INDEX

Subject Page

Submissions by Cllr Hennerley and Cllr Cooper

Response by Mr Mould

Mere Parish Council

Submissions by Cllr Hennerley

Response by Mr Strachan

Evidence of Mr Smart

(At 2.15 p.m.)

THE CHAIR: Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon’s meeting of the High Speed Rail Hybrid Bill Select Committee. We’ve got two petitioners today. I know we’ve seen Cllr Hennerley before, so you know the proceedings. Mr Mould will open up, just to set the context of the petition issues and where the petition relates to along the route, and then I’ll hand over to the petitioners and obviously HS2 will respond appropriately. As I think we’ve said in the guidance we put out, we don’t need to hear things we’ve already heard before. So we’re very keen that the petitioners get to the point of what it is they’re asking specifically from the Committee, so that we can really drill down to the issues and the asks. So, on that basis, I’ll hand over to Mr Mould.

High Legh Parish Council

MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you very much indeed. We’ll put up P287. This is the petition, as you know, of High Legh Parish Council. The area of High Legh is shown outlined in red in this plan that’s on the screen. You can see that the parish largely lies to the west of the railway line, which is running initially south to north and then, as you know, it bears off in an easterly direction as it turns towards Manchester, firstly the airport and then Manchester via the tunnel.
It’s worth just noting the primary road network here, just in case we need to deal with any issues about traffic. The M6 is running skirting the south-western boundary of the parish of High Legh. You can see that, and then you can see, just at the western end of the parish, the M6 interchange with the M56 motorway, which runs along the northern fringes of the parish. And then the triangle, if you like, is completed by the A556, which runs from junction 19, I think it is, on the M6, just at Over Tabley in the middle of the page. You’ve got that just to the east of the railway line. There we have it, the A556. And as it runs north of the M6 junction, it’s a dual carriageway road and, as I think you may have been told at an earlier hearing, it has in recent years been the subject of a road improvement scheme. So that’s the triangle of major roads and, as you know from previous petitions, the A556 is an important arterial route, not only for traffic generally but also for HS2, and that holds true as much here as it does elsewhere on the route.
Now if we turn then on, please, to P290, I’ll give you a slightly more detailed introduction to the works. It shouldn’t take very long. We’re here, obviously, on the operational stage. So the works have been completed and, as you can see, at the point at which the railway does pass through the area of High Legh, we are just at the point of the Hoo Green junction, which I think you’re familiar with. But as you can see, if we move from east to west, so if the cursor could just go down first of all to the HS2 route, Manchester route, you can see there’s a box, ‘HS2 Route’, just below the cursor there. If we follow the arrow, that points to the HS2 main line running in a north-easterly direction towards Manchester. So that’s the first railway line that is accommodated by the Hoo Green junction.
Then if we move back up, the cursor goes due north, to the right, we have the West Coast Main Line connection spur. That is what remains following the decision last June to remove the Golborne link from this Bill. And then if we just go along the other arm of that junction, we have the London to Liverpool junction. That’s the spur that’s been included within the Bill, in order to enable a future Northern Powerhouse Rail link serving London, Warrington and Liverpool. So those are the three components of the Hoo Green junction.
If we go back to P289, this is a fairly significant piece of civil engineering and, as you can see, there is a good deal of construction work provided for under the powers of the Bill, not only the civil engineering works to form that junction but also a good deal of utility diversion, which is represented by the pink linear notation, both to the west and to the east of the junction works themselves. So that is the construction phase, the picture on plan, in this western end of High Legh parish.
By way of concluding opening remarks, I thought it might be helpful to set the scene just to remind you, and others, of the rationale for including those spurs. I’ve taken this from volume 1 of the environmental statement in support of the Bill, page 42, paragraph 2.3.39 is the reference. You can see at 2.3.39, reference is made to Transport for the North, HS2 Ltd, Network Rail and the Department for Transport having worked together to identify what are known as touchpoints where the HS2 railway scheme and Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals directly intersect, and the London to Liverpool spur that I showed you a minute ago is one of those touchpoints. So it’s been included to accommodate future NPR railway services between London, Warrington and Liverpool, as I’ve said.
If we turn to the other point of reference, this is in the additional provision environmental statement volume 1, page 16. This is following the Secretary of State’s decision to remove the Golborne link from this Bill and at page 16, paragraph 264-265, we see, firstly, reference to what you’ve been told already, that active consideration is being given to options for a future connection to the West Coast Main Line north of Crewe. That will be promoted through a separate consenting process as required. And then 265, you can see that, in the meantime, reference is made to the Secretary of State’s decision to retain, within this Bill, bullet 1, a new short stub to provide for a future connection at Hoo Green to enable any future connection to the West Coast Main Line north of Crewe in this location to be built with minimal disruption to the operation of HS2.
So that’s the brief rationale for the presence of those two spurs, in addition to the main line railway running between Crewe and Manchester, passing through the Hoo Green junction arrangement. That’s all I propose to say by way of introduction. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Mould. We’ll move on to the petitioners from High Legh Parish Council. We’ve got Cllr Nigel Hennerley and Cllr Matthew Cooper. So, Cllr Hennerley, I think you’re kicking us off, are you?

