northwich residents home, when travelling home along the A556 Chester Road westbound to Lostock Gralam and Northwich. The first thing which will be seen is the Smoker Brook viaduct. This will be like a gateway into our parish and town. It is, therefore, essential that the viaduct design is sympathetic to our landscape and existing bridges. The viaduct visual design is something we feel very strongly about. We particularly prefer the look of the Colne Valley viaduct and hope to have the opportunity to be consulted on the visual appearance of the viaduct design in our area.
I’m going to move on to highways next, if we could have slide A29, exhibit 5, please. As raised in our petition, we are concerned about the impact of carrying out the permanent realignment of the A556 Shurlach Road, including the existing Wade Brook viaduct, which will take three years and three months to complete. In HS2’s response to this petition item, they have responded that the realigned carriageway would be constructed offline, with two traffic lanes retained in each direction on the existing alignment of the A556 during these offline works. Temporary traffic management will be required to construct the tie-ins of the A556 realignment at its interface with the existing road realignment, which may require short-term lane closures or road closures, at weekends or overnight. We understand these lane closures or road closures would be over no more than two months. We would also like to highlight the importance of the A556 as being an emergency response route, designated motorway emergency diversion route, along with being a main commuter route.
If we could move to exhibit 6, please, A30, we have Morrisons distribution, Roberts Bakery, Jack Richards Hauliers, multiple businesses at the Lostock works, Cheshire Business Park and Gadbrook Park, all of which provide employment to the local community. We want to retain these businesses and continue to attract new business. Northwich is an attractive location for businesses to operate from due to its central location and great road links to the M6 and junction 19. If the A556 traffic flow is adversely affected by HS2, either by overloading the road network with HS2 construction traffic or by lane closures and diversions, Northwich may become an unattractive business location for new businesses, with existing businesses unable to operate effectively out of Northwich, which will cripple our economy and displace employment opportunities.
If I can give an example. At the Morrisons distribution site, there are in excess of 1,300 employees within the logistics and transport divisions. Combined there are circa 3,500 HGV movements per week, excluding produce. Peak times at the site are 5.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m., 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., and 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.
CHAIR: Do you know if any of those employees have petitioned themselves on this?
MS SANDISON: I understand that Morrisons haven’t petitioned.
CHAIR: Right.
MS SANDISON: The Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant, which is currently under construction and due to be operational in 2025, has permission to bring in 600,000 tonnes of residual waste by road. This equates to in excess of 1,300 HGV round trips per week between the hours of 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. along Griffiths Road. It is worth noting that the Secretary of State refused a section 36 application to increase tonnage, HGV movements and operational hours. We understand that the A556 will be the main route in and out for these deliveries.
From looking at the HS2 traffic histogram, the A556 will be impacted by HS2 construction traffic for many years. This, coupled with the additional Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant HGVs, will have a negative impact on traffic flow in and around the area. We are keen to understand if there will be any lane closures of the A556 whilst utilities are rerouted, as any disruption on the A556 has an impact on traffic flow on the A559 Manchester Road and adjoining residential roads.
We note that in HS2’s response to our petition that they said the proposed HS2 route intersects utility company networks throughout its length. There are approximately 950 individual utility assets, including water, sewerage, electricity, gas and telecommunications contained within the area that would be affected by the proposed scheme. We understand that the utility works will be undertaken offline, with the tie-in works completed at the same time as the A556 tie-in work. The two-month timescale advised by HS2 seems drastically optimistic considering the scale of utility rerouting.
If HS2 can provide assurances from the utility companies that what is proposed is achievable within the two month tie-in timescale, this may calm some of our concerns. We note that due to non-disclosure agreements which are in place, the parish council cannot ask the likes of INOVYN whether the timescales quoted are reasonable. We are here today to ask for an assurance from HS2 that the total number of days when the A556 will have lane closures and night time closures will not exceed 40 days during the northbound tie-in works, and a further 40 days for the southbound tie-in works.
CHAIR: Can I ask what that figure’s based on, the 40 days?
MS SANDISON: So HS2 advised that they would need 40 days northbound, 40 days southbound, for the tie-in work of the A556. To my understanding, that’s all they’ve asked for in terms of delays, days where there may be delays on the A556. And we’re here to ask, is that the total number of days we are going to have disruption, or is it going to be more? We, obviously, understand the utility rerouting for INOVYN, but also your utility rerouting for electrics etc, which are run under the A556. So we’re here to ask HS2 – is it reasonable that they can contain all of their disruption for the A556 within 80 days?
CHAIR: I mean, some of these are things that I presume will come out in the traffic management plans. I’m just conscious that a lot of the questions we hear from petitioners are questions that should be directed directly to HS2, in direct engagement, rather than a matter for us. But, obviously, I know you’ve sought particular assurance here, so that’s fine. I’m just thinking for a general process of us moving forward as a committee on these works, a lot of these are direct questions to HS2. Has there been a communication between yourselves and HS2 on the construction traffic?
