Mr John Wright

CHAIR: What’s going to happen, Mr Wright, is I’m just going ask Mr Strachan, on behalf of the promoter, to highlight your petition and the area it relates to, and then we’ll come to you, and then I’ll go back to Mr Strachan, on behalf of the promoter, to respond. So, hopefully, the technology will bear with us. We are expecting a vote at some point this afternoon but it certainly won’t interfere with your petition. So on that basis, Mr Strachan.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you. P247 gives you an overview, showing where Mr Wright’s property is. And the Committee is in the vicinity of Hoo Green, as the line goes towards the Hoo Green junction. We’re north of the M6 at this point. P248 shows the boundaries of Mr Wright’s property, Yew Tree Farm in Mere. And you can see that on the plan, Yew Tree Farm is towards the top, and the red line is the A50, and Yew Tree Farm adjoins the A50, and the main access is off the A50.
And if we turn to P249, just looking at the construction map, again the orientation’s now turned with north to the right. You can see Mr Wright’s property. And just to point out a few things which I think are going to be discussed in the petition, in terms of construction activity, there’s a pink line that runs across his property – a pink belt.
CHAIR: I’ve lost Yew Tree Farm. Whereabouts is it, sorry? I can’t see it.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yew Tree Farm is just opposite Legh Cottage, so the group of buildings there. So the group of buildings there.
CHAIR: This is near Mr Lewis’ property from yesterday as well.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Exactly right.
CHAIR: He’s a bit further over that side, just cut off this edge, isn’t he?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes. Well actually Wrenshot Cottage is just shown on the top.
CHAIR: Oh, yes, there we are.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So he’s over there. The A50’s in between the two, and Mr Wright’s farm and farm buildings are off just on the left-hand side of the A50, as shown here. And I think, just again to orientate, Hoo Green Lane, it’s not marked here, but Hoo Green Lane and Winterbottom Lane were running left to right of the page, and the Committee visited, I think, Winterbottom Lane and Hoo Green Lane on the site visit.
CHAIR: Yes, we did.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So just to identify the main areas of construction activity, that pink line I was showing, going across Mr Wright’s farm, is, in fact, the line of an existing gas main. I think you might have even spotted the gas main notation on the site visit, but it’s an existing gas main. Rights are required for that gas main, not actually to dig it up – it’s an existing gas main – but to decommission it, so it’s abandoned. The gas main remains in situ but you need access, potentially, to depressurise, or potentially grout it.
Then to the right, where you saw Legh Cottage, there’s an area of pink. That is the proposed watermain diversion. And you heard about that yesterday with Mr Lewis, that the idea which we’re in discussion with United Utilities is to put it along the road.
CHAIR: Along Wrenshot Lane, correct?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Exactly, and subject to the local highway authority. And we’ve told Mr Wright about that, so we’re waiting to hear from United Utilities and the highway authority.
The A50 itself, I’ll just show you, obviously runs in front of Mr Wright’s property. He’s going to speak about that in more detail but just so you can see what’s going on, the blue line is the temporary realigned A50. That temporary realignment is built, or constructed, whilst the A50 continues to take traffic. Once it’s been constructed, it’s tied into the A50, with some overnight closures, or lane closures, and then carries the A50 traffic on that temporary realignment. And whilst that happens, the main A50 is built across the railway, on a bridge that goes across the railway. And once that’s built, of course, the temporary realignment is tied back into the A50, and Mr Wright’s going to talk to you about that temporary realignment and the realignment.
If you just go up to Legh Cottage, and if you see Mr Wright’s property, you’ll see, just immediately to the west of his property, there’s a track. I say ‘track’; it’s called Dobb Lane, which is a private road. He’s got another access into his property from Dobb Lane onto the A50. You’re going to hear about that. And Hoo Green Lane, I’ve mentioned a moment ago, that’s diverted alongside the railway. And the other matters that he’s going to discuss with you are, I think, drainage, and potentially the Hoo Green junction itself, and its provision – passive provision – for Northern Powerhouse Rail, NPR.
We have provided some assurances to Mr Wright. The watermain one is yet to come but you’ve heard about that as in prospect. As to access, if I just put up P252(2), there’s an assurance that was provided to Mr Wright. In short, it’s in three parts. One is access from Dobb Lane. Generally speaking, we’re not anticipating interfering with Mr Wright’s ability to take access to his property from Dobb Lane.
The only time when we’re working in that area is to tie in those alignments and, therefore, I’ve given an assurance not to restrict his access to the property, where reasonably practicable, during the construction of the works, except, of course, in an emergency. And then, similarly, the access to the property off the A50 is the subject of a separate assurance. Again, we’re anticipating traffic continuing to flow on the A50, on the temporary or on the permanent realignment, and therefore we’re not anticipating material interruption of his access to his property, but we’ve given him an assurance about that. It’s set out in section 2.
And over the page, in section 3, we’ve given an assurance about drainage. And the Committee’s heard about drainage, but in due course in relation to land drainage, we’ve already done some work identifying how we’re going to address land drainage in the area, but that will be the subject of more detailed design. But there’s various assurances about, before doing any of the works, investigating properly the drainage arrangements about which Mr Wright’s given us quite a lot of information already, helpfully.
And then there’s a further assurance, on 20 April, which was just to take into account what Mr Wright has said about his own needs for the property, in particular milk collection and harvest time being two particular concerns of his, and the assurance of 20 April – if you go to the next page – makes it clear that, if and insofar as there’s any interference with access when we’re tying in the works, we’re going to try and ensure there’s proper advance notice that takes account of, and tries to avoid, either the milk collection time, or indeed the more frequent harvest period, which is defined on the next page. And that is broadly speaking between, well, as you’d expect, May – the harvest period is defined, if you just go up – May to the end of October.
And those are obviously particular concerns. So, as I’ve said, we don’t anticipate many major interferences with his access at all, but insofar as they’re unavoidable, that’s the assurance to try and address those matters. So that was all I was going to say by way of introduction. I know Mr Wright’s got various things he wants to raise with you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Strachan. Mr Wright, I’ll hand over to you in a moment. Just needless to say, to aid the Committee, it’s important that we’re very clear what your asks are from us today, so please do try to make those as clear as possible. I note in your petition you do mention the passive provision. If you are planning to speak to that, all I’ll say is that Parliament has decided that passive provision is required, and this Committee has no remit in adding, removing or changing that passive provision. That’s not within our purview, but Parliament has laid that out as required.
But I’ll hand over to you now, Mr Wright. And as I say, we’re very keen to know what the asks are of you this afternoon. So thank you, Mr Wright.

Submissions by Mr Wright

MR WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Could we have slide A50(12), please? Thank you. Yew Tree Farm is a dairy and arable farm, extending to 200 acres, around 80 hectares. My grandparents came as tenants to Yew Tree Farm in 1926. It’s designed as a single-person farm, to be operated by one person. Just south of the farm buildings, there’s a diagonal faint line on the map. That’s the access track for the cows to go down the field.
As you can see, what I’ve outlined here is not the total farm area, but the area of the farm that can be accessed from the farm buildings, without crossing a road or a railway, or a river or so forth. So it’s what we call the ring-fence of the farm. The total ring-fence area is 42.54 hectares, approximately 105 acres. The temporary land take, the pink area, totals 12.2 hectares or 30 acres, so it’s 28.68% of the total area. So it has a rather devastating effect on the potential earning capacity of our farm.
The permanent land take area is 18.53% of the area, and so ongoing it would have a significant effect on the income of the farm. There is a blue line to the left showing the land that was purchased by my father in 1966. It’s part of Goodiers Green Farm; it adjoined Yew Tree Farm. That is the only land in 97 years that has come on the open market next to us that we could add to the grazing area. So under the provisions of the Act, I’m supposed to be put in a position the same as I was without the scheme having taken place. Clearly, the area taken is irreplaceable because there isn’t the opportunity to buy land on the open market. Once every 97 years, it probably would never come up again in my lifetime.
Could we go to slide A50(43), please? This shows the only access out of my farmyard. The silver door on the right is the dairy, and I would like the Committee to take note that it’s on a slope; the A50 is on a ridge. The last part of the slope is quite steep where it gets to the road. Could we have A50(45), please? As you can see, this is a bit of a mishap, to put it politely. Two fire engines are in attendance to a grain dryer fire. You can see the smoke crossing the A50. The firemen are slowing the cars over the pipes coming from the water hydrant. It’s obvious that farms are a dangerous place.
The grain dryer, which you can just see above the fire engine there, to the right of the brick building, there weren’t flames visible, but it had caught fire and causing the smoke. So we had to remove the material from the grain dryer while the fire engines doused it down. We need, obviously, 24-hour, 365-day access. On the farm is stored ammonium nitrate fertiliser. Ammonium nitrate fertilisers were banned in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, as they didn’t want it to fall into the wrong hands. On 15 June 1996, the IRA used ammonium nitrate fertiliser and Semtex to blow up the Arndale Centre in Manchester, causing £1.4 billion of damage in today’s terms. There was also a very large explosion in Beirut in August 2020, which was also caused by ammonium nitrate.
The alternative access detailed by Mr Strachan from Dobb Lane is detailed in the following photographs, so whether we could just go from one to the other quickly, please: A50(1), A50(2), A50(3), A50(4), A50(5). Thank you. As you can see from this photograph, there’s quite a steep fall, gradient, from the farmyard down to the tarmacked Dobb Lane track. As you can also see, you can’t get a tractor and trailer round; you wouldn’t be able to get a fire engine round. I’ve sought assurances of HS2 Ltd, and failed to get them, that if they wish to block the access that I’ve previously shown you, that they should widen and raise this track – this road – and grade it down past this section because it’s a road to a house behind the farm, to allow access for both farm traffic and emergency vehicles. Clearly, we can’t get a fire engine round there, so that is one of the assurances we wish to ask you for today, Committee. We would hope that you would be willing to give an assurance that these accommodation works would be done before work commenced on altering the A50 road.