Submissions by Cllr Hennerley and Cllr Cooper

MR HENNERLEY: Yes, I am. Thank you and it’s good to be back at the Committee. Our petition for High Legh is going to centre on the High Legh junction, which we’ve just heard a little bit about. The High Legh junction comprises the coming together of the Crewe to Manchester line, the Golborne spur and the provision of NPR London to Warrington, all in both directions, as we’ve just heard. In addition to the High Legh junction, this also incorporates a spur passive junction at Rostherne Mere, which will also impact the High Legh parish on the Warrington to Manchester line.
And I think the best way to illustrate this is if we can have map 51. I’m going to ask Matt to do the driving and if you can put the cursor on where it says, ‘Hoo Green’, that’s the location of the High Legh junction and the High Legh junction, as we’ve just heard, is six lanes wide; it’s three tiers tall; and the main HS2 line goes towards Manchester. So if you go north, please, Matt, and turn in right, just about the Rostherne Mere, that’s it there, and that goes off in the Manchester direction. And just at that point, just above the mere there, more or less where the cursor is, is the passive provision for the Manchester to Warrington line, and I’ll just ask Matt to go in a westerly direction now, following the route of the M56, and slightly coming down, and you can stop there. That’s roughly the route, because we know that because there was an overbridge marked the Golborne link, so we know the location of that Manchester to Warrington line. And then if you can make an archway back to the starting position at Hoo Green, that will give you an indication as to what the London to Liverpool line trajectory would be.
And this is all predetermined by the inclusion of these passive junctions within this design. They’re not going to go anywhere else. This will be the impacted area and, as you can see, if you look at this map, it’s full of fields, full of agricultural land, food production, local economy, nature corridors, and you can’t underestimate the effect of having this infrastructure across this land. It’s going to be very consequential indeed.
The HS2 consultation engagement on route design, consultees were invited to comment on these proposals for these touchpoints as part of a design refinement consultation with consultees suggesting alternative locations for these touchpoints through responses. The consultation engagement has not been carried out in compliance with relevant guidance and legislation, including the second provision of the Aarhus convention 1998, Cabinet Office guidance on consultation 2012, the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation 2008, and the Gunning principles, which are a set of criteria for assessing the fairness of a public consultation. So what we feel is that the inclusion of these passive junctions has predetermined this infrastructure in this location, without any of that due process taking place.
And I’d like to just bring the Committee’s attention to what that legislation looks like. The Aarhus convention, June 1998, ‘Recognising also that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and wellbeing and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Considering that, to be able to assert this right and observe this duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights’. We feel that that hasn’t happened.
Moving on to the Gunning principles, the Gunning principles were coined by QC Stephen Sedley. Sedley defined that a consultation is only legitimate when these four principles are met: ‘Proposals are still at a formative stage: a final decision has not yet been made or predetermined by the decision makers. There is sufficient information to give intelligent consideration: the information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible and easily interpretable for consultees to provide informed response. There is adequate time for consideration and response: there must be sufficient opportunity for the consultees to participate in the consultation. There is no set timeframe for consultation, despite the widely accepted 12-week consultation period, as the length of time given for consultees to respond can vary, depending on the subject and extent of impact of the consultation.’
This was first introduced into the scheme – I’ve been involved in HS2 Implementation Advisory Group for the north since 2015. I’ve seen HS2 staff come and go and sometimes come back again in that time as their careers develop. In 2019, just before Covid, it was first introduced, the idea of these NPR spurs, into the design, and there was a consultation and the consultation was, ‘If these consultations were proposed, how would those affect you?’, not whether they should or shouldn’t exist. And then we had Covid, pretty much locked down for a while, and in 2020 I was convinced that parishioners had no idea of what was coming and what was being proposed by these passive junctions being included in the design, and I thought I’d give a guided walk for parishioners in that locality, so I could show them exactly what was going across the fields.
I expected about 20 or 30 people would be interested in coming on the walks. As it turned out, I had over 100 people, and it was so close after Covid lockdown that I actually split it up and had it on two different days, on two different occasions, so I didn’t have too many people gathered in one place. And I took about 50 people on each occasion around this locality and explained what was being proposed and how it would impact this land and, to a man, they were all flabbergasted and they had no idea, which means that it adds to the weight that there was no consultation.
These people had not been informed or had the opportunity to respond to what was being proposed, and what is being proposed is of massive consequence and it predetermines the location of Northern Powerhouse Rail in this locality, having those junctions within the design. They will be built and, once they are built, then NPR isn’t going to go anywhere else. And so it has predetermined the location of NPR without any consultation.
So what is our ask? We want a full environmental impact assessment to be undertaken on the dramatic consequences of NPR junctions introduced into this location, which predetermines where NPR will be situated. Residents to be given proper information, advice, allowed full consultation in accordance with Government guidelines, the second provision of the Aarhus convention and the Gunning principles set of criteria for assessing fairness of a public consultation.
We request that this happens before Phase 2B proceeds in order to inform the design properly, with potential of removing all passive junctions in the location, or assessing the needs and determining the requirements, including the Golborne link provision and all NPR provision in the location. So, let’s have that due process. Let’s find out what is required to be built, before we build a multimillion-pound complex junction in High Legh and we don’t even know for sure that it’s needed. And if you do know that it’s there for sure, then that only confirms the predetermination of NPR in that location. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Members, any questions on this? Okay. I have a couple of things but I’ll raise them once we’ve heard from the promoter. Mr Mould?