MS SANDISON: It was only last week that we found out – well, I was told that it would be 40 days, and then when we got the written response, it was actually different to what we were told. It was 40 days northbound and 40 days southbound, so it actually doubled. But if I just read these last few points, it might confirm what I’m asking from yourselves.
If this is not viable due to increasing complexities still to be recognised, then we request that an independent review of the true economic impact on Northwich of constructing the HS2 line along the A556 is carried out. We strongly feel that if when the time comes that, in fact, they need six months, 12 months, of possible delays, that businesses like Morrisons distribution may leave Northwich. And if that happens, they take with them the employment opportunities for our local community. It’s really important to us. So it’s important that HS2 can commit, and get the work done, within the time that they have specified.
CHAIR: Thanks.
MS SANDISON: I’m going to hand over to Mark.
CLLR VENABLES: Can you just go back to A29 slide for me, please? So we’ve got some traffic flow information here; we’ll get onto the figures in a moment. One of the main routes through the village is Manchester Road, the A559. And just as you enter the village, you come across a four-arm set of traffic lights, so a four-arm crossroads. It’s known as Hall Lane crossroads. And we’re asking for possible to modernise it, to incorporate a right-hand turn into what’s known as Hall Lane.
So on this map, see where the gentleman’s there, where he’s pointing his arrow, so that crossroads there is a set of lights. And turning right is towards a place called Wincham. Wincham has a small industrial estate and there generally are quite large HGVs turning there. Because of the phasing of the lights, the traffic soon builds up there. And we’ll go to another slide in a moment, showing that those traffic lights are going to be overcapacity when HS2 is started to be constructed.
So if there’s also trouble on the motorway or other local issues on the highway, it can really back up past what’s called Stubbs Lane, and, again, there’s another slide with that location on. The backup then creates rat-runs through the village. It’s a small village; there’s all double-parking everywhere, you can imagine. We note from HS2’s traffic flow map, the one on screen, that the 2030 baseline for Manchester Road, in an eastbound direction, is 5,709.
CHAIR: Sorry, just to check on the right-hand turn, you’re asking for a right-hand turn from Manchester Road onto Hall Lane, the A559.
CLLR VENABLES: Yes.
CHAIR: So there isn’t a right-hand turn at the moment.
CLLR VENABLES: There is a right-hand turn, but the way the traffic lights are phased, there’s no time for crossing traffic to turn right. So as the traffic’s crossing, you don’t get a chance to turn right; you can get one car through.
CHAIR: There’s not a right – okay, I understand.
CLLR VENABLES: It’s the phasing of the traffic lights. So HS2 have said, in their 2030 baseline, there’s 5,709 eastbound vehicles.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Letter I.
CLLR VENABLES: Yes, under the letter I, which we can see there eastbound – 5,709 – and they’re forecasting an increase of 341 vehicles on there.
CHAIR: With a reduction on the westbound.
CLLR VENABLES: With a reduction on the westbound, and that’s where I’m going to question that information, because we had a survey done in 2019, which is further down on that page. So the bottom note 1, all vehicles eastbound, you can see there that the number of HGVs is 267, and it’s taken round about the same time, and we were concerned that HS2’s actually got less HGVs than what we had in our survey.
CHAIR: Who was the survey done by?
MS SANDISON: Cheshire West.
CHAIR: It was a council; it was the principal authority.
MS SANDISON: It was a pedestrian survey by Cheshire West and Chester highways. So it’s actual data, not forecast.
CLLR VENABLES: Not forecast, yeah. So although they’re showing a negative, it’s actually going to increase with the construction traffic of HS2, because Manchester Road being one of the construction routes.
CHAIR: Okay.
CLLR VENABLES: So, basically, we fail to understand how the results of the HS2 traffic flow map have been arrived at. We’re questioning that.
So we’ve got some screenshots here of the Northwich transport strategy draft document, which was done in 2018, and it says that the Hall Lane traffic lights are forecast to be operating above capacity in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods by 2030. Now we don’t know whether or not they’ve included HS2 forecasts there in those figures but as you can see, even without, if it doesn’t include them, it’s already starting to show that it’s a major increase in traffic there, and there are going to become bottlenecks.
So having traffic backed up on that particular road there, it not only impacts the residents of our parish travelling by vehicle, but also has a negative impact on our air quality. So we’re here today to ask assurance from HS2 that they will work with CWAC to look at improving the four-arm junction. If we could just zoom in on the two middle photos there, just so you can see, on the left is the volume of capacity a.m. So you can see there’s two yellow dots there in the middle, two-thirds in.
So that one there, that is the junction in question that we’re asking about. And if you look at the p.m., on the right-hand side, it turns red, which says it’s overcapacity. But I don’t know if that included the HS2 traffic as well; it was done in 2018. So we’re already forecasting that it’s going to go over.