Could we go to visibility, please, P257(1), please? This is the promoter’s diagram of the visibility splay that gives 160 metres in each direction, with a 2.4 metre offset from the carriageway. I’ve been told that this is 2.4 metres from the kerbside of the carriageway.
Could we have picture A50(25), please? This shows one of my tractors; it’s a John Deere tractor. On measurement from the centre of the seat to the front of the green on the left-hand side, which is the weights on the front of the tractor, the distance is 3.53 metres. In other words, this tractor would have to intrude onto the carriageway by 1.13 metres to see 160 metres in each direction. The weights on the front weigh 550 kilos; the tractor weighs 7.5 tonnes. If something was to hit that, it would be quite serious.
Picture A50(23), please. This shows the view we currently have. To the left of the electric pole that you see in the centre of the screen, you can see as far as Holly House Farm, at its junction with Bowden View Lane. The distance there is 320 metres. You can clearly see a silver car coming along the road. It passes into a blind spot. Can we have A50(24), please? You can see the cars coming past, and when you keep an eye on the road, you know it’s safe to pull out. That visibility is around 320 metres.
One of my other tractors has what we call a linkage on the front that allows you to put an implement on the front, the same as you can attach in a mounted fashion to the rear of the tractor. The front linkage, from the front of the implement to the centre of the seat, is 4.73 metres; 2.33 metres will protrude into the road to see 160 metres in each direction. To put this in some context, a Ford Focus car, according to the driver’s handbook, including the mirrors on the side of the car, is 1.91 metres wide. So over 30-odd centimetres wider than a car.
Could we have pictures A50(14) to A50(20), please? As you can see, it’s quite a dangerous road. The gradient on the farmyard leaving the road is 1:10. The design speed on the previous slide from the promoter was 85 kilometres per hour, which is 23.61 metres per second. The time travelled to travel the visibility splay is 6.78 seconds per 160 metres. A tractor fully loaded with a full load on a trailer, I’ll show you in a moment, starts off in the ninth gear of that John Deere tractor at 2.1 miles an hour, probably getting up to four miles an hour, to cross the westbound carriageway – in other words travelling east towards Knutsford.
An average speed of 3 miles an hour is 4.8 kilometres an hour at 1.33 metres per second. The westbound carriageway is six metres wide, the tractor is 4.5 metres long, the trailer is 7.5 metres long, so the total length of the tractor, the trailer and the carriageway to clear the westbound carriageway is 18 metres. That time taken is 13.53 seconds. Clearly, there is a big problem with the safety here and we don’t think that the independent review that’s been made of this has taken into account the tractors, the size of the protrusion on the front of the tractors, and the time taken to exit the farm. And we would like this to be looked at again, and the bridge to be moved further north, so that we can still see 320 metres to cross the carriageway westbound, going towards Warrington from Knutsford.
Could we have A50(12), please? I want to draw your attention to – it doesn’t show very well on this map – but there’s a 1 by the Yew Tree Farm buildings. Unfortunately, I’ve covered it over, but there’s an area of temporary land take there, adjoining the farm buildings. Could we have A50(10), please? This shows the verge from the temporary land take, and the hedge up to which this temporary land take is, or potentially over it. We haven’t had an assurance on this.
Could we have A50(6), please? This shows the rear view of the building, showing there’s no access from the rear. Can we have A50(7), please? This shows the trailer exiting the building on the inside of our property, on the hedge that you previously – A50(8), please. A50(9), please. As you can see, the turn is quite tight. We would like an assurance that this hedge is not being touched or retained so that we can get in and out of our buildings with our machinery. If we can’t be given this assurance then we would require an assurance that you would pay for a building, as we would no longer be able to use this.
Just a bit further east of this, where the grain dryer was, there is also an LPG tank. It provides the fuel to heat the grain, to dry it during harvest periods. The LPG tank is situated between the building and the edge of the roadside. It is just within the safety criteria. If the hedge was to be taken, we would not be able to meet this criterion. We estimate the cost of this building somewhere in the region of £100,000 but we would like an assurance that this hedge isn’t being touched and therefore we can then carry on our business as normal with this building. We had no assurance from HS2 on this.
Could we have P255, please? P255 is an overview of the farm buildings and, to the left of the picture, adjoining Dobb Lane, you can see the red line, which is the consolidated construction boundary, is right over the top of the hedge. This is why we’re unclear as to whether they wish to take it or not. What we’re seeking is an assurance they don’t. If you look along the top of the building, you will see a green tractor protruding from the building. That’s where the pictures were taken from before and if you look further along to the right of the picture, you will see a little round object, which is the top of a grain dryer. To the north of that, going further up the picture, across the yard, above the grain dryer, there is a little green object. That is the LPG tank. So what we’re seeking is just an assurance that this hedge won’t be taken out, and we haven’t had that.
Could we have A50(12), please? As was described before, by Mr Strachan, we have the temporary and permanent realignment of the A50. This map is the only map we had, until last Thursday, about how close this realignment was coming to our house. Could we go back to P255, please? The house is the building on the extreme right. The red line comes into the farmyard, restricts access to our garage, takes a big piece off our garden and then there’s an inward step at the end of the farmhouse, right into the garden, as you can see there, so very close to the house. We don’t even know whether we would have access round from the front of the house to the rear, through to the garden.
My wife is disabled. If there was some reason why we couldn’t exit through the front door, and had to exit through the back door, the only reasonable access to escape from the property is round the front corner of the house. If you look at the rear of the property, and look to the left, you’ll see the farm buildings. You’ll see concrete tracks. The slight grey colour to the roof there that extends from the brick buildings to the south, that is the milking parlour and it’s obviously fenced off. It’s not a good access for a disabled person. We’re seeking assurance that there is at least a two-to-three-metre, because there’s a dip round the side of the house, gap between the house and that red line.
Can we have A50(44), please? This shows how close the road currently is to our home and it also shows the yew bush further back but, in front of that, the yew tree, which is quite old and it isn’t really impeding the visibility that much. We would like to retain the yew tree and we have had that in our petition. But the big point here is that the visibility for tractors exiting the property isn’t good enough and we want this realignment moving further away from the house and the bridge over the A50 to accommodate HS2 to be moved further north. This would then alleviate a lot of these problems and give my wife a little bit more quality of life in the sense that she’s really, really upset about this. She’s been housebound for 31 years as a result of a car accident. She’s in constant pain and is on fentanyl patches, which is morphine. She’s a light sleeper and she’s very concerned about the construction activity that is going to go on for two months for the temporary and permanent realignment of the A50.
As a dairy farm, we can’t carry on as a dairy farm if I had to move away because you need to live on site for looking after calving cows and everything else that can possibly go wrong. You need to be there.
Could we go on to A50(12), please? As outlined by Mr Strachan, I highlighted the temporary land take north of the – that is to the right of the farm, marked ‘2’ on the map, the watermain diversion. This field we use for early potatoes and it is an integral part of our farming enterprise and losing this would have an effect on the business.
Could we have A50(22), please? This shows an old picture taken in 1975, I think. It shows that, actually, the property – the piece shown was a former quarry, which has been filled in. We don’t believe the material in there is suitable for a watermain diversion. We would ask for an assurance – I know they’re asking United Utilities for it – but we’re asking for an assurance that the watermain diversion will come up Wrenshot Lane.
A50(21), please. This shows the approximate position of the watermain and shows the early potatoes just emerging through. We’re seeking, on the temporary land take, a six-month notice, not the three months that have been offered by HS2. We’re seeking this because three months is no use, if this is given in the winter time, to adjust cropping plans. You need to be able to select grass for the cows or whatever by early September, because if you got notice in October they’re taking it in three months’ time, you can’t amend your cropping plans through the wintertime.
Could we have A50(12), please? I’d draw your attention to what Mr Strachan said, the pipeline, which is a 900 millimetre National Grid high-pressure gas main. We’re seeking an assurance that this disruption is kept to a minimum. When the pipeline was put in, we didn’t have as many cows but they only gave us two crossing points. And what happens if cows have to go through crossing points, you end up with pieces cut off because you can adjoin other fields without putting holes in hedges and so forth and also, it causes damage to grass and we lose production. So we’re seeking an assurance that this is kept to a minimum, preferably to below where the cow track is, which is just to the left of where it says ‘70 metres’.
Can we go to P254, please? This is the promoter’s suggestion of the length of a diversionary route if Hoo Green Lane was removed. It isn’t quite the shortest route so I’d like to bring up P248, please. If you go from Goodiers Green Farm, left on Hoo Green Lane, the promoter has turned left at that junction on to Rowley Bank Lane. But if you turn right at that junction, on to Ditchfield Lane, it takes you out on to Halliwell’s Brow, about 200 yards down from its junction with the A50. That route is 2.9 miles long. It is the most direct route from Goodiers Green Farm to go north and west, i.e. the M6 or the M56 to Chester and north Wales or the M62 to Liverpool and Leeds. The 2.9 miles is only added to journeys if you travel east or south towards the M6 southbound.
We would like to draw attention to the trackside mitigation planting on the A50. The total land take loss extending to the Hoo Green diversion, with the mitigation planting, is 2.85 hectares, to screen the views from Yew Tree Farm and Mere Court.