Response by Mr Mould

MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you. One or two dates may be helpful to start with. The initial preferred route for the Phase Two railway was published in January 2013 and that route included a link between the HS2 railway and the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, that link, essentially, anticipating what was included in this Bill as the Golborne link. Indeed, at that time, the HS2 main line, on its western leg, was described as running between the end point of Phase One just north of Lichfield and that link to the West Coast Main Line near Wigan. The Manchester railway was described as the Manchester spur.
That link – that is the link to the West Coast Main Line from the point at which the Manchester spur diverged, broadly speaking, at Hoo Green – remained a constant feature of the published emerging HS2 western leg scheme from that date onwards. It was the subject of public consultation following the publication of that initial route in January 2013 and consultation responses were considered and analysed through a consultation response report, which was published when the Secretary of State published his preferred route in 2016.
That remained the position all the way up until the Secretary of State, last June, published the Government’s intention to remove the Golborne link from the Bill, to retain the spur that I mentioned earlier, and to await the results of the union connectivity review and then to consider what the options should be for a link to the West Coast Main Line in the light of that review and, as you know, that work is still in the process of being carried out.
So far as the Northern Powerhouse Rail spurs are concerned, they were, as you’ve been told, published for public consultation on 6 June 2019 as part of a design refinement consultation exercise. That document set out some detail about why those spurs were considered to be appropriate, set out that they resulted from work done by Transport for the North in developing plans for the core programme for Northern Powerhouse Rail. Public consultation, following the publication of that design refinement document, ran from 6 June, I think, until 7 September 2019, which is the customary 12-week period that is advocated both in cabinet guidance and has been identified in legal authority as appropriate for major consultation exercises.
There was then, as you will recall, something of a hiatus in relation to HS2, with the incoming Government in the summer of 2019 pausing work on HS2, pending the review by Douglas Oakervee. That review reported in early 2020 recommending, amongst other things, that integration of HS2 western leg with Northern Powerhouse Rail was an important feature, which should be taken forward with HS2. The Oakervee report was accepted by the then Prime Minister in February 2020, just before the pandemic, and it was in the light of his acceptance of the Oakervee review, amongst other things, that the construction of Phase One of HS2 began in April of 2020.
In October 2020, the then Secretary of State published the outcome of the design refinement consultation, which included proposals for the Northern Powerhouse Rail spurs at Hoo Green and at Rostherne Mere. That was published in October 2020. Again, publication of the decision to proceed with those spurs in that location was accompanied by a report, which analysed the consultation responses, those responses including concerns about whether the spurs were justified, whether they should be included now and expressions of objection to the inclusion of those spurs within the HS2 railway scheme.
So there was consultation. The public had the opportunity to make their views known. It is obvious that there were members of the public, no doubt amongst those who are represented by this parish council, who disagreed strongly with the decision made by the Secretary of State which, of course, is reflected in the terms of this Bill, but the public were certainly given the opportunity to have their say.
We then move on to the introduction of this Bill into this House at the beginning of last year and, as you know, the Bill and the proposed scheme were accompanied by a comprehensive environmental statement in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, Order 27A, and this House, under Order 224A, has a comprehensive provision for public participation on an environmental statement which is submitted in support of a railway Bill of this kind. That process was followed through and I think you mentioned at the start of these proceedings, back in January, that you’d received the summary report of the environmental analyst who considered those responses.
The same process was carried out in relation to the additional provision 1 environmental statement. That also was the subject of the requirements of Order 224A and public consultation on that took its course.
THE CHAIR: Thanks, Mr Mould. Just to be clear on that, that impact assessment, the environmental reports, included the spurs as well, right?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes.
THE CHAIR: Cllr Hennerley’s ask was specifically around, I think, an environmental impact report related to the spurs, but your contention is that obviously that report, the whole route that’s within the Bill, will have to have been covered by that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I read out a paragraph from volume 1 of the main environmental statement submitted in support of the Bill. That paragraph formed part of a number of paragraphs, which explained why provision had been made to futureproof this railway, if you will, against the requirements of Northern Powerhouse Rail. It then signposted the reader to volume 2, the community area reports, and in particular to MA03, which is the community area report that covers the Hoo Green area, and you will find in that report a comprehensive analysis of the likely significant environmental impacts of the Hoo Green junction, including the proposed spurs.
There was also, in other community reports, in the Bill as submitted, an environmental assessment of the impacts of the Golborne link. Now obviously those, to some degree, have been overtaken by events because the Golborne link is now to be removed from the Bill. But the impact of constructing and leaving in place the spurs that have been raised before you today, in each case, has been the subject of consideration in the environmental statement submitted in support of the Bill and, as I say, the change to remove the Golborne link, and to retain only that spur, that was the subject of consideration in the additional provision 1 and the supplementary environmental statement 1 that was published, I think, in June of last year, to accompany the submission of the additional provision and at the same time as the Secretary of State’s announcement.[1] And in each case, any member of the public was in a position, by virtue of order 224A, to make representations as consultees on those documents to this House and they would have been submitted to the House’s appointed independent assessor for consideration and reporting to the House at Second Reading, which indeed, as you mentioned in opening these proceedings on 31 January, is what was done.
There will, looking forward, as and when the decisions are made about Northern Powerhouse Rail, and the line from London to Warrington and Liverpool and the line connecting Manchester to Liverpool – those are the two future railway lines that are accommodated by the two spurs that you’ve heard mentioned – and, indeed, when a decision is made about the appropriate proposal to take the HS2 line north to join the West Coast Main Line, in other words, in substitution for the Golborne link, in each case, undoubtedly, further legal powers will be required in order to construct what, in each case, will be new railway lines and, in each case, there will be comprehensive environmental assessment and published environmental statements on those schemes, and they will be subject to public consultation, unless the law hereafter changes in a radical way, which I think is highly unlikely, the idea that people hereafter will be denied the opportunity to comment on schemes of that kind before powers are granted for them.
And, of course, coming back to this Bill, we are at a formative stage because the HS2 Phase 2B railway which is proposed under this Bill is still undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, and the public and petitioners, as we see, have the opportunity to express their views and their objections to it.