CHAIR: I just have to run out. Mr Vickers is going to take over; I’ll be only two minutes. Please continue.
CLLR VENABLES: Just scroll down the page a little bit, please. So here’s a recent photograph taken, 5 April, at 5.09 p.m. You can start to see that the traffic is building up. So can you see where the arrow ends off the pop-out box? That white building there, that white gable end, is the crossroads that was in question – the four-arm crossroads in question. So it’s already stating to build up. And just where the brown sign is on the left there, sort of two-thirds there, that’s Stubbs Lane junction.
A32, please. So this is Manchester Road eastbound and westbound. So with the increased traffic proposed for Manchester Road, we would like to see a safer crossing at the existing traffic refuge island near to Stubbs Lane junction. Stubbs Lane junction, just top right-hand photograph, just to the left there. So this would allow schoolchildren and members of our community to safely cross the road at Stubbs Lane play area and primary school on School Lane. We also suggest that we would like a ‘keep clear’ painted on Stubbs Lane junction to Manchester Road, as it’s very difficult to get out at peak times of Stubbs Lane.
Potentially, a ‘keep clear’ would not be needed if the four-arm Hall Lane traffic lights were improved or their sequencing reset. We believe that the traffic would flow better because it’s just basically waiting to turn right, from this view here, from the westbound view. And the refuge that you can see there, where the two lorries are and things, that’s where we had our data taken for our survey, for our crossing, back in 2019.
So A33, we’ve mentioned before that Station Road is also one of the construction traffic routes, and it’s quite deceptive if you don’t know the area. We’ve been very clear about its concern regarding HS2 construction traffic using this Station Road. There is a small children’s nursery on the top left as you’re approaching the church, where that 20 mile an hour sign is; there’s actually a small children’s nursery there. And it’s actually coming over a blind bridge off the railway. So our concern is for the preschool and schoolchildren due to the parked vehicles which line the road as you go down towards those Hall Lane traffic lights. So coming back to those four-arm traffic lights again.
So as you can see, you’ve got top left you’ve got the church – nice and open, great. As you start to go round the corner, top right, you start to see the traffic building up. Further down, bottom left, cars are still parked there. And only when you get to the Hall Lane traffic lights there, it starts to reopen up. But there’s a very short distance between the traffic lights and where parked cars would be on there. So it can be quite a dangerous crossing there.
MS SANDISON: If I could have exhibit 12, please, A36, the assurance letter, the parish council has received an assurance from HS2 with regards to the use of Station Road as a construction traffic route. We welcome the fact that the nominated undertaker will limit, so far as possible, the use of Station Road by HS2 construction traffic. The parish council welcomes the assurance letter received on 30 March 2023.
In summary, there is still work to be done to satisfy our concerns. HS2’s current proposal of mitigation falls short of our expectations. We feel that our community’s well-being and parish appeal will be greatly reduced at the detriment of a train line which will not benefit our town or community. Thank you.
MR VICKERS: Right, that completes your presentation. Right, we now turn to Mr Mould, do we, to respond?

Response by Mr Mould

MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you. I’ll begin with traffic and highway matters, as they’re fresh in your minds. If we put up P184, please. Just by way of context, I reiterate and emphasise again that the main HS2 construction route through this area is along the A556, and you can see that reflected in some of the numbers on this sheet. If you look, firstly, at the plan, you will see assessment points B, H and J, which take you along the A556 from the Broken Cross roundabout at the south, and then up at H to the point on the road just to the east of Lostock Gralam, and then at J, just to the point beyond the junction with the A559.
If you then look at the table, and perhaps we can just blow it up a little so we can see the numbers, you can see that at point B, within a flow of traffic in the future baseline on that road – eastbound and westbound – in the order of 20,000 vehicles on an average weekday, which is what you’d expect for a major through route of this kind, HS2 will add 346 HGVs in the eastbound, and 362 in the westbound. And you can see the overall change in vehicles, including all of the HS2 vehicles, on the right-hand side. Traffic flow is reduced on the eastbound but they go up quite markedly on the westbound.
One can see a similar pattern reflected at letter H as we approach Lostock Gralam itself. You can see there the traffic flows are still heavy, and you can see that the HS2 lorries are numerous – 414 each way – and you can see again quite significant changes in the overall flow of vehicles on that road. And then finally, at letter J, again significant flows in the future baseline, both directions. Nearly 500 HS2 lorries each way, and again quite significant additional traffic overall.
That is what you’d expect because that is a major HS2 haul route. The road is capable of accommodating that traffic, whilst maintaining free flow. It’s a dual carriageway, and you’ve heard that the works to realign that road south of Lostock Gralam, going down to Broken Cross, will be taking place offline, with tie-in overnight and at weekends, within – in the case of both the northbound and later the southbound – an overall period of about 40 days, as we currently predict.