Can we have A50(17), please? Clearly, if this hedge was grown up and some trees planted, it would screen the railway without the need for such excessive planting.
Could we have P250, please? P250 shows how wide the planting and Hoo Green diversion are, north of the railway. To the east on the map, going down the map, there is a smaller mitigation planting, a lot more houses for the Hoo Green residents down Hoo Green Lane and for three new cottages, which are – we can hardly see them on the map but they’re between Bowden View Lane and Bucklow Hill Lane. It isn’t marked but it’s where Hulseheath Lane comes up to the A50. We would like to see this mitigation planting reduced and placed on the other side. That would increase our ring-fenced area and would help us to sustain the viability of the farm. So it’s 40 or 50 metres wide in places and we think this can be significantly reduced.
Can we go to A50(39), please? This clearly shows a depression in the field, which is to the south of the A50 and which the railway cuts through. Could we have A50(40), please? You can clearly see, from the dipping hedge, the depression. A50(41), please. The depression goes through into the other field. Can we have A50(47), please?
CHAIR: I was going to say, Mr Wright, I don’t know how much longer you have to go on your petition but we do have two other petitioners, which roughly means we have an hour for each one today, and it is now 2.45, so obviously we want HS2 to be able to respond at some point, because I will bring proceedings to a close on your petition shortly after 3.00, to allow the other petitioners. So I’m just offering you that as some guidance as to how much more of your presentation is left, just because you will want to hear back from HS2, I’m assuming.
MR WRIGHT: Yes, thank you, Chair. We’re concerned that presently, as it’s situated, there will be flooding because the Hoo Green diversion and some of the mitigation planting cuts through those depressions and I’ve marked those depressions in red on the map, to the north of the Hoo Green diversion.
CHAIR: Actually, Mr Wright, one of the petitioners has pulled out. My list still has three on, but I still encourage you to obviously be clear on the points you wish us to bring to HS2 to obviously give them time. So I don’t need to bring it to a close at 3.00, because one of the petitioners has withdrawn. So I just thought I’d correct that record there, and we will have a vote at some point, so that will take us out for a bit. So, carry on, Mr Wright.
MR WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. We’ve asked for an assurance that no construction phase drainage is placed down our field drains and we’ve not received an assurance on that. On the top field, adjacent to the A50, the main drain has 29 drains connected in it further down. So we’re seeking an assurance that, when the construction starts, they put in place the ditch alongside the proposed route, to take this water away, and we’ve received no assurance on that.
A50(29), please. This shows some of the flooding that occurs on Hoo Green Lane. A50(30), please. Please take note of the blue bits on the building. A50(31), please. Thank you. There are nine courses, the blue bits on the building. A50(28), please and A50(27), please. You can see no blue bits in the building. The road’s impassable. It’s over three feet deep in water. Can we have P256(4), please? This is a technical study over an alternative to help take your extra drainage away from that flood area. They haven’t given a categorical assurance on this and we are requesting a categoric assurance that they put this scheme in place. And, furthermore, because of the fact that extra water’s coming down there from the A50, and off Hoo Green Lane, which previously didn’t go that way, we would seek an assurance on the point 3.6 on P256(5), please.
Point number 3.6, ‘Where natural drainage plans are adversely affected by the roads, the provision or supplementary drainage or irrigation works will be considered, having regard to an assessment of compensation and a commercial justification by the petitioner’. We would be seeking that to happen as we do still feel that extra water will cause extra flooding there. We also note, on the previous page, that the ditch that you’ve proposed to go into the ditch by Goodiers Green Farm is still in place below the proposed new carrier drain across Hoo Green Lane, as is suggested on your map. We’re seeking an assurance that that proposed ditch will not extend down to the old ditch where the flooding takes place and the ditch down the side of Hoo Green Lane and the railway stops at that carrier drain.
I think they are my main points, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Wright. Mr Strachan? Well, first of all, do members have any questions at this stage? We’ll wait for Mr Strachan to respond and then, if we have any questions, we’ll jump in as Mr Strachan is progressing but, as I see it, there is the question about the necessity of the entirety of the land take, which I think Mr Wright said was 18.53% overall. There’s the issues which have been raised obviously in relation to the changes on road, particularly the access and egress issues; the access for emergency vehicles; the request with regards to the widening of the track; and the petitioner’s request for assurances in relation to how long closures will happen. There obviously have been the questions raised with regards to an assurance on hedging, on the hedges and on the necessity of the screening as proposed and whether there are alternatives with regards to hedges that could deal with that issue.
Of course, we have the request with regards to where the watermain is proposed to go in relation to the notice period, I believe, currently of three months, which I think Mr Wright has requested whether that can be six months’ notice on any works with regard to the watermain due to the issue of obviously his cropping of that field with potatoes, and then obviously the latter point there was in relation to the drainage issue and the drainage scheme.
There’s another one I’m struggling to read my own handwriting on but I will come back to that in a moment. But those are the key things, I think, as have been raised by the petitioner. So I’ll hand over to Mr Strachan.

Response by Mr Strachan

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you. What I’ll try and do is answer some of the questions, which don’t require assistance, and then insofar as you or I’m – if I need assistance, I’ll invite Mr Miller or Mr Smart to help me.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Just in relation to questions of land take, I don’t have the same figures to hand but I’ve got no reason to dispute the calculation of percentages that Mr Wright’s identified. However, if we can just go back to the plans, and in particular the construction plan, P249. It’s up on screen already. I’ve already drawn your attention to the fact that the pink line that crosses the land relates to the gas main and that is an existing buried asset. And so whilst temporary access is required in principle to that gas main because it’s being decommissioned, it’s not the intention to dig it up.
But, sir, I’m told when you have utilities of this kind, high-pressure gas mains, in order to decommission it, you have to have the ability to access it in order to depressurise or grout it if necessary. It doesn’t mean you will necessarily have to do that. It’s if it occurs. So that pink line is temporary access along the line of the gas main to enable the decommissioning of it to take place. The gas main itself is being diverted on to other land to the east of the railway. So, in effect, the gas main is going to be taken out of service but the standard practice is, you leave the pipes in place; you don’t dig them up. So, yes, some temporary land take required but not, we anticipate, intrusive in the same way that perhaps Mr Wright’s anticipating to his farming business, subject to the ability to take access in the way I’ve described.
CHAIR: So, just on that then, and obviously it’s the gas main, not the watermain – sorry, I think I said the watermain when I was trying to sum up – Mr Wright’s concern about the six-month notice, if you’re not digging it up, you still need access to it; you’re going to have to bring vehicles on to that land. So how does that leave Mr Wright in terms of if he’s got a crop in on that land?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I understood – he’ll correct me if I’m wrong – the three and six-month notice relates to the land at Legh Cottage where the watermain –
CHAIR: It is the watermain. That’s where the potato field is, is it?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Where the potato crops –
CHAIR: That’s where the potato crop is, Mr Wright, is it?
MR WRIGHT: It is, but I’m asking for six months’ notice on all the temporary land take, please.
CHAIR: Right, okay. I misunderstood that point then. Carry on Mr Strachan.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Well, I’ll see if I can find out the answer. I was going to say, it’s not a criticism, but a number of the requests that have been made today, have been made for the first time. That is one. I don’t know the answer. I’ll see if I can find out the answer but, certainly, we had understood the watermain issue was the cropped potatoes and we can look in again to extending the notice period. However, I’m rather hoping that that point will be resolved by the diversion away from the potato field altogether. I obviously can’t give that assurance at the moment but, if it does, then the question of notice on that particular land won’t arise. But I can look into whether, if that is still required, there is an ability to extend the notice. It is, of course, a utility provision and they sometimes have specific requirements as to notice but I’ll see if I can find out.
As to the permanent land take, which was the other aspect of the land take, yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the railway does take, permanently, land from Mr Wright and, of course, in that respect, whilst if he chooses to stay, that’s excellent, and continues to farm, he will receive compensation for the land that’s taken permanently, in accordance with the compensation code. We have done our best to minimise that land take and I’ll come back to the Hoo Green Lane in a moment. As I say, I haven’t got any reason to dispute his calculation of the percentage but, unfortunately, that’s a product of the railway having to pass through this area and for which he would be entitled to compensation.
By virtue of what I’ve described, and including when you think about the temporary take for the gas main, we hope that Mr Wright can, if he chooses, continue to farm in the way he has described, subject to those impacts.
The next matter I have on my list was access, and I just want to stress again, because when Mr Wright was making his request about the widening of the access track from Dobb Lane, he made it on the assumption that if HS2 wished to block access to his property, then he’s anticipating Dobb Lane needs to be improved. Of course, in the assurances we’ve provided, and what I’ve described, the anticipation is not to block access and, indeed, Mr Wright’s main access to his property from the A50. And if we go back to the – you can see it actually on this plan. Whilst we take rights over land shown in pink, which broadly speaking cover the highways and I think a small portion of the land at the top, towards Legh Cottage, that is to enable, as I’ve said, the tie-in of the temporary realignment of the A50, pending the reconstruction of the A50. And with the assurances we have provided to Mr Wright, the tie-in works – and you’ve heard about these in the past – are intended to be very short-term. So what you’re talking about is, once you’ve constructed, you just need to connect the road into place. Those typically would occur at weekends or overnight, where you literally tie-in the road into the new road you’ve built. And we’ve explained that in the assurance to Mr Wright.
So we’re hoping, of course, there isn’t any particular time he’s affected, but if he were affected, we’re talking about a matter of an overnight closure. And in those circumstances, the assurance also provides for notice to him, if it’s to occur at all, and within that the point I made about ensuring it doesn’t interfere with the collection of his milk and those intensive periods of harvest activity.