So if you look at the overarching framework for the involvement of local people through consultation and the petitioning process, there is simply no merit, with respect, in the complaint that has been made today. There has been a suggestion that somehow the principles of the Aarhus convention, which is a treaty to which this country is a signatory, in relation to public participation in environmental decision-making, that those principles have not been followed and/or that the established principles for a legally fair and proper consultation in the Gunning case have not been followed. I respectfully refute those submissions. The Aarhus convention requires that the public should have an opportunity to comment early in any environmental decision-making process. On no view can it be said that that principle has been denied here.
The first time that the proposed inclusion of the spurs to serve Northern Powerhouse Rail were included in the emerging design for this railway, the public was consulted, that is to say in June 2019. They were undoubtedly consulted early in a decision-making process that has yet to reach its end state because this Bill is still before the House. As I’ve said, the Golborne link, and the Hoo Green junction to serve the Golborne link, was included within public consultation documentation as early as January 2013.
And insofar as the time allowed – as I say, in 2019, 12 weeks was allowed for consultation – there has been ample time for people to express their views during the passage of this Bill, since it was introduced under the auspices of Order 27A and there will no doubt be ample time offered when proposals come forward for Northern Powerhouse Rail between London, Warrington and Liverpool and between Manchester and Liverpool and, indeed, for a connection to the West Coast Main Line from the north. There will be ample time given to people to participate then.
As I say, one has to draw a distinction between people having the opportunity to participate and have their say, and whether people are necessarily happy with the decisions made in the outcome of that. I’ve no doubt that people in High Legh, some people in High Legh, perhaps many people in High Legh – who knows – were unhappy with the outcome but it doesn’t follow at all that they were not given the opportunity to have their say.
So both in terms of what has happened and the adequacy of what has happened, I’m afraid, on behalf of the promoter, I’m not able to accept that there is any case for further environmental assessment and consultation on the provisions of this Bill before the HS2 Phase Two railway begins to be constructed. The simple reason for that is this. Such consultation has taken place and people have had the opportunity to make their views known.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Members, any questions? No? Because you were pithy, and exactly as a petitioner should be, Cllr Hennerley, you looked like you were going to come back with some things. I’ll give you an opportunity just to come back again.
MR HENNERLEY: Thank you, I appreciate that. What I’d like to say is, any future consultation on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which I’m sure there would be, would no longer fit into the legal criteria that we have in this country for planning, as in, and this is the code of practice 2008, ‘Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome’. The policy outcome in this case, the location of Northern Powerhouse Rail, has already been predetermined by these passive junctions.
Criteria 3, ‘Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and expected costs and benefits of the proposals’. That should take place now, at a time where consultees have the ability to respond before predetermining where the location – this may not be the right location, yet we’re building in passive provision, which will lock in the location of Northern Powerhouse Rail, building a very complex, expensive junction when it’s still not clear as to whether this is the right location.
THE CHAIR: I mean, I appreciate that. I think it would be a point of debate as to whether that’s the case or not but we obviously, as a Committee, can’t consider future provision of NPR. That’s not within our gift. The route has been set by Parliament for HS2 and that’s what we’re here to consider. So as to what future provisions there may be in relation to Northern Powerhouse Rail, obviously this is not the forum for that.
MR HENNERLEY: I understand that, but perhaps the Committee can refer it to those that do have the power.
THE CHAIR: Well, that would be a matter for some future Government if it decided it wished to fund Northern Powerhouse Rail in the future, and we won’t get into that debate as a Committee because we might all have very different views on that and that will be a matter for a Government at the time. The remit of this Committee is HS2 Crewe to Manchester and that’s what we must concern ourselves with.
Members, any other questions? Cllr Cooper?
MR COOPER: Can I interject for a moment?
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR COOPER: I’m sorry; I sit in the background too much. We have a couple of points here. I’m a big fan of pithy, like you are yourself. So you’re quite right; we have no objections at all to the route of HS2. That’s been predetermined already under the Act, so that’s a done deal as far as we’re concerned. The worry that we have – sorry, Matt, if you could pull up 2.3.39 again – so we’re talking about the touchpoints to enable future connections between NPR and the proposed scheme and that’s fine. Do we understand how many touchpoints have been arranged? Because at the moment, I’m only aware of this one.
THE CHAIR: Yes. What’s the point on that though, sorry?
MR COOPER: My point is that having only one point as a touchpoint predetermines that the route for Northern Powerhouse Rail has to go from that junction to its closest point to Warrington Bank Quay, which is north of the M56 and south of –
THE CHAIR: Sure, but the route of Northern Powerhouse Railway, what it may or may not be in the future, isn’t a matter for this Committee.
MR COOPER: I quite agree with you.
THE CHAIR: We can’t pursue that really any further.
MR COOPER: I agree, but my point is there are no other possible touchpoints for Northern Powerhouse Rail with HS2. There’s no provision for a route, for instance, that may go to the north of Warrington and to the north of Manchester. There’s no other routes involved in it. So in putting this spur in place now, our point is that there’s been no consultation at all on the route of Northern Powerhouse Rail, I think a fact that we’re all agreed on, and yet we’re putting in provision for a spur that predetermines that route.
THE CHAIR: Sure, but as I say, we can’t pursue any future route of NPR.
MR COOPER: No one’s asking you to.
THE CHAIR: It’s not within this Committee’s remit. Do members have any questions? No?
MR COOPER: If you don’t mind, the point that we’re asking for is the removal of this spur, because it’s there as a provision for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is a project that doesn’t yet exist.
THE CHAIR: I understand on the removal of the spur. The route is set by Parliament and the Committee doesn’t have power to vary the route. So we understand the point on spur, which you have made. We don’t have power as a Committee to vary the route. I’ve asked for guidance on what the position is in relation to spurs, which I’ll get before our next Committee. I understand the point that you’re making, but I’m not sure if that’s within the remit of the Committee. But we will establish that because that’s the first test that has to be passed before we can give it any further consideration. But, of course, we’ll be giving your petition today further consideration in private when we meet in future sessions, but the point is understood.
MR COOPER: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: And on that basis, if members have no questions, I’ll bring this petition by High Legh Parish Council to a close. Thank you very much. We’re doing a change of – but not Cllr Hennerley who is remaining for the next petition too. We are changing to Mr Strachan though.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): We are, yes.
THE CHAIR: So the faces are changing.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): If you’ll forgive us.
THE CHAIR: No, it’s fine. It’s just you, Cllr Hennerley, for the next one, is it?
MR HENNERLEY: It is, yes.
THE CHAIR: Okay, good. Well, thank you, Cllr Cooper. The next petition is Mere Parish Council. Same as before, Mr Strachan will give us a brief overview and then we’ll hand over to the petitioner. So, Mr Strachan?