I want to emphasise, neither the northbound nor the southbound carriageways will be closed for 40 days. It is within a period of 40 days on each occasion that there will be a sequence of closures overnight and at weekends, to enable the realigned road to be done.
MR VICKERS: It’s not a continuous 40 days then.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. What I cannot do is give an assurance to the parish council that the sequence of tie-in works will necessarily be limited to 40 days. In the actuality of things, it may extend a little further than that. Members of the Committee will be familiar with this kind of thing from travelling in their own cars around the major highway networks – the motorways and so forth – where major roadworks take place offline, there will be periods which are advertised in advance when the road will be closed, or carriageways will be closed, for overnight periods, for weekend periods, to enable bridges to be thrown across the road and so forth, and so on. This is commonplace in this country and these roadworks taken, if you like, as a project in their own right, these works to realign this road, they will be no different in that sense.
The periods of overnight and weekend closure, and when they are likely to take place, will be advertised in advance. That will be an important part of the traffic management planning. And the local community relations work will have, as part of its activities, making sure that local communities are made aware in advance of when those changes are going to take place. For those reasons, there is no reason to expect that local businesses will fear that they have to relocate in order to maintain access to the wider road network. And it is no doubt because, through our discussions and negotiations with them, for example, Morrisons have been able to satisfy themselves that they can work with the inevitable degree of disruption that will come from the construction of HS2 in this area, they have not found it necessary to petition this House. Nor indeed, as I understand it, have any other significant local employers in this area, in the area of Northwich and Broken Cross.
We have had a petition from INOVYN, that petition focusing on the need, as they see it, to do more to accommodate their existing very sophisticated and extensive apparatus which is crossed by the railway line. But we are working closely with INOVYN at the moment, and will continue to do so, with a view to bringing forward changes which are needed in order to ensure that their nationally important utility apparatus and activities are able to continue.
So the concern about business relocation and business retention is one that I would respectfully suggest need not cause this Committee any significant degree of concern. I emphasise again – forgive me; you’ve heard this from me before, but as the concerns have been raised – HS2 need to use the A556. And so, if for no other reason, there is an obvious self-interest in HS2 maintaining, as far as possible, the free flow of traffic along that road.
Now, having said that part of the context, I turn to the subsidiary routing, and the A559 Manchester Road and Station Road, and so forth. First of all, I’m very pleased to hear that the petitioners will accept the assurance that is being offered in relation to Station Road, and that is very good news. Secondly, insofar as the proposals for changes to improve the flow of traffic through the Hall Lane junction and to improve pedestrian safety at the refuge at Stubbs Lane are concerned, those are matters that are first and foremost for us to discuss with the local highway authority. This is a local highway authority road. Cheshire West and Chester are a petitioner before your Committee. We are discussion and negotiation with them at the moment.
CHAIR: And is that an issue under active discussion?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I believe that it is an issue that has been considered.
CHAIR: You were nodding.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): The reason I was slightly hesitant is because I don’t believe that either of those points is at the forefront of their concerns, but I am certainly happy to tell you that we will raise those questions with them, in the course of our discussions, to see whether, in the light of the points that have been made to you today, by these petitioners, they have any thoughts about that. They will, of course, be concerned to balance the operation of those junctions and pedestrian safety with maintaining the free flow of traffic along the Manchester Road through the village. Those are the sort of things that are far better mediated, if you will, by the local highway authority. So that is what I would propose.
What I should say is this, and this comes back, I think, sir, to a question you raised. The petition response document that, as you know, is sent out to the petitioners no later than a month before the hearing does deal in some detail with these issues. And, for example, it dealt in some detail with the petitioners’ proposals in relation to Stubbs Lane and to Hall Lane. And the point that was made was this – that in the light of revised work that was done after the Bill had been deposited, and which is reported in the context of additional provision 1, the need to use the A559, the A530 and Station Road for HS2 lorries was revised. And as a result of the revisions that have been made, we get down to the residual numbers that I told you about in opening, and which you see on this chart at letters E, G and I. You see, as I said earlier, the predicted HS2 lorry numbers are down to the order of 10 each way. That’s one every half an hour. And even then, this is not a continuous flow throughout the construction period. The need to use those subsidiary routes will arise sporadically as a result of a number of limited specific matters, such as utilities, such as to accommodate traffic diverted, when we are tying in the realigned A556, and one or two other points.
So the HS2 position hitherto, in the light of its own assessment – revised assessment – has been that whilst there may be problems on the Manchester Road with regard to the free flow of traffic through junctions, and regard to pedestrian safety, those are existing problems. They are not materially exacerbated or affected by HS2. But having said all that, I am happy, as I said, to raise those matters with the local highway authority in the light of what you’ve heard today, and see whether there is more work to be done in relation to it.