So there is no requirement for us to create a new access to Dobb Lane because we’re not taking away the access to his existing property. And indeed having looked at Dobb Lane, and you’ve had a photograph of it a moment ago, the visibility requirements of Dobb Lane are – and Mr Wright was talking about that – more challenging than his existing access. So in order to construct a different access there, we’d have rather different problems. So it’s not justified based on our analysis and would be problematic. What he did raise was an issue about visibility and you saw a number of cars that had come off the road in the vicinity of his property.
And can I just put on the picture, A50(23), which was one of the photographs he showed? You’ll recall he showed you this photograph. One of the existing problems that HS2 has identified with the existing access in its arrangements is the lack of visibility around the bend, you can see towards the right, where the vegetation is. So the obscured part of the road for stopping distances, in accordance with standards, actually arises because of existing vegetation affecting his existing access. The scheme, as part of the temporary realignment proposals and the permanent realignment proposals, takes powers over that vegetation – that part of the land – in order to create a safer visibility along the road, both for the temporary and permanent realignment.
That may have a conflicting tension with Mr Wright’s wish to keep some of those trees but we’re seeking to address a visibility issue which arises from these current arrangements. So if I go back to the slide which shows the work we’ve done on the alignments, P257(1), this is the temporary realignment of the road, and what HS2 has done has assessed the required standards for an access to a road, in terms of visibility, and the Committee may be familiar with these standards, where you look down the road from a specified point of the access and ensure you’ve got sufficient visibility. That is achieved in this location by taking existing vegetation on Mr Wright’s land and improving the situation.
What HS2 doesn’t do, of course, is necessarily improve, or address, pre-existing problems, which may exist, as Mr Wright’s suggesting occur from his existing access in its current road arrangement, but what we are proposing is actually an improved position, as a result of both the temporary realignment, and then if you look at the next one – P257(2) – the permanent realignment of the A50, which obviously goes closer to a straighter road. And, again, we’ve taken the powers over the land to ensure sufficient visibility.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: Is that the yew tree that we saw in the photo?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): It is the yew tree.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: So you’re going to cut the yew tree down.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes. And, indeed, I know that Mr Wright wanted to retain the yew tree, because he made that request, but in order to achieve visibility required for the A50 in this location, our understanding is you would need to remove that. And indeed there appears to be an existing problem that Mr Wright is identifying, he says that exists, although it’s not one that the highway authority have said exists. But I would also point out that these road realignments have to meet required safety standards for the purposes of the highway authority as well. So what we’re designing and providing is an access that should be safer for all concerned, both in the temporary and permanent situation.
CHAIR: That was going to be my question, Mr Strachan. The highways authority is Cheshire West.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think it’s Cheshire East.
CHAIR: Cheshire East. Well, the Cheshire East petition has been dealt with so there’s no outstanding issue from Cheshire East on this particular design.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Not on this alignment, no. These go through technical standard assessments, road safety audits, of course, and also will need to be approved. But these alignments we’re showing achieve a safe environment for all concerned. And, of course, I know Mr Wright has a different view about that but we are seeking to design, both for the temporary period that the road’s there, but also the permanent situation, a safe working A50. And the reason for that temporary and permanent situation is to allow traffic to continue to flow through the construction period of the A50.
It does, I accept, have an unfortunate effect for Mr Wright, in the loss of vegetation and his yew tree. Clearly, that is a consequence, but that is a result of the design requirements.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: I don’t know which slide it was – I don’t know if anyone knows – but the slide with the photograph of this, where you could see there was big tree sticking out in front of where people would be trying to look.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes, that’s, I think, A50(23). Is that the one that you had in –
MS MUMBY-CROFT: Yes, that’s the one.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): There was another –
MS MUMBY-CROFT: The tree that I can see sticking out, that’s not a yew tree, is it? It’s that large green bit at the top corner.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think there are two trees in that location. Mr Wright will no doubt know. There was another photograph, I think, which shows it, if I can find it for you.
CHAIR: There was one that showed a yew tree and the bush next to it.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think there is more than one tree, or more than one piece of vegetation. Here we go, A50(44).
MS MUMBY-CROFT: The top corner of that photo, what I can actually see is that bush which is next to the yew tree. So the first thing you can see, when you look to see what’s coming down the road, is not the yew tree; it’s the bush.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think we’re required to take both; I’m getting nods.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: Let’s just go back to the previous slide, so I can check it is the bush, not the tree, I can see.
CHAIR: You have to factor in, obviously, there’s the realignment of the road.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: I just want to make sure I know which one it is.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And I can show you an aerial view as well, once you’ve seen that. A50(23), I think it was.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: Please, thank you.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): A50(23).
CHAIR: It’s the right-hand side we’re looking at.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: Yes, above the car.
CHAIR: So you have the –
MS MUMBY-CROFT: The little bush.
CHAIR: – and then the yew tree is the other side of it, isn’t it?
MS MUMBY-CROFT: The yew tree’s the far side of that bush that’s there.
CHAIR: But we’re not looking at the angle from which a vehicle approach would be looking at; we’re looking at somebody standing several feet back.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Because that’s Mr Wright’s photograph, but the visibility splay calculations is from the access itself. If you look at P255, just to be clear how this works, you get the blind spot on the right-hand side. P255 is the plan you’ve seen. This shows what’s called the CCB – the consolidated construction boundary – which is the land we’re seeking to take. And the dog-leg reflects the land boundary but allows us to take the vegetation. So you can see, that’s the first bush that I think you’re referring to, and then the yew tree back further down. So those are the two – the yew tree’s rather bigger. And those fall within the limits of the land we’re taking, in order to provide that visibility. It’s not where we put the road itself; it’s in order to provide the necessary visibility for both the temporary alignment and the permanent one.
MS MUMBY-CROFT: And the consolidated construction boundary, from where you can take the vegetation, is basically touching the corner of Mr Wright’s house at its furthest point.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes. I’m not quite sure it touches – this is an aerial photograph – but it allows us to take the vegetation. There was an ask which was made about ensuring he could get round that. Again, that’s something we haven’t heard before, but clearly we can discuss that with Mr Wright, because it’s not the intention to inhibit people from moving round there. The intention is just to control the vegetation.
Whilst we’re on this, can I just deal with the access the other way? He was concerned about the line of hedgerow further up the road. He referred to that hedgerow there. Our land take there is coincident with the highway boundaries. We’re not seeking to take his land. And our understanding is that that hedgerow – Mr Wright can potentially confirm it – is planted on his land. So we’re not acquiring the hedgerow. We’re only acquiring rights over the highway.
In so far as the hedgerow may grow into the highway, then as ever the highway authority and we would be entitled to trim the hedgerow. But the hedgerow on his property, and affecting his barns, it’s not proposed to remove in that location, if that was his concern, which I think it is. So that red line is intended – when you look at it on the plans – to reflect the highway boundary.
I think I’ve covered the watermain diversion but we’ll obviously update the Committee on that, and indeed Mr Wright about that, as soon as we know more. And I’ll look into that notice period, if it’s necessary. And for the wider property, I’ll look into it anyway. The Hoo Green diversion, P254, and Hoo Green Lane, if you want any assistance on this from Mr Miller, don’t hesitate to ask, but what I’m going to just briefly outline here is that, if you look – I’ll deal with this diversion point first and then Hoo Green Lane – all we were showing was what we understood Mr Wright’s understanding would be of a diversionary route, if one were not to re‑provide Hoo Green Lane at all. And the diversionary route was the red line which works out at 3.2 miles in diversion. If you take off the 0.8, it’s something in the region of 2.6-mile diversion for anyone using Winterbottom Lane to get to the A50, which is a considerable diversion, where we don’t believe that that reflects the aspirations of others who use Hoo Green Lane. And, indeed, it’s a valuable access for Winterbottom Lane residents, for example, and therefore it’s important to re-provide Hoo Green Lane on its alignment.
That does have an impact on Mr Wright’s land, we accept, but the project doesn’t consider it would be reasonable to put people on, effectively, a two-mile diversion. Mr Wright pointed out, well you could go right at the corner, where we’ve done that loop round. He’s saying you could go right. You probably could; it’s not going to make a big difference in terms of the overall distance, and it’s not going to affect the fundamental principle that we’ve explained of the length of diversion people would have to go.
There is another matter. You’re going to look at Winterbottom Lane residents in a moment. That does carry HGVs already, from an existing papermill up the road. If you did have a diversion, you’re going to be sending existing traffic and HGVs up these other roads, on that long diversion, if you don’t reinstate Hoo Green Lane. So for those reasons, whilst we understand the impact on Mr Wright, we don’t think it’s proportionate not to re-provide that.
And then if one looks at the landscaping at P250, Mr Wright’s raised an issue – if you can just point out, that’s the Hoo Green Lane diversion and there are some design requirements for that. Where the Hoo Green Lane meets the A50, back down the road, you’ll see the A50 is going over the railway, and needs to achieve height over the railway. We can only tie-in the Hoo Green Lane at a certain safe distance from the railway bridge. That means, inevitably, there’s a natural starting point.
And we then do divert Hoo Green Lane back as far as we can towards the railway but there is, inevitably, some land in between the two, and that’s where landscape mitigation planting is provided. And that’s to benefit all of those in the area. Of course, it does have, again, an impact on Mr Wright’s land, but it is a balanced impact of landscape mitigation to address the presence of the road and the railway in the vicinity for those affected, whilst using the land efficiently. And it’s the tie-in to the A50 which limits where you can take a safe access.