Mere Parish Council

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Thank you very much. I think I can be very brief because we’re very much in the same area you’ve just heard about. P259 just gives you an idea of the location and the parish council boundary, as ever, shown in red. So the parish of Mere is just below, in effect, High Legh, which you were just looking at. The parish boundary incorporates the line, including the Hoo Green junction that you’ve just been talking about and also an area of land to the east and you will have seen from P260, in just a bit more detail, you can see the grey starting to be the area of construction in Hoo Green, again parish council boundary shown. And I’ll probably just skip forward to P262 just to give you the operational drawings for the railway and a plan that you are, I think, now very familiar with, because I just wanted to mention that, whilst Mere parish are raising a number of issues, quite a few of those issues are ones the Committee’s already heard about from others and you’ll recall this map we looked at, the area of Winterbottom Lane and the residents who also fall within Mere parish, in the application –
THE CHAIR: We had last week, wasn’t it?
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Absolutely. And then the Winterbottom Lane running up alongside the railway and Hoo Green Lane, which is diverted, and Hoo Green Lane now runs to the west, or will run to the west, of the railway whereas previously you can see where it’s closed, it would have been joining the A50 to the east of the railway. And Bentleyhurst Lane was the counterpoint to the bridleway that you heard about, running down from Winterbottom Lane.
And I just mention, if we just go to P262(2).
THE CHAIR: Our petitioners last week were arguing for Bentleyhurst Lane to be used for access.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes, there was a tension because they wanted the maintenance workers to come from Bentleyhurst Lane. Those involved at Bentleyhurst Lane would rather that didn’t happen, as you’re aware. And you can see a bit more about Bentleyhurst Lane from the other operational plan here where we’re further to the east but the railway’s up to the top. But I just draw your attention to Hulsheath Lane, so the top right-hand corner. Hulsheath Lane is another road that comes from the A50 and then travels up and joins the main road up to Chapel Lane.
And I’m not going to try and predict all of the issues that are being raised but I think there’s an issue about the effect on farmers and farmland. Again, the Golborne link that you’ve just heard about, and also the Hoo Green junction that you’ve just been discussing, and land, drainage and flooding, there have been a number of assurances. I won’t run through them all now, unless you want me to, but there have been a number of assurances provided, both to Mere Parish Council, as to construction activity, for example, in relation to maintaining access and use of construction routes. And, again, I won’t go back through other ones we’ve offered, so there were certain assurances offered to Mr Wright who, as you will recall, along with the Winterbottom Lane residents association and Hoo Green Lane residents association, are coming before the Committee with their own separate petition, I think, some time in June, to whom assurances are also being offered.
So whilst Mere Parish Council is covering a lot of the same ground, there are assurances to them and assurances to specific petitioners in relation to what’s going on in this area. And that’s probably sufficient introduction.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Strachan. Cllr Hennerley again.
MR HENNERLEY: Hello.
THE CHAIR: Which parish council are you actually on? You’re not on all of them, are you?
MR HENNERLEY: No, thank goodness.
THE CHAIR: I used to be a parish councillor and being on one of them can be burdensome enough.
MR HENNERLEY: Well, I’m on High Legh Parish Council.
THE CHAIR: You’re on High Legh, because we saw you in relation to High Legh, didn’t we?
MR HENNERLEY: Yes, and I’ve been on, as I say, the HS2 Implementation Advisory Group for the north, representing Little Bollington, who you’ve not heard about now.
THE CHAIR: Are you coming back for that one as well then? Have you got a rail pass?
MR HENNERLEY: And so I’ve had quite a wide interest in this since about 2015 so that’s why you keep on seeing me, I guess.
THE CHAIR: No, that’s fine. I just wanted to check which one you were one. You’re not on Mere.