I don’t accept that the numbers at letter I – which I think were questioned by the petitioners – there’s any reason to question the reliability of those numbers. As you know, what we’re reporting here is the predicted traffic impact which has been run through an established set of modelling. And this is based upon actual survey data. The input into the model is surveyed information. This is not, as it were, manipulated, without reference to actual survey data. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that the number that we saw reported from the local highway authority in 2019 differs from the number that one sees at letter I, because the model takes account of the wider redistribution of traffic that comes with, firstly, the growth in traffic between now and the baseline in 2030, and secondly, with the addition of the HS2 traffic into the network as well.
CHAIR: Can you just explain that a bit more clearly? The local authority’s numbers obviously show a larger number of HGVs, so I’m not sure I quite understand how the modelling, which takes into account the additional HS2 traffic and additional construction traffic, can then end up lower than the current usage numbers. I’m not sure I follow that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, the model is essentially asking the question: firstly, how will traffic behave in seven years’ time with both existing flows, the natural growth in traffic numbers, the additional traffic that comes from development that’s already in the pipeline, and then the addition of HS2? And it is a false logic to suggest that, on any particular link, the amount of traffic that one sees in 2019, when those surveys were carried out, will be reflected by the amount of traffic that one sees on the same link, with all those factors added in, in 2030.
CHAIR: I get that, but I think the contention was that the 2019 base of an actual traffic count was higher than the base upon which this modelling was undertaken on.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes.
CHAIR: So I don’t know who’s right, but I’m just saying there’s a –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, it’s not a case of anybody being right or wrong. That reflected the actual conditions on, I think it was, 2 July 2019 when someone went out and an automatic traffic counter was put and measured. But it doesn’t at all follow that the distribution of traffic that the model assumes, on the basis of the base flows that are fed into the model, and allowing for all the changes in traffic numbers, all the changes in development and the addition of HS2, that you’ll see numbers that correlate. They might go up; they might go down.
As you will have seen earlier – we’ve seen this in earlier petition hearings – sometimes you find, for example, that roads where you would expect traffic numbers to go up because they are feeding into roads that have a lot of HS2 lorries going on them, in fact, the traffic numbers go down. That’s because the model assumes that drivers will behave in a particular way, in order to find an alternative route. So I wouldn’t expect there to be any obvious and clear cut correlation, necessarily, between numbers that were measured in July 2019 and numbers that come out of the model traffic impact assessment in 2030.
CHAIR: I think it’s just as – and the last thing we want is a very long explanation of the modelling, how it operates, because I think we can avoid that – but I think as a layperson, I think the parish council’s argument was, if the base was higher than actually what you believe it to be in 2019, that actually means that there are going to be a lot more vehicles on this road as a result of the growth you’ve mentioned, in terms of HS2 traffic, in terms of new development and all the rest of it. So that’s the contention as a layperson. Now maybe I’m missing something here but the parish council’s concern around that seems reasonable to at least ask those questions. I want to understand why the two can be true, if you understand what I mean.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, because, in a sense, they’re doing different things. In July 2019, let us say, somebody went out with a traffic counter and counted the number of lorries on the road on that day. The model, which as I’m reminded is based at this location on Cheshire West and Chester’s own strategic model, is measuring the operation of the wider road network which includes that particular link, in the conditions that are predicted to apply in 2030.
CHAIR: So they’re not comparing the same thing.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): They’re not comparing the same thing. One is asking how many lorries went down the road on a day in July 2019. The model is saying, ‘How is the local road network going to behave, how are drivers going to behave, in 2030?’, on the assumptions that are built into the model, which are designed to mimic, if you like, how the road network will operate in 2030, and how drivers are likely to behave when faced with the traffic conditions that exist in 2030.
So they’re probably both right but they’re just producing different answers. And that’s what you find.
CHAIR: I understand.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Perhaps the key point is that we will go away and speak to Cheshire West and Chester and see whether there is a case for doing something, even though HS2’s own predictions suggest that HS2 is not going to bring very much to the problem when the construction of the railway begins to take place.
CHAIR: And as you said, Cheshire West and Chester are a petitioner themselves on some of these issues to do with the highways, so I won’t labour that any further then.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): So I think that covers the question of traffic. I should come then to the question of visual impact. I’m going to see if I can deal with this without calling witnesses, because you’ve heard quite a lot of evidence on these matters already, so Mr Miller will forgive me if I see if I can deal with it. What you’ve seen is – if we go to P176(2), earlier on I showed you the permanent arrangement, and you saw that that feature of the railway which most directly affects Lostock Gralam was the Lostock Gralam north embankment; do you recall that? And we see that there being pointed out to you now. Now, as you can see on plan, the mitigation that is proposed in order to mitigate the visual impact of that embankment on the settlement to the west is essentially in the form of landscape planting, woodland planting, both on the embankment slopes, but also in the area of land that is islanded between the railway and the A556.