Then drainage. Mr Wright raised issues about drainage and further drainage reassurances. Can I just go back to P256(4), and just make a couple of observations about what we have provided by way of assurance? We have already looked at a proposed alternative design in the Hoo Green Lane area. I understand Mr Wright was, broadly speaking, content with this in principle – the idea of a different drainage solution. What we’ve done is demonstrate you can achieve one. We are, however, as you’ve heard on a number of occasions, at a relatively early stage in the detailed design. So what we demonstrate is what can be done, we’ve provided an assurance that in the detailed design further work will be looked at, but it would be somewhat, we would say, premature to fix a drainage design by way of detailed assurance, before you’ve done the necessary detailed design work.
So what Mr Wright can be assured of is that we are confident and demonstrated you can achieve a drainage design. We’ve given him an assurance to involve the necessary expertise at the time but it would be wrong in principle to try and tie the hands at this stage of the actual execution of the detailed design and unnecessary to do that. And the same principle applies across drainage across his landholding. We will certainly take account of the existing drainage and seek to address it in the assurance that he showed.
I’m just checking my notes. I don’t think there was anything else, unless I’ve left anything else out from your list.
CHAIR: I suppose the emergency vehicle access issue related to how long the road would be closed for during tie-in, and Mr Wright’s contention was, of course, that there was no other suitable track or access that would be available, but I guess that’s responded to in terms of your comments about those tie-in works.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): They’re very limited, and I should say even when tie-in works are occurring, you have contractors on site. And if there were an emergency, it’s very likely they would make arrangements to let an emergency vehicle through, by removing their machinery, etc, if it were necessary. But you’re talking about a very short period of time, so we do think we’ve covered that.
There are notice periods for dates of entry onto land under the powers of the Act, which I’ve just been reminded of. Information paper C2, there are various assurances about the exercise of dates of entry onto farmers’ land – this in the rural landowners and occupiers guide – which give assurances which take account of agricultural enterprises and what’s going on on the land. I’ll check to see whether that is sufficient to address his specific point but I suspect it will be.
CHAIR: Thank you. Members, any questions? Well, can I thank Mr Wright for attending today? As a Committee, we discuss what we’ve heard later on privately, and then at various points – I should have explained this at the beginning – we will be issuing reports from the Committee, with any recommendations, suggestions or further requirements for undertakings or assurances that we feel are necessary in response to those petitions. But there won’t be an immediate response from the Committee, as I believe was outlined to you ahead of today’s proceedings.
So on that basis, Mr Wright, I’m going to bring your petition to a close so we can hear from the next petitioners. And can I thank you for attending – yes, Mr Wright.
MR WRIGHT: Can I just make one comment, please? When the barrister, Mr Strachan, said that I hadn’t brought it up in my petition, the first we knew about the land take from our garden near our house was last Thursday at 3.20. No detailed plans had been given to us before.
CHAIR: Thank you. We’ve been able to consider that issue today, so I won’t get into a debate about what was provided, when, but we have been able to cover it today, so we’ll move on from that swiftly. So thank you, Mr Wright, for attending. And we will now move on to the second petition of today, which is Winterbottom Lane Residents.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming –

Winterbottom Lane Residents

CHAIR: We’re now joined by our second petitioners of the day, Winterbottom Lane residents, who are represented by Mr Neil Stott and Mr Adrian Richards. Thank you for attending the Committee this afternoon. There will be a division around 4.00, and so we’ll have to suspend at that point. We will obviously return after the division, but if people could factor that into their timings this afternoon, because that will limit how much time is left for the Committee. Mr Strachan?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you, P276, and the Committee’s in very similar territory as the last petition; we’re just down the road. Winterbottom Lane turns into Hoo Green Lane, so it’s further south. The petition names three households, and we show those properties, but I know there are others who are associated with the residents’ association. And if we show P278, you can see we are further down Winterbottom Lane. And just so you can orientate yourself as to what’s going on here, on the left-hand side of the page is the M6, running north/south. The railway goes over the M6 on a viaduct. There then is a short area of embankment where there is a lay-down area for tracks and crossings, because this is the beginning of the Hoo Green junction. And as you can see, the two tracks are diverging into six, to allow for the NPR to head off to the west, the connection to the West Coast Main Line onto the north, and the Manchester spur that goes off towards the east. So you end up with six tracks in a cutting.
The three properties that we’ve got, in terms of the named petitions, are shown in red on Winterbottom Lane; there are others in the area as well. And if I can show you P279, which shows the railway as constructed, again, the red marks are the petitioners’ properties, or some of them. The railway has been constructed at this point. Winterbottom Lane is running – it does a sort of right angle from the top of the page – it comes past the petitioners’ properties, and then runs along towards Hoo Green Lane, and that area of land we just saw from Mr Wright, where Hoo Green Lane’s realigned, before joining the A50.
And just pointing out a few features on the map you’re going to hear about in the petition. Just if you go to the south, Bentleyhurst Lane to the east of the railway is used to provide an access to the three balancing ponds that are on the east side of the track. There is an existing bridleway which is kept along a realigned path, but it’s now made into a maintenance access track, so it’s also serviced. That passes underneath the railway, the bridleway, and joins the farm track which then joins Winterbottom Lane. And there is going to be the provision for maintenance access from Winterbottom Lane – you come back down the Winterbottom Lane track – the maintenance access is necessary to the track lay-down area. You can just see an area just off Winterbottom Lane there, shown by the cursor.
And other things you’re going to hear about shortly, if you travel up the HS2 line, off Winterbottom Lane there is a telecommunication site – you’ve heard about these before – that’s in that location. Again, access is taken off Winterbottom Lane for occasional maintenance to the telecommunication site. And if I then just show you P284(1), the petitioners’ main concern – they may have others – but the main concern is about construction traffic on Winterbottom Lane. Just so you know what’s going on in this area, we’re back to north, to the top of the page. Site 1, marked with a numeral, is up towards the A50. That’s the A50 Warrington Road main compound, which is dealing with the A50 realignment. We heard about that.
That is constructed as a main compound. In the period to set it up – there’s a four month period when it’s being set up – construction traffic needs to access it from Hoo Green Lane, but the purpose of setting that up is to create an access off the A50. And once that’s in place, no construction traffic comes off Hoo Green Lane to access that. They take their access off the A50 and we create these haul roads, which you can see shown in yellow, to access other parts of the site. Right down the bottom, 2, is the M6 viaduct north satellite compound. For these purposes, I don’t think you need to worry about that because we don’t take access off Winterbottom Lane or Hoo Green Lane for that. It comes off a haul road.
Then going back up to point 3, there is a National Grid 400 kV overhead utility works. They do require access from Hoo Green Lane; they come down from Hoo Green Lane for a period of about 18 months, but less than 20 HGVs at their peak, so relatively limited HGV traffic. And item 5 is the construction of that telecommunication site and future access, which, again, does require access from Hoo Green Lane and Winterbottom Lane, but again for a limited period – I think it’s six months – and less than 20 HGVs, again similarly.
CHAIR: Is that consecutive or concurrent?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think they’re consecutive; I’m pretty sure they’re consecutive. The only hesitation I’ve got about that is the utility works, the timing of those are not fixed in stone because they depend upon getting suitable outages to the line, and the utility company has to arrange those, particularly during the summer period for obvious reasons. So that’s not within our total gift but, on current plan, they’re intended, I think, to be consecutive. I’m getting a nod, so I’ve got that right.
And we’ll no doubt discuss in more detail shortly the detail of what’s going on in construction terms. I won’t go into that but you’ll hear more about that. By way of assurances, P281(1), we have provided an assurance to the Winterbottom Lane residents’ association about construction activity of the type I’ve just explained. And I’m just showing you the letter, 18 April. And if you go to the next page – it’s in your pack of materials – there are various definitions. But, in essence, if you get to the meat of it – sorry, it’s probably on 3 – yes, we’ve provided various assurances, broadly speaking reflecting what I’ve just said about the limits on using Winterbottom Lane for construction traffic, except for those specified works, because there was a concern by the residents that Winterbottom Lane might be used for the more general construction activity. That’s not our intention. It’s only those activities which require specific access from the lane.
And there’s a much more detailed response to a number of other issues that were raised, which don’t involve issues, necessarily in the petition. I’m not going to take you to it but it’s in your pack. HS2’s responded to a very large number of issues that were raised and, hopefully, that’s provided some comfort to the petitioners.
So that’s by way of introduction for the petitioners.
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Strachan. Petitioners, Mr Stott and Mr Richards – is it Mr Richards commencing?

Submissions by Mr Richards and Mr Stott

MR RICHARDS: I will. And the Committee will be pleased to know, it’s going to be simple and quick, and there’s one overall ask but it’s split into two sections, which will go to the end. So our presentation doesn’t focus on the views of the residents on the project as a whole; it’s just specifically about minor changes to access points to the construction site, and we believe the use of Winterbottom Lane, by doing that, can be wholly avoided.
But I want to start off with a bit of a presentation so you can visually see Winterbottom Lane and Hoo Green Lane and some of the activities on it. And the second part covers the two asks, which I mentioned at the top. And we think these two asks actually help HS2 and the residents to work together to ensure minimum disruption and risk to both groups. So, firstly, if we can get the – I think you’ve called it A48(1) – which is the whole slideshow, please. So this is the first viewing –
CHAIR: Did we bump into you when we came down on the tour?
MR RICHARDS: Yes.
CHAIR: Yes, we did, didn’t we? I thought I recognised you.
MR RICHARDS: You came down Hoo Green Lane and got out of the minibus.
CHAIR: Yes, you were walking up and down. That sounded nefarious; you were legitimately walking in the countryside.