Submissions by Cllr Hennerley

MR HENNERLEY: Indeed, yes, and as has been explained, there’s quite a few other petitioners within the Mere parish who have their own petitions and you’ve already heard from a couple of them: Winterbottom Lane residents and Mr John Wright. So I don’t want to overdo what they’ve already said to you and there’s also Hoo Green residents, who I’m also involved with, and they’ll be coming in June. So I don’t want to pre-empt their petition either.
So I’m just going to make a couple of general points with what’s left of Mere, if that’s okay. As you can see, this impact is quite large from the M6 north: six lanes wide, up to the A50, which is what’s called the High Legh junction in Hoo Green, and it incorporates quite a lot of farms. And I make note that the NFU made a recent statement and it says, ‘Our members heavily criticised HS2 over the years for a serious lack of communication and have said the scheme is having a marked impact on their health and wellbeing and business viability. They already have grave concerns about land take, the slowness in making payments, problems with access and a host of other issues. While we recognise the importance of investing in a nation’s transport infrastructure, a lack of respect by HS2 to NFU members is appalling. They deserve better. Farm businesses must be left in a strong, viable condition where land can still be farmed productively, and that HS2 Ltd provides far greater clarity as the project continues’.
And I also note the CLEP, the crop loss expedited payment scheme, and urge that payments to farmers are dealt with promptly.
The next point I’d like to make is based on the removal of the HS2 West Coast Main Line connection, the Golborne link. It’s an area which we’ve already discussed with the previous petition. However, the parish council suggests that the passive junction should only be built if the decision is taken to build the Golborne link and the NPR junctions.
And I also make a further point. Surely if a passive provision had to be built, then one junction should be built, then at a later date, if another is needed, it can be taken off the first passive provision, if that makes sense. So it’s perhaps a question that Mr Tim Smart could answer in due course.
And just a further point on that. The integrated rail plan 2021 saw the introduction of the NPR spurs but that was prior to the 2022 intention of the removal of the Golborne link. So you could see how the design could potentially differ or change, and yet we’re still working off the original design. So the point being that if the Golborne link is not to be built then perhaps just one spur could be built and there’s no need for having such a wide design as what’s present at the moment.
The final point is on land drainage and previous discussions you’ll have heard, last week I think, about drainage in a particular area of Winterbottom Lane and Hoo Green Lane, and a particular farm where you saw slides of it being flooded, and I think there was a drainage design being looked at in dealing with that issue. My point’s largely a more general one. As I say, I’ve had quite a lot involvement with HS2 Implementation Advisory Group meetings. I’ve met hydrologists on the scheme and I’ve also got an interest in climate change. I gave a talk on climate change to the leaders of Cheshire East Borough Council in 2019.
Climate is defined by an average of what happens in the last 30 years and what we know about climate change is the next 30 years is not going to really reflect the last 30 years. HS2 is designed to withhold a 100-year weather event plus a 40% flow, and the drainage system is that you have open drains, land drains on either side of the lines, feeding holding ponds. As those holding ponds fill, they then flow through brooks and streams and, eventually, in that locality, it will find its way north, which is going downhill, from High Legh, as you can imagine is on high ground, and that will go and flow into the River Bollin.
In 2019, we experienced a one-in-1,000-year event. You may remember, Toddbrook reservoir near Whaley Bridge was close to collapse and in nearby Lyme Park, 250-year-old oak trees were washed away, not by wind but by literally the extent of rainfall, and drystone walls, which had stood previously for 400 years, were washed away. If HS2 had been built in our location at this time, it would have failed and flooded, acting as a conduit for water courses, and would have flooded the River Bollin and the village of Little Bollington and parts of Lyme further downstream, which incidentally I’m an insurance loss assessor and I deal with flood claims quite a bit. We’ve had a lot of dry weather. Interestingly enough, we don’t experience more rainfall due to climate change than previously but we have more extreme. So we have longer, hotter, drier spells, which has resulted in a lot of subsidence claims, and then we have a lot of intensive, extreme downpours, so maybe two months’ rainfall over a 24-hour period.
I feel that this design is not actually adequate to withstand future climate change events that we’re going to see, and I would just encourage HS2 to look again at their hydrology along the whole scheme of Phase 2B.
THE CHAIR: Are you an IDB area or not?
MR HENNERLEY: Say again.
THE CHAIR: Are you an IDB area or not? Internal drainage board area.
MR HENNERLEY: No, well, I don’t know.
THE CHAIR: You don’t have IDBs where you are.
MR HENNERLEY: No. But really my point is, having considered the hydrology that the design presents as it stands, it certainly would have failed in 2019 and I think that’s an indication of what we would expect in the next 30 years and going forward, and therefore I fear that the village of Little Bollington will have more flooding events than they do at present, due to HS2, and also the design will not be able to cope with the amount of rainfall, which we will no doubt see.
And that concludes my presentation but I would be interested to hear, perhaps, from Mr Smart in regards –
THE CHAIR: There was a point in the petition about the undergrounding of some power lines. Has that been resolved? That’s resolved, is it?
MR HENNERLEY: I think so. I think there’s been quite a few points raised and I’ve noticed there’s been quite a few suggestions from HS2.
THE CHAIR: Right. It’s just I’d noticed it was in the petition so I was just interested in that. Members, any questions? Okay. Mr Strachan?

Response by Mr Strachan

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes. In answer to your query, that has, so far as we’re aware, been resolved, and we wrote to the parish council about that. It was some confusion, I think, in the petition as to reference made to the undergrounding of a 400 kV line whereas, in fact, it’s a 132 kV line in the Mere parish to the east of the railway, which is subject to some undergrounding. We explained the position and we understand that’s resolved the parish council’s concern on that particular point, but it’s set out in a letter to the parish council, which the Committee has in its pack.
Just taking the three other issues in turn, the first was about the impacts on farms within the parish council’s area and there was reference to the National Farmers’ Union appearance as a petitioner. You’re going to hear from them separately so I’m not going to try and pre-empt anything they’re going to say but so far as there’s a complaint in relation to the way we deal with farmers, you will have been hearing those petitions from farmers where there are outstanding issues. You won’t be hearing from those many farmers who are either not petitioning or where the petitions have been resolved through engagement.
But in relation to some general issues raised by the councillor, can I just refer the Committee to information paper C2, because that deals specifically with dealing with farms and farm enterprises, particularly in relation to compensation. Section 7 deals with, for example, estimates of compensation being payable within three months of an estimated claim for compensation. There’s a similar commitment in relation to where temporary possession is taken, with a commitment to staged payments on an interim basis as set out in more detail. The councillor’s referred to, for example, the crop loss expedited payment scheme. That’s referenced in that information paper, and there are also a number of other mechanisms set out in that document, which explain the way in which the project deals with farmers, questions of, for example, small claims if they arise, damages, and damage that may be caused by contractors, how those can be resolved efficiently, to try and make sure that the project proceeds during construction in as efficient a way as possible but, if issues do arise, they can be dealt with in an efficient way. And that’s supplemented by the farmers and growers’ guide, which you’ve heard about and probably already seen. That actually includes and explains the Government policy commitment to paying compensation promptly, to use the councillor’s words. So that’s something already expressed in those documents. It covers a lot more detail than that but I just wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to that, which you’re probably familiar with already.
There are a number of other general compensation measures that relate as much to farmers as others, including, for example, the ability for advance payment of compensation. Once land is taken, there can be a trigger for advance payment of compensation and methods of calculation. So if the criticism is about any of the detail, I refer you to the detail where there’s a raft of measures to try and ensure that the impact on farmers is managed as effectively as possible.
THE CHAIR: We expect the NFU petitioners to raise more on this, presumably.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I assume they will.
THE CHAIR: Next week, it’s being whispered in my ear.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): Yes, Tuesday I think it is.
THE CHAIR: Tuesday, lovely.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So, unless you want me to say any more about that, I won’t.
THE CHAIR: We’ll hear from you on Tuesday on it.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): I think Mr Mould will be helping on that.
THE CHAIR: Mr Mould. He drew the long straw.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So then we come back to the Golborne link, and I’m not going to go over the general principles Mr Mould’s already explained about the origins of both the West Coast Main Line connection and the NPR, and how that’s being dealt with in process terms. So far as I understand it, there’s a slightly separate issue being raised; namely, could the junction be smaller, for example only having one spur? I’ll leave you to decide whether you want Mr Smart to help you on that.
THE CHAIR: Well, he’s come all this way. Let’s have him on.
MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): And whilst he’s taking his seat, I’ll get the slides up that he can help speak to about.
THE CHAIR: The petitioner was very keen to have Mr Smart on. He referenced him three times. So I think we want to hear from Mr Smart, the issue being one versus two.