If we put up P177(4), we can see cross-section 8(a), which is showing a cross-section between the nearest properties on the eastern boundary of Lostock Gralam and that embankment; do you see that? And you can see that extensive area of mitigation planting, as it’s labelled on this plan, and you can see the relationship between properties on the eastern side of the town and the railway on the embankment, we have the A556 Shurlach Road, then that extensive area of planting which, of course, will mature over time, and as it does so, as you can see, will begin to filter views of the railway and the noise fence barrier beyond.
If I can then put up one of the photographs that’s published in the environmental statement – this is page 198 in the published landscape and visual impact assessment – you can see from the location point of this viewpoint, on the bottom right-hand corner, this broadly approximates to the line across which that cross-section that I showed you a minute ago was drawn. And this is, therefore, a view looking eastwards, and you can see it’s looking across the existing road. If you look at the top, in the winter view baseline photograph at the top, you can see traffic on the road beyond the fence and through the trees. Do you see that?
And you can see how in the summer the existing lineside planting on the A556 provides a visual screen to the road.
CHAIR: Is this the viaduct that’s in the background?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): The viaduct would be beyond the road in the background.
CHAIR: Has that been superimposed into the background?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No, this isn’t a photo montage; this is just a photograph of the existing position. I haven’t got a photo montage of the –
CHAIR: Something seems to be going up high, so I thought that was – forgive me – because of the cars, I couldn’t work out what that was.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No, I think it’s a hedge. But the reason for showing you this – you may have visited this on your route tour; I don’t know – is so you get a sense of the degree to which the road, which will lie between these houses and the railway line, and the lineside planting on the road already provides screen. So if you then imagine that, beyond the road, you have that substantial belt of tree planting that I showed you on the cross-section on the plan, you can see that although one could expect that, certainly in the early years of operation, there will be views of the viaduct, of the embankment beyond and of the catenaries, those views will be increasingly filtered by existing and proposed new landscape planting.
And although the view will change, and certainly where there are more open views across the farmland to the east, those views will obviously be closed off, but we suggest that that is an acceptable degree of change.
CHAIR: Is this the embankment section or the viaduct section?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): This is the embankment section.
CHAIR: Okay. My understanding on the parish council’s request on embankment, because I wrote a note of the request, was obviously you showed us that picture of the Chester Line embankment looking particularly barren and a little bit ugly. Your concerns were to be involved in, consulted on, worked with, on what that planting will look like, as opposed to obviously the embankment is going to be there if this railway line is going to be built. You accept that. It’s on the planting, which you’re going to do anyway. This seems a relatively easy thing to resolve, surely an agreement just to communicate and work with the parish council on what that planting will look like. I mean that must be very easy for us to agree.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I see no difficulty in keeping the parish council informed in an appropriate way of the planting proposals for the plan.
CHAIR: The people of that parish may have a view on it.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, that would form part of ordinary community relations, I would have thought. I mean, bear in mind that the details of mitigation are subject to approval under the planning schedule by the local planning authority. So there is a – the project has to go through that process.
CHAIR: And the parish council would be a statutory consultee on that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I don’t think they’d be a statutory consultee.
CHAIR: If it’s a planning application they will be, if it’s in their parish.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): It’s a slightly different arrangement under the schedule. I don’t think that they’re statutory consultees, are they? The statutory consultees are very limited.
CHAIR: Well, we’ve agreed to almost make them that, haven’t we? So there we are.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): What I don’t want to do is overpromise.
CHAIR: I understand. I understand the position you’re in, but absolutely their concern is around the planting and you’re happy to have those conversations, to share with them those plans and –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Absolutely, we’ll formulate an assurance which reflects that. I think the other thing they asked was whether there could be consideration given to clear noise barriers. And I’ve asked about that. First of all, for the reasons I just pointed out to you, this is a very different situation to the Colne Valley, which you were mentioning. The Colne Valley is a viaduct which shoots across bodies of open water, very, very visible, so there was a clear case there for, amongst other things, from a visual and aesthetic perspective, to addressing the design on what was undoubtedly and has been designed as a very, very high‑quality feature.
But here, we’re talking about relatively filtered views. There are real technical issues with clear noise barriers. First of all, clear noise barriers tend to be less effective in terms of noise attenuation because they don’t have the absorptive qualities that the conventional noise barriers have.
Secondly, the higher the barrier, the more challenging it is to be able to construct a clear barrier. Indeed, Mr Miller tells me he’s not aware of any noise barriers in this country at the height of five metres, that you saw is the height that is proposed here, which are clear, because of the challenge of actually being able to foot them so that they can withstand the passage of a train travelling at 360 kilometres an hour.
CHAIR: What’s that, 225 miles an hour?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): 225 miles an hour.