MR RICHARDS: I was walking back to my house.
CHAIR: Which is allowed. But, yes, I thought we’d bumped into you.
MR RICHARDS: You did. Now this slide has the logo, obviously superimposed, ‘Unsuitable for large vehicles’. And I want the Committee –
CHAIR: That sign’s not actually there, I presume.
MR RICHARDS: Of course not. We want the Committee to keep that in their minds through the next sort of – there’s a video coming up, and then there’ll be 17 slides, but we’ll canter through them really quickly, just because we believe it’s unsuitable, and we believe there are alternatives. I think there’s going to be a time delay now once you go to the second slide, because this is a video. This is the view moving from the properties, going up Winterbottom Lane. We’ll also come to the intersection of Hoo Green Lane and do a right to the A50. So the right-hand side, if the camera pans slightly, is the whole of the construction site. It shows the scale. There’s the first passing point, one of only two, and you can see the condition of that passing point.
You can see the narrowness of Winterbottom Lane – there’s a second passing point – it widens as you go to Hoo Green Lane. We’ve passed the deep ditches, but we can come back to them because they’re pretty significant. You see on the right-hand side, that’s all construction site, the right-hand side. It’s about a mile from the properties to the A50 – guesstimate – I’m sure HS2 have the exact dimensions, and it’s about half a mile wide. So it’s a huge site. And this is where some traffic will come. Obviously, we have traffic down there already for two business, residents, and people who work at those businesses.
MR STOTT: That’s Goodiers Green.
MR RICHARDS: That was Goodiers Green you’ve just passed that’s been talked about already. The tracks are about at that point. That’s roughly where you stopped in the minibus. And as you come round this bend, this is where the Hoo Green Lane residents are, and you can see the vehicles outside, which can be tricky to negotiate, particularly with larger vehicles coming down in the opposite direction. And the video will turn round at the A50, which is where the construction site starts, and turn round and go back the other way. So the construction site will be, obviously, on your left-hand side. There’s a vehicle coming there; it’s just a car.
You can see the road erosion even on Hoo Green Lane; it worsens on Winterbottom Lane. You can see road erosion here, damage by the larger vehicles. That’s just getting a view of the scale and opportunity for the site haul roads and possibly any other roads, if we could avoid Winterbottom Lane. You can see the potholes here, and the damage by the large vehicles.
MR STOTT: I must point out, at this point, this is the area that Mr Wright pointed out prone to flooding.
CHAIR: Right.
MR STOTT: We’re now proceeding down Winterbottom Lane, Daisy Bank Farm on the right-hand side. And approximately near the trees that we are just passing now is your entrance to the telecommunication centre. We are now continuing down to the bottom of Winterbottom Lane, and the passing places again. What is now more noticeable distinctly is the ditches along both sides of the lane, which are fed from the watercourses on the adjoining fields, which we’ll go into later. These ditches are something like two metres deep, and at a point about now, on the right-hand side, the distance from the metal road to the start of the ditch is one metre.
We’re now approaching my house on the left-hand side, and Adrian’s opposite. We’re now turning into what is the bridleway, or what is the start of the original bridleway. On the left is Chain and Conveyor, which is a company that my wife and I own. We operate from Winterbottom House. It doesn’t seem to be shown on the previous map. However, this is a continuation of what is currently termed the bridleway, through the farmyard of Mr and Mrs Norcott, and there we’ve terminated it.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you.
MR RICHARDS: Next slide.
MR STOTT: So the key points on that speeded-up video are, obviously, the narrowness of the lane. It is a single-track lane with no official passing places. The passing places you’ve seen have been used and maintained by us and the local farmer. They are nowhere near the recommended recommendations for official passing places. The referral to deep ditches and, as you saw when we turned past my house into the bridleway, there is a narrowness where the width of the carriageway is 2.8 metres. The width of a normal HGV is 2.6 metres, so obviously any deviation from a vehicle being able to stay on the metal road, and getting into the grass verge, ends up with the verges, which we’ll see in the slides which are to follow.
MR RICHARDS: We’ll do these slides really quickly. So this slide is a view of the construction site from the A50. And just to show you the scale, really, we’ve got this circular half a mile wide by a mile long, and we’re making a big deal out of Winterbottom Lane, because that’s to the extreme right as you look, and we think unsuitable, as demonstrated by the following.
Slide. This shows you those ditches at close quarters which would make it difficult to widen the lane, but, as important, it makes it a bit dangerous and treacherous, particularly in the bad weather when there’s plenty of mud, or snow, or ice around.
Slide. This on the right-hand side shows you more road erosion and a picture of the construction site through the fence, or through the gate, in the adjoining field, which we believe that ought – well it can accommodation HS2 vehicles by avoiding this lane, if we wish.
Slide. Now this is a view of Winterbottom Lane and some of its problems. The left-hand one shows the flooding that’s caused. I think the previous petitioner referenced a bit of flooding but we’ll talk about that a little bit later. The middle one is a pothole. At the moment, it’s probably filled, but it’s filled and then it’s there. I’ve had two new wheels on my car as a consequence of that particular pothole. And the right-hand side is easily fixable. It’s just obviously a heavy wagon going over grass. But the problem is, until it’s fixed, that mud ends up all over the lane, and the cars are sliding. Of course, in this area there are a lot of walkers, cyclists, you know, people walking their dogs, etc. You get quite a lot of pedestrian traffic as well as vehicle traffic.
Slide. There’s more evidence of damage caused by heavy vehicles.
MR STOTT: A48-(8) shows a typical – well, not typical – but not an untypical situation, whereby this vehicle, attempting to take the 90-degree bend to the right of Winterbottom Lane, failed and completely demolished our wall. You can see, from the left-hand side, the close proximity of our gable end to the road. The example on the left-hand side is a completely separate incident to the one on the right-hand side above, which was another 40 foot long, 40 tonne maximum weight, articulated vehicle, that reversed into an ornamental Cheshire wall. And, initially, the driver was completely unaware, he’d actually demolished the wall. It was later, by contacting Dry Matter, which is where these vehicles go to, that he had admitted that he had no indication at all that he’d committed this damage.
Next slide. This is taken from just the inside of our gate. It clearly shows the proximity, which is measurable, no more than one metre away from the entrance to where we live in Winterbottom House. And as you can well imagine, trying to exit our property, to say it’s hazardous is an understatement.
MR RICHARDS: So we now just have, in the next slide – we’ll skip through them quickly – further demonstration of the unsuitability when there are alternatives. So if you could do the next slide. One just picks up the fact that this wagon is about the width of Winterbottom Lane at this point, and you can see its rear wheel stuck on the grass verge, and there’s actually one behind it.
Slide. This is one slipping off the lane due to the erosion of the lane. It’s actually on the right-hand turn of Winterbottom Lane, not intended to be used at all by HS2, but it’s just indicative of the type of problem we have throughout the whole of Winterbottom Lane.
Slide. Groundhog Day, same location, different vehicle. Slide. A different view of the same incident, where they’ve got the recovery truck to come out. Slide.
MR STOTT: Now obviously the subject of flooding was brought up by John Wright. This is not untypical of what happens when we get extensive rain in Winterbottom. The fact of the matter is that the bottom of Winterbottom Lane – sorry for repeating that statement – is 50 feet lower than the level of the A50, at the top of Hoo Green Lane. Therefore, we are extremely prone to flooding, particularly to the south side of the telecommunications site which HS2 want to use.
Prior to that, there is less chance of ditches and flooding. But the further you get down Winterbottom Lane, towards the bridleway, the worse the situation. We’ll show you that more closely on another map. Next slide.
MR RICHARDS: So this is not an uncommon occurrence and it serves two purposes, really. One, to tell you the road is not wide, as you’ve seen from the video, but also because there’s only one way in and one way out – there’s one going down the lane and one coming back up the lane – these are artics. So to manoeuvre them into the two very poor passing points – and this could happen at any point of the one-mile track, so they could be a long way from a passing point – is problematic. And, of course, if there are other issues – emergency services were referenced earlier – this could be a real problem. Slide.
CHAIR: I think we get the point about the narrowness of the lane and how that can provide difficulties for HGVs; I think that point is well made. I’m just conscious we will have a vote in 10 minutes, so it would be preferable if you –
MR RICHARDS: Could be quick.
CHAIR: I’m just thinking, what we require to know, as the Committee, is what it is you want done about it, and what your alternative – so what it is you’re asking of us.
MR RICHARDS: Okay, that’s just a gridlock, so you can do the next slide, and then that’s it.
MR STOTT: This is just a general view of the surrounding area around Winterbottom Lane. Next slide.
MR RICHARDS: That’s the end of the slides.
CHAIR: Some very lovely pictures, by the way. I think we’re very keen, because you said you believe there are alternative spurs.
MR RICHARDS: Here’s the map that HS2 put up just now, just before we spoke. I think Neil’s going to talk largely through them, but I’ll do the intro, while Neil’s just getting his notes. Can you see, at the top, the green dotted lines says, ‘Hoo Green Lane realignment’?
CHAIR: Yes.
MR RICHARDS: That’s where the road is going to be built to the A50, because obviously the old Hoo Green Lane is going to be cut off. And then it extends to points 5, which is the telecommunications, and 3, which is the utilities. So, Neil, you can talk things through.
CHAIR: I’ve lost the A50; where’s the A50?
MR RICHARDS: It will be at the top of your computer; it’s not on the picture.
CHAIR: Right, okay, right.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): It is on the picture. If you look at number 1, it’s the green dotted line, showing construction traffic. It’s running across.
CHAIR: So that’s the A50 – that’s the realignment, of course.