Evidence of Mr Smart

MR STRACHAN KC (DfT): So I’ve just put up on the screen P207(5). That shows the two spurs and the main line in the current format and you can see that that’s plan form of the Hoo Green junction. Mr Smart, if you want a different slide, do so. I was going to suggest that having got that, we then looked at the next slide, 270(6), which then gives you a bird’s eye view of that, or a three-dimensional view of what’s going on at Hoo Green.
MR SMART: It’s quite a complicated junction because effectively we’re going in three directions. We’ve got the spur going straight on to make the connection for the West Coast Main Line. We’ve got the spur going into Manchester, which is the white railway that’s shown on the right-hand side. And then the NPR provision, which is in the pink on the left. And we’re in quite a deep cutting here, so clearly we need to do all the major civil engineering works that could have an effect on our railway, once it’s operational, in that one construction and therefore we need to take that civil work far enough away, so that we do not interfere with – or we will have to interfere in a minimal way to make the track connections but we do not interfere with the civil engineering of the operational HS2 line.
Now, we have to feed the trains into the HS2 line from NPR and we need to allow that to meet the journey time aspirations of Transport for the North and what they want for Northern Powerhouse Rail and, therefore, we need an efficiently designed junction. If we were to do what the councillor is suggesting, which is we would make, I think he’s saying, the West Coast Main Line connection only, and then we would make the NPR connection off that, you’ve still got to have the complex junction that you’ve got here, if formed in another way. So what that would do is push the construction of this north and you’d probably have two boxes to configure it, which would be further north and would be more intrusive into the landscape because they would be at a higher level. They’d have to be built that way.
You would also have to prolong the construction because the aspiration of the integrated rail plan is to have the construction done in one opportunity, as far as we can, and that’s what this does. Also, there could be some suboptimal operational arrangements in splitting the junction. We know this works and this is the most efficient way of forming the junction, quite frankly.
THE CHAIR: Just so I understand, Cllr Hennerley, your point about one spur versus two – which spur did you think?
MR HENNERLEY: Well, I agree with Mr Smart. If you’re going to build all three then this is probably the best design to go for. The question is, though, if the Golborne link is going to be removed, then why would you have this design?
THE CHAIR: I see, right, okay.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): Can I put on slide P27(1)? We’ve considered this and it summarises what Mr Smart was saying as to what happens if you build one junction now and another junction just slightly further north later. Mr Smart, I think this is what you were identifying.
MR SMART: Yes, this is what I was articulating. This doesn’t make probably totally clear that we would still need two box sections further up, which would be potentially more visible than what we’ve got, but these are the main reasons why we would not want to do this.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): So I’ll let the Committee just read the points.
THE CHAIR: So that third bullet point is, you’d have to do this eventually anyway, is this argument, or a further disruption would be required somewhere.
MR SMART: Further up, yes.
THE CHAIR: A further junction in close vicinity.
MR SMART: And you’d be doing it in two hits. And the junction, the whole of the provision for going with the three directions, would then be spread out as well.
THE CHAIR: Okay.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): Perhaps one way of illustrating this, if we just go back to P270(6) and bearing in mind the cutting that’s been created and the points you’re making, Mr Smart, about the need to avoid coming back to enlarge the cuttings etc at a later date when you’ve got an operational railway there –
MR SMART: Correct, yes.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): Can I just ask you to comment? If you were to remove one of those connections, in terms of the impact of what’s being created, is it going to be materially less than that which you’re going to need to create a spur and the HS2 main line?
MR SMART: No, we’d just be pushing it further north and potentially having a longer route then as well.
THE CHAIR: But Hoo Green specifically, how different would it look? Obviously the petitioner’s contention is the cumulative impact of this quite large junction.
MR HENNERLEY: I think the point is, if you’re going to build the Golborne link and you’re going to build NPR, I haven’t got a contention with this design; it’s probably the best design. The problem is, we don’t know. We don’t know if the Golborne link is going to be built and therefore we’re building this without knowing, and the potential is, we could build something better.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): Can I just be clear about terminology? What’s being removed is the Golborne link, which is the line of route that connects the spur at Golborne. What’s not being removed is the spur to enable a connection to the West Coast Main Line and that’s what’s shown here. So what line of route is subsequently taken from this connection to connect to the West Coast Main Line is something that remains to be decided, but the principle of connecting to the West Coast Main Line has not been removed from the design and therefore this spur is enabling the connection at some point in the future. But that’s why, when anyone talks about removal of the Golborne link, you have to be careful. It’s not necessitating or requiring removal of the spur itself.
THE CHAIR: Okay, right.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): But back to this particular design, I just wanted to be clear, Mr Smart, for example, you’ve got the A50 overbridge crossing that’s taking place over the cutting. We’ve got to cross over the line to go to the Manchester spur and either NPR or the Golborne link – sorry, the northern – the connection, whichever you were to remove, would – and I think the question that was being asked to you was whether the structures and the engineering in this location are going to be materially different for those in the vicinity if you were to just remove one of those spurs.