CHAIR: None of this nonsense kilometres. What’s the height of the clear ones on the Colne viaduct?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Four metres, or so I’m told. The important thing here, as you saw from that noise contour map I showed you, was to make sure that we have effective noise attenuation quality on this side of the embankment.
CHAIR: But that five-metre level – there’s none in this country.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): There’s no five-metre-high – that Mr Miller is aware of – clear noise barriers.
CHAIR: That’s useful to know because this may come up again.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Again, you know, it’s for the contractors. The main contractors for this project and those who design the project will need to consider how to achieve the required output in terms of noise attenuation that is shown on these plans. But we think it’s highly unlikely, on the basis of what we presently know, that the solution that would be considered acceptable, indeed achievable, for the reasons I’ve given, would be clear noise barriers here. We think it unlikely that that would be justified on visual grounds for the very reasons I’ve given in terms of the filtering of the views. So that’s, I’m afraid, as far as I can go on that one at the moment.
In terms of the performance of the railway in noise terms through here, the basic proposition is we’re not predicting any significant change. That’s shown on the tables in the pack that you have in front of you. The reason why there’s no significant change is, in simple terms, the presence of the road, because the road is already defining the noise environment on the eastern side of Lostock Gralam. And with the provision of these noise barriers we’ll be able to maintain the operational noise of the railway broadly to existing levels of noise.
CHAIR: You don’t have on that ‘moderately adversely affected’, amber, the red, ‘severely and materially affected’.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No, you can just see if we glance at it, at page P178(3), table 4 on that page.
CHAIR: Because it’s in large part offset by the road.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. Table 4 on the bottom of this page, you can see the assessment points include some of those properties that were mentioned in passing as being particularly sensitive to noise and the trains, including the care home, which is the second line of that table. And if you look across the chart you’ll see the change with and without HS2. We’re either seeing small reductions in noise or small increases in noise, but nothing of the order of greater than two or three decibels. You remember what Mr Methold told you when he gave his presentation.
CHAIR: You can’t hear anything if it’s less than three decibels.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): You won’t notice the change.
CHAIR: Yes, I remember it.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, so that’s the position in relation to noise.
CHAIR: Just, again, as a layperson, and I’m sure the parish council will be thinking the same, how can constructing a railway line reduce the noise? Sorry, these are technical questions and you haven’t called any witnesses. It’s probably unfair of me to ask you that, Mr Mould. It’s probably unfair but you can understand how anybody watching this, if anybody is, might think, ‘How can you put a railway line there and actually the noise levels go down?’ It just seems counterintuitive but I’m sure there’s a very good technical reason for why.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I don’t know the answer to that question at this particular location, because, as I pointed out to you earlier –
CHAIR: I’m straying anyway, so I apologise.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): This is north of where the road is being realigned. So it is a little odd that we see the noise reducing with the addition of the railway. You’d expect the position to be, at best, neutral. But if you’d like me to see if we can provide an explanation.
CHAIR: I’m probably straying too much. I apologise.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, I mean, we’re obviously open to giving you some help on that if you’d like it, but the important prediction is no change.
I’m not going to just say very much more about the ATS. I am going to say that I do apologise for the fact that that assurance was only issued this morning. It would clearly have been preferable to have issued it earlier. But it does, I hope, go a long way towards identifying what it was that the petitioner… If it is helpful to you to see the logic for locating the ATS in the position that it is currently shown on the plans –
CHAIR: I think, given the assurance, that’s not necessary, to be honest. You have the assurance to go away and look at other sites. I think that that’s sufficient for the Committee.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): The petition did ask, I think rhetorically, given that it was a question, as you said, that probably should have come to us, what was the purpose for each of the compounds. The answer to that question is to be found in the environmental statement, in this volume, which obviously has been in the public domain for many, many weeks now. But if it’s helpful to the petitioner, and forgive me if I try your patience, pages 87, 88 and 89 in this volume provide a detailed explanation as to what it is that is going to happen in those compounds.
I have asked for help from those behind me as to the cost of replacing the Rudheath and the Lostock Gralam embankments with a continuous viaduct. I am told that the cost of doing so would be a £117 million increase in the civil engineering cost of the project. Given that our case as I put it to you is that the visual and aural impact of running the railway along embankments past this town is – although there will be change and it will be noticeable, it is ultimately with acceptable bounds of impact. There is, in our submission, no justification for spending £117 million more in order to change embankments to viaducts.
There was a question posed about whether the expansion device, which is the principal reason for extending the Smoker Brook viaduct 21 metres to the south of where it was shown on the Bill plans, will give rise to any further noise impact. The answer is no, and the reason for that change and the assessment of any environmental effects that might flow from it are to be found in the relevant volume of the environmental statement for AP1.
CHAIR: But technically that joint doesn’t give rise to vibration noise.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No, no, it doesn’t have any aural or vibration effects.