MR RICHARDS: No, no, the realignment is coming down –
CHAIR: That’s the site access to A50 Warrington Road… So this is the – yes, okay, I see that, right.
MR RICHARDS: You were right, but the realignment is there from the A50.
MR STOTT: Just below there is Goodiers Green Farm and the commencement of Winterbottom Lane. It clearly shows that the site haul track, which you propose – one on each side of the track itself – your site haul road runs very near to Winterbottom Farm, to point 5, which is the location of your telecommunication centre. And the site haul track continues down on the left-hand side, next to point 4, which is the start of the bridleway, which we’ve clearly shown going into the farmyard on earlier videos, and continues down to the compound for –
MR RICHARDS: The M6 compound.
MR STOTT: M6 compound. And the construction of the viaduct over the M6. On the right-hand side, near point 1, is the start of a track which will feed the issue of number 1, and continues parallel to the track. That was site access to the Warrington Road main compound. The two site tracks on each side start at the A50 and terminate at the viaduct north satellite compound, item 2.
MR RICHARDS: So the ask is that, where you go down the Hoo Green realignment road, which is a new road, which presumably will be constructed and appropriate for all sorts of vehicles, where that joins Winterbottom Lane, there’s the site haul road on the other side. You can see them next to each other, the green line dotted and the green. What we’re suggesting is that, for the hundreds of yards that it is – and it’s not very long – that that site haul road, or its equivalent, is used as a permanent road by HS2, so they can access point 5, which is the communication.
CHAIR: To get into 5 and to 3, or just 5?
MR RICHARDS: No, and also to go to 3, even though their access requirements of 3 might be temporary. The distance between 5 and 3 is not particularly –
CHAIR: What are we talking?
MR RICHARDS: Well from the houses at the bottom, to the top, is about a mile. It’s small in the scheme of things. So if they were to do that, now bearing in mind what you’ve just seen in the video of the Mexican standoff, the gridlock, etc, HS2 would have exclusive access, because it would be their road – that site haul road to join points 5 and 3 – no other vehicles on it, no pedestrians, no cyclists, etc. And they would not, therefore, need to come down Winterbottom Lane from that route. So that’s half of the ask.
The other half of the ask, which makes up the full ask of Winterbottom Lane, is there’s no real requirement in our view for the black dotted line, which is the bridleway – well it’s a series of fields at the moment but will be made into a proper road – the access to that from the – well, it looks like the east on this map – to point 4 joins the site, and therefore HS2, obviously because it goes in a culvert, can access both site haul roads. We don’t see the need for them to access or use Winterbottom Lane.
Now I know HS2 have said that it would be for routine maintenance, etc. Our ask is that Winterbottom Lane, from the Goodiers Green Farm to our residences, is not used, and alternatives are found. And we think these alternatives exist, including additional traffic during the construction, because at the moment there is a right of way for the utilities to be maintained, but that happens really infrequently. So what we’re saying, we wouldn’t want them to agree, but then actually the volume of traffic increases because there’s works associated, or remedial works associated, with the construction.
And that would be really helpful for us and HS2 working together because they wouldn’t increase the volume of traffic of the 20 movements a day, they wouldn’t face the issues of the lane falling to pieces or being dangerous at times, etc. We wouldn’t have the volume of traffic to contend with. They would have exclusive use of their own road. We think it’s a really simple fix, and it’s one ask; it’s one ask from the residents.
CHAIR: Can I just ask Mr Strachan, what’s going on at number 4 again, Mr Strachan? I know 3 and 5 are the communications thing and the electrical substation, whatever its fancier name is. What’s 4 again?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Number 4 is just to improve the bridleway, to become a maintenance access track to the track and crossings lay-down area.
CHAIR: Right.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So do you recall, I showed you on one of the slides, there’s a need to get to that track lay-down area? It’s shown on P279. I’ll just show it. If you just zoom in, near where it says, ‘Bridleway Mere – 1 realignment’. And 4 is just to do that work, and that allows one to access, if you come down it and turn right into the T turning head, that’s an important access to get to the track lay-down area, which you see is constructed. And you need a track and crossings lay-down area because you keep on site, for the junction arrangement, pieces of rail which may need to be put in place for the crossings that occur for six railways, so if they need urgent repair. The rails themselves are brought in by rail, by trains, but you need the access by a vehicle and that’s what 4 is. The frequency of going there, I think, is once every three months via, effectively, a van.
MR RICHARDS: Thanks for that. If you could just up the previous map up, A49(1) and this is really fast, just to finish that off, I’m grateful for that. So that dotted black line is the enhanced bridleway; 4 is the culvert. So if that’s the case, if you wanted to service the track somewhere between 3 and 4, you wouldn’t be able to do that without using the site haul roads, which is fine. We don’t see the merits of using to the left-hand of point 4, going towards where the properties are and then up Winterbottom Lane. There is no requirement because there’s unrestricted access down the bridleway up to point 4 and slightly beyond. So there is a mechanism here which HS2 could work with the residents and say, ‘Do you know what? We could use a site haul road or something similar to go to point 5 and point 3. We could use point 4, which has not been used very often, we acknowledge, and no traffic associated with the construction of HS2 need go down Winterbottom Lane’.
CHAIR: Right.
MR RICHARDS: Thanks.
CHAIR: Yes, thank you. The Minister is on their feet so we will have a division in a couple of minutes, probably five minutes or so. Does that conclude your presentations?
MR RICHARDS: Yes.
CHAIR: Good. The other thing I did notice in your petition, of course, you had the issue about structural surveys, because there were those concerns.
MR RICHARDS: Well, I was conscious of the time.
CHAIR: No, no.
MR RICHARDS: I was conscious of other things but they all –
CHAIR: Well, that’s an easy and simple ask.
MR RICHARDS: It is, and the reason –
CHAIR: So, we’ll ask HS2 to respond to that. I get the reasons for –
MR RICHARDS: They have responded but, as I said, it’s unsubstantiated. But, of course, it’s unsubstantiated; they haven’t started building the thing yet.
CHAIR: Yes, I mean –
MR RICHARDS: And those properties were not built as domestic residences or many of them weren’t.
CHAIR: No, sure, okay. That’s fine, but maybe if HS2 can respond to this request for monitoring of any change to the properties as a result of increased construction traffic as well. Given it’s in your petition, I think it’s important that we have it responded to as well.
MR RICHARDS: Ironically, it would be less of an issue if they followed the recommendation not to use Winterbottom Lane, because the traffic wouldn’t be coming down.
CHAIR: Indeed, I get that point but they will respond on that.
MR RICHARDS: Sure, thanks. Thanks very much.
CHAIR: Do members have any questions at this stage? Okay, Mr Strachan?

Response by Mr Strachan

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to ask Mr Smart just to explain what’s going on by way of construction, in particular the use of the haul roads. So if I just ask him to take his seat. Can I just, whilst he’s doing that, just put back up on screen, or give you a traffic map, P8(25)? I think it’s very important to understand from the outset that HS2 in this area has minimised the use of Winterbottom Lane for any construction activity and we’ll explain how that’s occurred but you can see this from the traffic exhibits. This is in the standard form. You can see, on the left-hand side of the page, Winterbottom Lane is marked and the green hatched lines marked, ‘construction traffic routes’, i.e. those where there’s 20 or more HGVs potentially using or accessing roads, and the green hatched line stops halfway down Winterbottom Lane because on this map, the construction traffic is only accessing, for any significant amount of time in terms of numbers of vehicles of more than 20, the sites that are higher up Winterbottom Lane. It’s not going into the Winterbottom Lane residents’ area, including past their houses.
And if one looks at (f), of the usage of Winterbottom Lane – I’ll just tap into (f) – you can see that the number of vehicles going down Hoo Green Lane to access those sites is in the order of 10 each way in terms of peak activity, and that is consistent with what I explained about the very limited use of access to these construction sites along the lane.
And before Mr Smart helps you with how that operates, if you just look at P279, and this I hope helps you with the question you just asked about surveys as well – just remembering where we are, Winterbottom Lane and the residents’ houses that we were talking about are in the red area and the Winterbottom Lane with the right-hand bend – and you heard stories about the HGVs that were failing to pass there. That is not an area proposed to be used by HS2 construction traffic.
MR RICHARDS: We acknowledged that, though.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Well, that’s helpful. The reason I say that is because requests to survey the condition of the properties at Winterbottom Lane, in terms of their current structural integrity, are not, we would say, proportionate. We’re not putting construction vehicles past those properties to have such an impact that would require surveys to be undertaken. The very limited construction activity that does take place past the residence is to simply the bridleway surfacing works, and they’re small construction vehicles, and that’s simply to allow that van to get down to the track lay-down area, once every three months.
So that just puts it in context. Now I’m going to ask Mr Smart. I don’t know if you want to stop now.
MR VICKERS: Can I just ask one point?
CHAIR: The division is imminent.
MR VICKERS: Yes. The part of Winterbottom Lane that is in the green hatched area, that is still only the same width of carriageway I presume, 2.8 metres.
MR STOTT: Absolutely, yes, yes. Do you mind if I just point out, sir, an anomaly on the map that we’re showing at the moment?
CHAIR: Well, Mr Stott, it’s not a free-for-all back and forward.
MR STOTT: Okay.
CHAIR: It is Mr Strachan’s go but if we have time at the moment, we will let you respond. But Mr Strachan has the floor at the moment so it’s up to Mr Strachan.
MR STOTT: Alright.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming –

CHAIR: We’ll restart the Committee. I think we were on Mr Strachan. The Committee will end at 5.00 today. Obviously, that’s our scheduled end time but also we have other commitments. So, Mr Strachan?