MR SMART: You could arguably say that, if we removed the spur, that bridge would be not as wide. But in terms of the actual junction, you’ve still got to have the tracks to feed in effectively three services, if you want to call it that: the Manchester, the Liverpool and the West Coast Main Line. And you’ve got to have the space of track to allow the trains to move across on to the HS2 line because of the headway, and just the safe operating distance between trains. And also, of course, the trains going north to Scotland on the connection, on what’s shown as the West Coast Main Line connection, are 400-metre trains; NPR services are 200‑metre trains. So the whole design of this junction would have to be reconsidered and the alignment would be difficult to do that without doing a lot more, further construction to the north.
THE CHAIR: I mean, Cllr Hennerley said the design is not his problem; it’s the necessity of – so I think that’s all perfectly clear. So, thank you. Is Mr Smart the individual to respond on some of the drainage issues as well? I’m just thinking because those were another part of Cllr Hennerley’s –
MR SMART: I can do, I think we have an information paper on drainage, which is E15.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): Yes, I was going to – E15.
THE CHAIR: Sorry to move your train of thought but I think the drainage issue, of course, was the other principal issue Cllr Hennerley raised.
MR SMART: Yes.
MR SMART: So the design for our railway, from a drainage point of view, is a one-in-1,000-year flood event or one in 100 plus climate change, whichever is the worst. So we are fully aware of dealing with water and how we need to do that and, obviously, we have to do all that under the approval of the environmental agency as well, so I think that’s pretty well set out in E15, I think.
THE CHAIR: I was going to ask you, your drainage scheme, presumably, will have to be signed off by the EA and presumably the local authority.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): That’s exactly right. So, under the Bill, part 4, schedule 32, explains the consents that are required in relation to drainage effects, both in relation to the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities. So the Committee can be assured that, in that respect, what we’re proposing by way of drainage goes through that separate consent process by those expert bodies, and there has been a comprehensive assessment of what’s proposed in terms of the design.
As Mr Smart points out, the railway itself is designed to one-in-1,000. Other parts of the scheme such as highway connections designed to one-in-100-year events plus climate change and that climate change addition, it takes account of meteorological office projections. And those assessments for highways, for example balancing ponds affecting drainage, water courses, those standards reflect standards that are applied to other highways, for example – coupled with that consent process, means that we are controlled. The councillor was concerned about HS2 increasing flood risk. Well, that’s precisely the point. It is designed not to increase the flood risk because of those standards that are put in place to address it and, of course, the controls that you’ve already pointed to in schedule 32.
So we don’t feel that there’s any basis for redesigning or going about the same assessment that’s already built in, particularly given that that process is subject to those provisions, protective provisions, in relation to schedule 32.
THE CHAIR: Yes, I represent the most flood-prone constituency in the country so that’s why I’m president of the northern branch of the Association of Drainage Authorities. There you are, so great honours. So the drainage issues are something I take very seriously because obviously I see the impact of them in my own area on any development.
But just on your specific point, Cllr Hennerley, given that climate change has to be factored into any drainage scheme, and obviously it will have to be signed off by the Environment Agency and the lead flood authority, your contention was that you don’t believe the drainage schemes will factor in climate change appropriately. I was a bit unclear on that.
MR HENNERLEY: I can only be guided – I mean, if HS2 are reassuring us that they have factored climate change in adequately – from my discussions with hydrologists a couple of years ago, I wasn’t convinced.
THE CHAIR: Right.
MR HENNERLEY: The weather event that we saw in 2019 was described as a one-in-1,000-year event and I’m pretty sure that the design that we were looking at and talking about, it would have overwhelmed it and I suspect the event in 2019 is not going to be a one-off; it’s going to become a regular occurrence going forward.
MR STRACHAN KC (DFT): So if I can provide some reassurance on that, you don’t have to just take my say-so for it because the relevant reference in the information paper, E15, confirms the high-level climate change risk and resilience assessment undertaken to identify the potential risks of climate change and to assess the proposed scheme’s resilience and capacity to cope with those potential risks. And then the comprehensive flood risk assessment has been carried out for each community area in consultation with the Environment Agency and that’s in addition to the schedule 32 provisions that you referred to. So it’s an area which is obviously controlled or overseen, if I can put it that way, by that consultation and also the consent process.
So, yes, climate change has been properly taken into account and, in addition, there is that further level of control. So I hope that provides both the councillor and the Committee with the comfort that I was referring to a moment ago.
THE CHAIR: I mean, the point on one-in-1,000-year events and more extreme events is understood. It’s just whether or not drainage systems can be designed to those extreme events, as my area knows well when the tide comes flowing over into the bowl in which we all live.
Anyway, so you’re somewhat reassured though on that point.
MR HENNERLEY: Well, let’s hope so.
THE CHAIR: Okay, right. Any other points, Mr Smart, Mr Strachan? Does the Committee have any questions? Okay. No? Well, on that basis then, that brings – we’ll be seeing Cllr Hennerley again, I believe.
MR HENNERLEY: I don’t think so.
THE CHAIR: We’re not seeing you again.
MR HENNERLEY: I don’t think so.

THE CHAIR: Well, we might just call you back anyway. You never know. But anyway, thank you for attending, also Cllr Cooper for attending today. I should have said at the beginning, we don’t give any initial feedback but there will be reports issued as we go along these proceeding, in which we will obviously – anything we wish to respond to in terms of the petitions we have heard, those will be in those and we will be doing one, probably not in the too distant future. But thank you for coming. Thank you for raising your concerns and, on that basis, I’ll bring the Committee to a close today.

[1] HS2 Phase 2b Crewe – Manchester Supplementary Environmental Statement 1 and Additional Provision 1 Environmental Statement was published in July 2022.