CHAIR: Whilst we’re on viaducts, the parish of course asked the question about the design as well.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, the Smoker Brook viaduct, which I think was the viaduct they were concerned – that’s identified in information paper D1, the design information paper, as a key design element. If you remember, that’s one of those features of the railway which will be subject to enhanced local community consultation under the terms of that information paper.
So the parish council will have the opportunity, as the design of that viaduct is developed, to have their say. That, of course, is an element of the railway that will be subject to local authority approval under paragraph 2 of the planning schedule, where considerations of design and visual impact and amenity are statutory considerations that the planning authority is able to bring to bear in deciding whether or not to approve the design that is put forward.
But as with the Colne Valley viaduct, to take an example, we would very much hope that through careful design, iteration and discussion both with the local authority and through engagement with the local community, in accordance with D1, we can arrive at a design which firstly fulfils the operational requirements of the railway, which, as the Committee will appreciate, is critical, but also enables a design to be put forward which goes as far as we can toward satisfying local community concerns about local impact. The fact that the Colne Valley viaduct has received such praise, I think, for its design is an example. A key design element can go through that process and produce good results.
CHAIR: I believe the parish’s contention was they wanted something like the Colne Valley viaduct.
MS SANDISON: Not something that looks like a motorway bridge.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, I can’t promise.
CHAIR: You’re not promising that, I understand.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I can’t promise that. What I can say is that the same process of consultation that led to that result is a commitment on this project’s part. It’s set out in information paper D1, and it is something which they are obliged to do, so far as the local authorities’ approval is concerned, under paragraph 2 of the relevant schedule to the Bill.
There was a question raised about the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access to the town during the tie-in works. That is something that doesn’t present any difficulty. Obviously, the project will be liaising closely with the emergency services to ensure that their needs are catered for whilst the tie-in works are taking place.
I am not going to be provoked into responding in detail on land quality. I’m sure that you’ll be relieved to hear me say that. But I ought for the record to say that in the light of the evidence you heard yesterday from Professor Lord Mair, we do refute the suggestion that the design is ill‑prepared insofar as ground conditions are concerned or that the engineering response that is explained and described in the March 2023 paper is incapable of securing an effective design, operation and maintenance regime for the railway, including early response to any enhanced subsidence that may result from the ground conditions about which you’ve heard.
CHAIR: We’ve heard a lot and it’s not to dismiss those; we’re obviously all very concerned about the ground conditions here. But of course we have covered that in quite some detail and we appreciated the evidence yesterday from Lord Mair.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Absolutely, and it won’t surprise the Committee to hear that nobody is more concerned about understanding and responding effectively to the ground conditions than the Secretary of State and HS2 Ltd, who responsible for ensuring that the railway is designed and operated safely.
I fear we cannot give an assurance to the parish council in relation to those matters. I hope they will rest assured that there are other regulatory bodies, both within the HS2 design construction process but also, for example, the Health and Safety Executive, who will be intimately involved in bringing forward a safe and functional design and ensuring that during the design life of this railway, well into the next century, it is maintained and monitored in an effective and safe way.
I believe that I have covered the principal points raised, but I may have missed something.
CHAIR: No, I don’t think you have. Well, not really. You’ve discussed construction but the parish clerk did raise the issue of employment sites in the local area.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Indeed.
CHAIR: My question is: have you had direct contact or communication with those employers and have these concerns been expressed to you? But I can think the particular concern with Morrisons was: would things be so terrible that they would just up and leave?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Indeed, we have had discussions with Morrisons. We continue to do so. I think you ventured the question as to whether Morrisons had in fact petitioned against the Bill. The answer is they haven’t. We continue to discuss with them. We continue to consider whether there are things that need to be done in order to accommodate their needs, because we are very alive to the need to ensure that major employers such as Morrisons are able to continue to operate.
We recognise, of course, that for a modern retailer of that kind, just‑in‑time deliveries and so forth are absolutely vital to their business. It’s important that HS2’s works do not unacceptably affect them being able to continue with their business in that way. But it’s not confined to Morrisons. We are, of course, in discussion with others.
Some local employers have petitioned. INOVYN, I think I mentioned earlier, but we are in close discussion with them as well. Whether we will succeed in addressing their concerns that they raised in their petition remains to be seen, but we obviously have that as our objective.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Mould. You have nothing else further.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I have nothing else unless there’s anything I can help you with.
CHAIR: Members, any questions? Well, can I thank both parties for attending? For the petitioners’ benefit, we’re going to have a private discussion after this. We’re not necessarily going to respond immediately to the petitions. We will be issuing reports throughout this process, which will go on for some time, which will address where our position is on issues that have been raised, on the petitions that have been raised.
So it may be some time, but we’ll have an initial discussion after this meeting. Obviously when those reports are issued they’ll be shared with you as petitioners. So thank you for attending. Thank you to Mr Mould and HS2 also. And on that basis, no further points, I’ll call today’s meeting to a close.