Evidence of Mr Smart

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to ask Mr Smart to help you and Mr Vickers asked a question about passing bays.
CHAIR: Yes.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And Mr Smart’s going to help you with that. We’ve got a plan up, which was the construction plan on the screen, with a bit more detail. Mr Smart?
MR SMART: Yes, sir. I’m conscious of the time so this is going to be high-speed evidence. And you can see on the construction plan there that there’s two areas of where we are putting in passing bays. These would be permanent. I’m showing you them on the construction drawing, purely because it’s easier to see on here, but they will be permanent. We believe that is sufficient to deal with the level of construction traffic, which we’re putting down here, which is pretty minimal. But if we take powers, if more was required, we could look at that.
The other thing I will point out while I’m on this slide is that you can see the green line ends just after what is the entrance into the telecommunications area, and therefore I think we can look at not using beyond that for construction traffic. We would need it for the 400 kV diversion. So that’s why we have to have that but we can, I think, look at stopping at that point for construction traffic, for how we do the –
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): When you say construction traffic, do you mean HGVs or –
MR SMART: HGVs. HGVs, yes, because we can come in that way to get into the telecoms compound. Now, if I just move on then to the request from the petitioners that Mr Richards was talking about, it is the yellow that you can see, which is our haul road, would have to be turned into a permanent road for maintenance. And if I go to exhibit 281(6), so we would have to make permanent the length and tie in somewhere, but you can see where it says, ‘Point A junction of Hoo Green with Winterbottom Lane’. We have to turn this into a permanent road and tie in there, somewhere – we’d have to look at levels, even if it could be done. And that would be – that’s probably around about getting on for a mile, I would guess, and that would be an increased cost of £200,000 in the order of. That’s just a rough estimate of cost to turn something into a road that’s usable.
And if I can then explain what happens when we use the maintenance operations. So if we then go to P279. The bridge that you can see there, the bridleway on Mere 1/1 accommodation bridge, that is a low bridge anyway. So it’s 4.2 metres. So that’s actually substandard clearance for us for maintenance but we, I think, can live with that as a derogation because what we need to do here is maintenance. So what we’d be doing is – Mr Strachan’s explained that there’s a track lay-down area there so, in other words, points or switches and crossings where you can divert the trains need to be replaced, because they wear, and we would lay track components there. That’s all done from the trace and, again, put in from the trace. But we do have to inspect the track and so we would potentially come in and then access the track from Winterbottom – the lane and that is a long-wheelbase van. It’s not an HGV. That is a long-wheelbase van. These are track inspectors. So they’re not doing heavy maintenance. They’re looking when we need to do it, planning for it, but it’s done from the track.
And so Mr Strachan referred to that. That’s every three months or something like that we would come down. We would also need to access the telecoms site. Again, that is routine maintenance. That’s an inspection of that sort of order, once every three months. And we would also need to inspect the bridge, which is the low bridge I talked about, and that’s a yearly inspection and that might need a mobile elevated platform.
CHAIR: But those are tiny numbers of vehicles.
MR SMART: These are tiny numbers of vehicles.
CHAIR: The issue is the construction period, isn’t it?
MR SMART: Well, the construction period for this is actually resurfacing and maybe putting in some paving for when we use it for maintenance. We’ve also got the –
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think, though, you may be at cross-purposes. Well, I don’t know, but there’s the construction of the surface for the bridleway, which is then to take that very limited number of vehicles.
MR SMART: Yes.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And for those purposes, as I understand it, Mr Smart, we don’t require HGVs for that construction.
MR SMART: No. No, we don’t.
CHAIR: Right.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So, that was why, I think, you were identifying, Mr Smart, that, from the point where we take utilities access on Winterbottom Lane further south towards the residents’ properties, you were suggesting it may be possible to say no HGVs passing down that. From the point further north, we do require some HGVs to come to get to the utilities and the telecommunication masts but we’re putting in passing bays, as you’ve identified. We can look at the condition of those.
And then I think, in answer to your question, Chair, the petitioners were asking that the haul road become the permanent site access to those two locations and that’s where you were saying, Mr Smart, that would cost £200,000.
MR SMART: That’s right.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): But in order to take the number of vehicles we’re talking about – which is one van every three months for the lay-down area; one, I think, every six months for the telecommunications mast; and one inspection per year. And that’s why to do that is disproportionate as a cost, as well as needing to have to tie into the road. You can see on the plan, we’d also have to pass through quite a few mitigation areas if we’re going to keep the track. It’s going to have to go around the telecommunications masts and then, presumably, take a line down.
So I think, Mr Smart, can you just explain, is it possibly simply to retain a haul road as a site access?
MR SMART: No.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Can you just explain what the difference is?
MR SMART: Because a site haul road is not what is called metalled, which is surfaced in a way that you can put vans and things down. So we’d have to upgrade it considerably to what we would use a site haul road for. Because site haul roads are normally used for either track vehicles or what are known as articulated dump trucks with big rubber tyres. You can sometimes put limited amounts of – even what we would call spoil wagons that you see would sometimes struggle on the haul road. So they’d have to be upgraded quite significantly. As Mr Strachan said, we’d go through the mitigation and there’s problems with levelling, so that would all have to be sorted out as well, for the level of access that we need in the permanent operational case, which is very, very low.
In addition to those routine maintenance, there is trackside installations, which can fail, so we have what we call fault gangs. If there’s some of the equipment along the lineside that’s connected with signalling and that fails, we would need to get on to the track as quickly as possible, because we’ve got to fix it, and that is the only other access point that we would want to use that for. And, I mean, the railway’s designed not to have faults but you do have faults on the railways because components do fail in electronic equipment. So the level of usage in the permanent case is really very low.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Okay, and I think Mr Smart, what you were offering, in response to the Committee’s questions about this, it doesn’t go as far as the request from the petitioner but you were at least offering the potential for –
MR SMART: No HGVs.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): – a further restriction, assurance restriction of HGV –
CHAIR: So, you would offer that up as an assurance, potentially.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes, indeed.
MR SMART: Yes.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And that would be from the point of the access to utilities, which is a bit further south than the telecommunications but not much. Sorry, Mr Smart.
MR SMART: So it does mean that, of course, HGVs wouldn’t then need to go through where the petitioners’ properties are. I mean, it’s not ideal, we’d like more flexibility but I think we can live with that.
CHAIR: Okay.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And, if that’s of interest, we can formalise that as an assurance. We’d write to the petitioners to reflect that. Can I just mention one other thing, perhaps you can assist with? There was talk about using access from Bentleyhurst Lane to get underneath the railway.
MR SMART: Yes.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And can you just explain why that’s not currently within the standards and also whether that would run up against other petitioners who are objecting to the use of Bentleyhurst?
MR SMART: Yes, I think Mere Estate and potentially Hartley have some issues with using that as well. So you might hear that said from another petition. But the other thing is that we have the balancing ponds there, which at times need to have gully emptiers to go in, just to clear them, to make sure that they are free-flowing for drainage so we don’t cause any problems, but we would use the Bentleyhurst Lane access for that. So that’s something we can do.
CHAIR: Okay.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Was there anything else you wanted to add, Mr Smart, about –
CHAIR: Any questions? No. Thank you. Mr Richards?
MR RICHARDS: Can I just ask a question?
CHAIR: Yes.
MR RICHARDS: Just to help make sure I understand and we’re both on the same page. Using the site haul road as a permanent road, okay, from where the realigned Hoo Green Lane is and beyond the telecommunications line, that’s not a mile long. I think you said it was a mile. Just to make sure I understand it properly.
MR SMART: Well, if we’re going to have it to tie in to down where the balancing ponds are, that’s a mile.
MR RICHARDS: No, that’s – no, no, no –
MR SMART: You’re talking about just coming through –
MR RICHARDS: Just coming to where the other map is, point 3.
MR SMART: That’s what we’ve looked at. It’s about £200,000, yes.
MR RICHARDS: It’s not a mile. It’s hundreds of yards.
MR SMART: Okay. I would have thought it was probably –
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): We measured it as just under a mile.
MR RICHARDS: It’s only a mile from one end to the A50. The point was, it’s not – it wasn’t a significant ask but we kind of understand what you’re saying now and if we get some assurance that beyond – ideally it would be point 5 but it’ll end up being point 3. It’s something that we didn’t have yesterday but we’d want no traffic going down Winterbottom Lane from the point of 3, of any particular size, because there’s no requirement to, bearing in mind what we said about the ditches on the side of the bottom half of Winterbottom.
CHAIR: Mr Strachan?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Just to be clear, we can’t offer no traffic because there is the need to get to – for the reasons we’ve explained. But what we’re saying is no HGV construction traffic past your properties, which I think would be the – well, I won’t put words in your mouth but I think would at least be of some welcome from –
MR RICHARDS: It’s some movement but I think we’d like to think about the point from the realigned Hoo Green Lane down to point 3, the utilities.
CHAIR: I mean, in terms of the vehicles, once construction is done, these are very, very small numbers of vehicles, every few months, in some cases every few weeks. I mean, okay. Mr Strachan, carry on.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think that is probably, unless we’ve got anything further –
MR SMART: No.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): That’s all I wanted to say by way of response.
CHAIR: Okay, right, thank you. Members, any questions? No, okay. Right, well, I’ll thank all the parties for attending this afternoon. Presumably, if there are further discussions between the promoter and the petitioners with regard to that added assurance, we’ll be updated on that and give the petitioners time to consider that. So, on that basis, I’ll close the formal proceedings today and then the Committee will stay behind for deliberations if that’s okay with everyone. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for attending.